The Alveolar Gas Monitor: An Alternative to Pulse Oximetry for the Noninvasive Assessment of Impaired Gas Exchange in Patients at Risk of Respiratory Deterioration

<b>Background/Objectives:</b> The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the limitations of pulse oximetry in detecting occult hypoxemia. The superiority of the alveolar gas monitor (AGM) compared to pulse oximetry (SpO<sub>2</sub>) in predicting respiratory deterioration among COVID-19-positive individuals has previously been demonstrated. Here, we combine COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 individuals as a combined cohort of participants to determine if the AGM has similar utility across a larger, more generalizable cohort. <b>Methods:</b> Adult patients (<i>n</i> = 75) at risk of respiratory deterioration in the emergency department (ED) underwent prospective assessments of their oxygen deficit (OD) and SpO<sub>2</sub>, simultaneously measured during quiet breathing on the AGM. The OD and SpO<sub>2</sub> were then compared for their ability to predict the dichotomous outcome of the need for supplemental oxygen. The administration of supplemental oxygen was ordered by the clinical care team with no knowledge of the patients' enrollment in this study. <b>Results:</b> In the logistic regression analysis, both SpO<sub>2</sub> and OD significantly predicted the need for supplemental oxygen among COVID-19-negative individuals. However, in the multivariable regression, only OD (<i>p</i> < 0.001) significantly predicted the need for supplemental oxygen, while SpO<sub>2</sub> (<i>p</i> = 0.05) did not in the combined cohort of COVID-19-negative and -positive individuals. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis demonstrated the superior discriminative ability of OD (area under ROC curve = 0.937) relative to SpO<sub>2</sub> (area under ROC curve = 0.888) to predict the need for supplemental oxygen. <b>Conclusions:</b> The noninvasive AGM, which combines the measurement of exhaled partial pressures of gas with SpO<sub>2</sub>, outperforms SpO<sub>2</sub> alone in predicting the need for supplemental oxygen among individuals in the ED at risk of respiratory deterioration regardless of the etiology for their symptoms (COVID-19-positive or -negative).

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Clinical Medicine
Published
2025-08-20
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm14165880
Primary Topic
Respiratory Support and Mechanisms
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

The Alveolar Gas Monitor: An Alternative to Pulse Oximetry for the Noninvasive Assessment of Impaired Gas Exchange in Patients at Risk of Respiratory Deterioration

Ann R. Elliott, Janelle M. Fine, Eli Gruenberg, Brandon T. Nokes et al.
Journal of Clinical Medicine
Respiratory Support and Mechanisms
article

The Alveolar Gas Monitor: An Alternative to Pulse Oximetry for the Noninvasive Assessment of Impaired Gas Exchange in Patients at Risk of Respiratory Deterioration

Ann R. Elliott, Janelle M. Fine, Eli Gruenberg, Brandon T. Nokes, G. Kim Prisk, Alex K. Pearce, W. Cameron McGuire, John B. West, R. Sheth, Tao Long, Atul Malhotra, D.R. Crouch, Traci Marin
article en

Abstract

<b>Background/Objectives:</b> The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the limitations of pulse oximetry in detecting occult hypoxemia. The superiority of the alveolar gas monitor (AGM) compared to pulse oximetry (SpO<sub>2</sub>) in predicting respiratory deterioration among COVID-19-positive individuals has previously been demonstrated. Here, we combine COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 individuals as a combined cohort of participants to determine if the AGM has similar utility across a larger, more generalizable cohort. <b>Methods:</b> Adult patients (<i>n</i> = 75) at risk of respiratory deterioration in the emergency department (ED) underwent prospective assessments of their oxygen deficit (OD) and SpO<sub>2</sub>, simultaneously measured during quiet breathing on the AGM. The OD and SpO<sub>2</sub> were then compared for their ability to predict the dichotomous outcome of the need for supplemental oxygen. The administration of supplemental oxygen was ordered by the clinical care team with no knowledge of the patients' enrollment in this study. <b>Results:</b> In the logistic regression analysis, both SpO<sub>2</sub> and OD significantly predicted the need for supplemental oxygen among COVID-19-negative individuals. However, in the multivariable regression, only OD (<i>p</i> < 0.001) significantly predicted the need for supplemental oxygen, while SpO<sub>2</sub> (<i>p</i> = 0.05) did not in the combined cohort of COVID-19-negative and -positive individuals. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis demonstrated the superior discriminative ability of OD (area under ROC curve = 0.937) relative to SpO<sub>2</sub> (area under ROC curve = 0.888) to predict the need for supplemental oxygen. <b>Conclusions:</b> The noninvasive AGM, which combines the measurement of exhaled partial pressures of gas with SpO<sub>2</sub>, outperforms SpO<sub>2</sub> alone in predicting the need for supplemental oxygen among individuals in the ED at risk of respiratory deterioration regardless of the etiology for their symptoms (COVID-19-positive or -negative).

Journal of Clinical MedicineVol. 14(16)
UC San Diego Health System (US), University of California System (US), University of California San Diego (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 68%
Respiratory Support and Mechanisms
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.