Casati Andrea, Squicciarini Grazia, Malagutti Giulia, Baciarello Marco, Putzu Marta, Fanelli Andrea
Department of Anesthesia and Pain Therapy, University of Parma, and Ospedale Maggiore di Parma, via Gramsci 14, 43100 Parma, Italy.
J Clin Anesth. 2006 Sep;18(6):436-40. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinane.2006.02.007.
To evaluate the accuracy and precision of estimation of partial pressure of carbon dioxide (Pa(CO2)) using end-tidal or transcutaneous CO2 (TcP(CO2)) measurements during mechanical ventilation in the elderly patient.
A prospective, observational study was conducted.
The study was done in the anesthesia department of a university hospital.
Seventeen anesthetized, mechanically ventilated patients older than 60 years were studied.
During standard sevoflurane anesthesia, and after proper calibration and an equilibration time of 30 minutes with stable hemodynamic and respiratory variables, arterial (Pa(CO2)), end-tidal (Pet(CO2)), and transcutaneous (TcP(CO2)) CO2 partial pressures were determined. In each patient, 1 to 5 sample sets (Pa(CO2), Pet(CO2), and TcP(CO2)) were obtained.
A total of 45 sample sets were obtained from the patients studied. The Pa(CO2) values ranged between 21 and 58 mm Hg. The Pa(CO2) - Pet(CO2) tension gradient was 6 +/- 5 mmHg (95% confidence interval, -3 to 16 mmHg), whereas the Pa(CO2) - TcP(CO2) tension gradient was 2 +/- 4 mmHg (95% confidence interval, -6 to 9 mmHg) (P = 0.0005). The absolute value of the difference between Pa(CO2) and Pet(CO2) was 3 mm Hg or less in 7 of 45 sample sets (15%), whereas the absolute value of the difference between Pa(CO2) and TcP(CO2) was 3 mm Hg or less in 21 of 45 sample sets (46%) (P = 0.003). Linear regression analysis for TcP(CO2) versus Pa(CO2) showed a slope of 0.84 (r(2) = 0.73), whereas the linear regression analysis for Pet(CO2) versus Pa(CO2) showed a slope of 0.54 (r(2) = 0.50).
Transcutaneous monitoring of CO(2) partial pressure gives a more accurate estimation of arterial CO(2) partial pressure than does Pet(CO2) monitoring.
评估老年患者机械通气期间使用呼气末或经皮二氧化碳(TcP(CO2))测量来估计二氧化碳分压(Pa(CO2))的准确性和精确性。
进行了一项前瞻性观察性研究。
该研究在一家大学医院的麻醉科进行。
研究了17例年龄大于60岁的麻醉且机械通气的患者。
在标准七氟醚麻醉期间,以及在适当校准并经过30分钟平衡时间,血流动力学和呼吸变量稳定后,测定动脉血(Pa(CO2))、呼气末(Pet(CO2))和经皮(TcP(CO2))二氧化碳分压。在每位患者中,获取1至5组样本(Pa(CO2)、Pet(CO2)和TcP(CO2))。
从研究的患者中总共获得了45组样本。Pa(CO2)值范围在21至58 mmHg之间。Pa(CO2) - Pet(CO2)张力梯度为6±5 mmHg(95%置信区间,-3至16 mmHg),而Pa(CO2) - TcP(CO2)张力梯度为2±4 mmHg(95%置信区间,-6至9 mmHg)(P = 0.0005)。在45组样本中的7组(15%)中,Pa(CO2)与Pet(CO2)之间差值的绝对值为3 mmHg或更小,而在45组样本中的21组(46%)中,Pa(CO2)与TcP(CO2)之间差值的绝对值为3 mmHg或更小(P = 0.003)。TcP(CO2)与Pa(CO2)的线性回归分析显示斜率为0.84(r(2)=0.73),而Pet(CO2)与Pa(CO2)的线性回归分析显示斜率为0.54(r(2)=0.50)。
与Pet(CO2)监测相比,经皮二氧化碳分压监测能更准确地估计动脉血二氧化碳分压。