Abstract
BACKGROUND: Traditional capillary refill time (CRT) is a manual measurement that is commonly used by clinicians to identify deterioration in peripheral perfusion status. Our study compared a novel method of measuring peripheral perfusion using an investigational device with standardized visual CRT and tested the clinical usefulness of this investigational device, using an existing pulse oximetry sensor, in an emergency department (ED) setting. MATERIAL AND METHODS: An ED attending physician quantitatively measured CRT using a chronometer (standardized visual CRT). The pulse oximetry sensor was attached to the same hand. Values obtained using the device are referred to as blood refill time (BRT). These techniques were compared in its numbers with the Bland-Altman plot and the predictability of patients' admissions. RESULTS: Thirty ED patients were recruited. Mean CRT of ED patients was 1.9 ± 0.8 s, and there was a strong correlation with BRT (r = 0.723, p < 0.001). The Bland-Altman plot showed a proportional bias pattern. The ED physician identified 3 patients with abnormal CRT (> 3 s). Area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUC) of BRT to predict whether or not CRT was greater than 3 s was 0.82 (95% CI, 0.58-1.00). Intra-rater reliability of BRT was 0.88 (95% CI, 0.79-0.94) and that of CRT was 0.92 (0.85-0.96). Twelve patients were admitted to the hospital. AUC to predict patients' admissions was 0.67 (95% CI, 0.46-0.87) by BRT and 0.76 (0.58-0.94) by CRT. CONCLUSIONS: BRT by a pulse oximetry sensor was an objective measurement as useful as the standardized CRT measured by the trained examiner with a chronometer at the bedside.