Comparison of oximeters for the detection of critical congenital heart diseases

Introduccion y objetivos: En algunos centros el tamiz cardiaco no se realiza con la justificacion de no tener el oximetro adecuado. Comparamos la efectividad de dos marcas de oximetros para realizarlo. Metodos: En los neonatos a termino del Servicio de alojamiento conjunto del Hospital General de Occidente en Zapopan Jalisco Mexico de mayo a noviembre del 2018 se realizo tamiz cardiaco segun las guias de la Academia Americana de Pediatria con dos oximetros, el Masimo SET® (aprobado por la FDA) y el ChoiceMMed®, comparando su efectividad para la deteccion de cardiopatias congenitas criticas, el tiempo de toma y los falsos positivos. Results: In each group, 1022 patients were analyzed; with the Masimo SET® oximeter, 83 positive tests were obtained (8.12%), of which 22 cases had some heart disease (26.5%), which represents a sensitivity of 100%, specificity of 93.9%, positive predictive value of 26.5%, and negative predictive value of 100% (odds ratio [OR]: 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.6-0.8). With the ChoiceMMed® oximeter, 168 positive tests were obtained (16.4%), of which 22 cases had some heart disease (13.09%), with a sensitivity of 100%, specificity of 85.4%, positive predictive value of 13.09%, and negative predictive value 100% (OR: 0.86; 95%CI: 0.8-0.92). Regarding the time to perform the cardiac sieve, the mean in minutes of the Masimo SET® oximeter was 5.38 and the ChoiceMMed® oximeter was 9.7 min. Conclusions: The ChoiceMMed® oximeter contains a large number of false positives and a greater number of echocardiograms and comparatively longer cardiac screen printing with Masimo SET®, however, both with a negative predictive value of 100% eliminating such excuses.