Ekkernkamp Emelie, Welte Lena, Schmoor Claudia, Huttmann Sophie Emilia, Dreher Michael, Windisch Wolfram, Storre Jan Hendrik
Department of Pneumology, University Hospital, Freiburg, Germany.
Respiration. 2015;89(4):294-303. doi: 10.1159/000371769. Epub 2015 Mar 18.
Correct measurement of PO₂ and PCO₂ is essential to establish appropriate therapy such as long-term oxygen therapy (LTOT) in patients suffering from respiratory failure.
We aimed to compare common invasive and noninvasive methods for assessing blood gas components for spot check analysis.
Arterial (PaO₂, PaCO₂) and capillary blood gas (PCBGO2, PCBGCO2) measurements were taken consecutively in a randomized order and were compared with noninvasive measurements obtained from the transcutaneous monitoring of PO₂ and PCO₂ (PtcOv, PtcCO₂, sensor-temperature 44°C). Capillary samples were taken from both arterialized earlobes, where samples of right earlobes were defined as a reference value. Pain assessment of all measurements was evaluated by each subject using the 100-mm visual analogue scale.
83 patients and 17 healthy subjects were included. The mean difference between PaO₂ and PtcO₂ was 11.9 ± 15.0 mm Hg, with lower limits of agreement (LLA) of -17.4 mm Hg (95% confidence interval (CI) -22.5 to -12.3 mm Hg), and upper limits of agreement (ULA) of 41.1 mm Hg (95% CI 36.0-46.2 mm Hg). The comparison of PaO₂ with PCBGO2 showed a mean difference of 5.6 ± 7.2 mm Hg (LLA -11.0; ULA 19.6 mm Hg). The mean difference between PaCO₂ and PtcCO₂ was 1.1 ± 4.9 mm Hg (LLA -8.6; ULA 10.8 mm Hg) and that between PaCO₂ and PCBGCO₂ was 0.7 ± 2.0 mm Hg (LLA -3.3; ULA 4.8 mm Hg). The analysis of capillary blood gases (36.2 ± 22.3 mm) was rated as more painful than the analysis of arterial blood gases (26.1 ± 20.6 mm), while transcutaneous measurement was rated as the least painful method (1.9 ± 7.4 mm; all p < 0.0001).
The comparison of different methods for blood gas measurements showed substantial differences between capillary and arterial PO₂ and between transcutaneous and arterial PO₂. Therefore, arterial PO₂ analysis is the essential method evaluating indication for LTOT. Nevertheless, comparative analysis further indicated capillary PCO₂ as an adequate surrogate for arterial PCO₂.
准确测量氧分压(PO₂)和二氧化碳分压(PCO₂)对于为呼吸衰竭患者制定适当的治疗方案(如长期氧疗,LTOT)至关重要。
我们旨在比较用于血气成分点检查分析的常见有创和无创方法。
以随机顺序连续采集动脉血(PaO₂、PaCO₂)和毛细血管血气(PCBGO₂、PCBGCO₂),并与经皮监测PO₂和PCO₂(PtcO₂、PtcCO₂,传感器温度44°C)获得的无创测量值进行比较。毛细血管样本取自两侧动脉化耳垂,其中右耳垂样本被定义为参考值。每位受试者使用100毫米视觉模拟量表对所有测量的疼痛程度进行评估。
纳入83例患者和17名健康受试者。PaO₂与PtcO₂之间的平均差值为11.9±15.0毫米汞柱,一致性下限(LLA)为 -17.4毫米汞柱(95%置信区间(CI)-22.5至-12.3毫米汞柱),一致性上限(ULA)为41.1毫米汞柱(95%CI 36.0 - 46.2毫米汞柱)。PaO₂与PCBGO₂的比较显示平均差值为5.6±7.2毫米汞柱(LLA -11.0;ULA 19.6毫米汞柱)。PaCO₂与PtcCO₂之间的平均差值为1.1±4.9毫米汞柱(LLA -8.6;ULA 10.8毫米汞柱),PaCO₂与PCBGCO₂之间的平均差值为0.7±2.0毫米汞柱(LLA -3.3;ULA 4.8毫米汞柱)。毛细血管血气分析(36.2±22.3毫米)的疼痛程度被评为高于动脉血气分析(26.1±20.6毫米),而经皮测量被评为疼痛程度最低的方法(1.9±7.4毫米;所有p<0.0001)。
不同血气测量方法的比较显示,毛细血管与动脉PO₂之间以及经皮与动脉PO₂之间存在显著差异。因此,动脉PO₂分析是评估LTOT指征的关键方法。然而,对比分析进一步表明毛细血管PCO₂可作为动脉PCO₂的合适替代指标。