Assessment of the SpO2/FiO2 ratio as a tool for hypoxemia screening in the emergency department
- PMID: 33588251
- PMCID: PMC7865090
- DOI: 10.1016/j.ajem.2021.01.092
Assessment of the SpO2/FiO2 ratio as a tool for hypoxemia screening in the emergency department
Abstract
Objective: We assessed the performance of the ratio of peripheral arterial oxygen saturation to the inspired fraction of oxygen (SpO2/FiO2) to predict the ratio of partial pressure arterial oxygen to the fraction of inspired oxygen (PaO2/FiO2) among patients admitted to our emergency department (ED) during the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak.
Methods: We retrospectively studied patients admitted to an academic-level ED in France who were undergoing a joint measurement of SpO2 and arterial blood gas. We compared SpO2 with SaO2 and evaluated performance of the SpO2/FiO2 ratio for the prediction of 300 and 400 mmHg PaO2/FiO2 cut-off values in COVID-19 positive and negative subgroups using receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curves.
Results: During the study period from February to April 2020, a total of 430 arterial samples were analyzed and collected from 395 patients. The area under the ROC curves of the SpO2/FiO2 ratio was 0.918 (CI 95% 0.885-0.950) and 0.901 (CI 95% 0.872-0.930) for PaO2/FiO2 thresholds of 300 and 400 mmHg, respectively. The positive predictive value (PPV) of an SpO2/FiO2 threshold of 350 for PaO2/FiO2 inferior to 300 mmHg was 0.88 (CI95% 0.84-0.91), whereas the negative predictive value (NPV) of the SpO2/FiO2 threshold of 470 for PaO2/FiO2 inferior to 400 mmHg was 0.89 (CI95% 0.75-0.96). No significant differences were found between the subgroups.
Conclusions: The SpO2/FiO2 ratio may be a reliable tool for hypoxemia screening among patients admitted to the ED, particularly during the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak.
Keywords: COVID-19; Oximetry; ROC curve; Respiratory insufficiency; Triage.
Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Conflict of interest statement
Declaration of Competing Interest The authors have no conflict of interest to declare.
Figures


Comment in
-
Novel criteria for dyspnea patients.Am J Emerg Med. 2021 May;43:256. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2021.03.010. Epub 2021 Mar 8. Am J Emerg Med. 2021. PMID: 33715907 No abstract available.
-
Authors' response: Novel criteria for dyspnea patients.Am J Emerg Med. 2021 May;43:257-258. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2021.03.011. Epub 2021 Mar 14. Am J Emerg Med. 2021. PMID: 33752943 No abstract available.
References
-
- Berlin D.A., Gulick R.M., Martinez F.J. Severe Covid-19. N Engl J Med. 2020;385(25):1451–2460. - PubMed
-
- ARDS Definition Task Force, Ranieri V.M., Rubenfeld G.D., Thompson B.T., Ferguson N.D., Caldwell E., et al. Acute respiratory distress syndrome: the Berlin Definition. JAMA. 2012;307(23):2526–2533. - PubMed
-
- Offner P.J., Moore E.E. Lung injury severity scoring in the era of lung protective mechanical ventilation: the PaO2/FIO2 ratio. J Trauma. 2003;55(2):285–289. - PubMed
-
- Crawford A. An audit of the patient’s experience of arterial blood gas testing. Br J Nurs. 2004;13(9):529–532. - PubMed
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Miscellaneous