May Anne, Humston Chris, Rice Julie, Nemastil Christopher J, Salvator Ann, Tobias Joseph
Department of Pulmonary Medicine, Nationwide Children's Hospital, Columbus, OH, USA.
Department of Pediatrics, The Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, OH, USA.
J Anesth. 2020 Feb;34(1):66-71. doi: 10.1007/s00540-019-02706-5. Epub 2019 Nov 7.
The gold standard for measuring the partial pressure of carbon dioxide remains arterial blood gas (ABG) analysis. For patients with cystic fibrosis undergoing general anesthesia or polysomnography studies, continuous non-invasive carbon dioxide monitoring may be required. The current study compares end-tidal (ETCO), transcutaneous (TCCO), and capillary blood gas carbon dioxide (Cap-CO) monitoring with the partial pressure of carbon dioxide (PaCO) from an ABG in patients with cystic fibrosis.
Intraoperatively, a single CO value was simultaneously obtained using ABG (PaCO), capillary (Cap-CO), TCCO, and ETCO techniques. Tests for correlation (Pearson's coefficient) and agreement (Bland-Altman analysis) were performed. Data were further stratified into two subgroups based on body mass index (BMI) and percent predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV%). Additionally, the absolute difference in the TCCO, ETCO, and Cap-CO values versus PaCO was calculated. The mean ± SD differences were compared using a paired t test while the number of times the values were ≤ 3 mmHg and ≤ 5 mmHg from the PaCO were compared using a Fishers' exact test.
The study cohort included 47 patients (22 males, 47%) with a mean age of 13.4 ± 7.8 years, median (IQR) BMI of 18.7 kg/m (16.7, 21.4), and mean FEV% of 87.3 ± 18.3%. Bias (SD) was 4.8 (5.7) mmHg with Cap-CO monitoring, 7.3 (9.7) mmHg with TCCO monitoring, and 9.7 (7.7) mmHg with ETCO monitoring. Although there was no difference between the degree of bias in the population as a whole, when divided based on FEV% and BMI, there was greater bias with ETCO in patients with a lower FEV% and a higher BMI. The Cap-CO vs. PaCO difference was 5.2 ± 5.3 mmHg (SD), with 16 (48%) ≤ 3 mmHg and 20 (61%) ≤ 5 mmHg from the ABG value. The TCCO-PaCO difference was 9.1 ± 7.2 mmHg (SD), with 11 (27%) ≤ 3 mmHg and 15 (37%) ≤ 5 mmHg from the ABG value. The ETCO-PaCO mean difference was 11.2 ± 7.9 mmHg (SD), with 5 (12%) ≤ 3 mmHg and 11 (26%) ≤ 5 mmHg from the ABG value.
While Cap-CO most accurately reflects PaCO as measured on ABG, of the non-invasive continuous monitors, TCCO was a more accurate and reliable measure of PaCO than ETCO, especially in patients with worsening pulmonary function (FEV% ≤ 81%) and/or a higher BMI (≥ 18.7 kg/m).
测量二氧化碳分压的金标准仍然是动脉血气(ABG)分析。对于接受全身麻醉或多导睡眠图研究的囊性纤维化患者,可能需要进行连续无创二氧化碳监测。本研究比较了囊性纤维化患者的呼气末(ETCO)、经皮(TCCO)和毛细血管血气二氧化碳(Cap-CO)监测与ABG测得的二氧化碳分压(PaCO)。
术中,使用ABG(PaCO)、毛细血管(Cap-CO)、TCCO和ETCO技术同时获得单个CO值。进行相关性检验(Pearson系数)和一致性检验(Bland-Altman分析)。根据体重指数(BMI)和1秒用力呼气量占预计值百分比(FEV%)将数据进一步分层为两个亚组。此外,计算了TCCO、ETCO和Cap-CO值与PaCO的绝对差值。使用配对t检验比较平均±标准差差值,而使用Fisher精确检验比较与PaCO相差≤3 mmHg和≤5 mmHg的次数。
研究队列包括47例患者(22例男性,47%),平均年龄13.4±7.8岁,BMI中位数(IQR)为18.7 kg/m²(16.7,21.4),平均FEV%为87.3±18.3%。Cap-CO监测的偏倚(标准差)为4.8(5.7)mmHg,TCCO监测为7.3(9.7)mmHg,ETCO监测为9.7(7.7)mmHg。虽然总体人群中的偏倚程度没有差异,但根据FEV%和BMI划分时,FEV%较低和BMI较高的患者中ETCO的偏倚更大。Cap-CO与PaCO的差值为5.2±5.3 mmHg(标准差),与ABG值相差≤3 mmHg的有16例(48%),≤5 mmHg的有20例(61%)。TCCO与PaCO的差值为9.1±7.2 mmHg(标准差),与ABG值相差≤3 mmHg的有11例(27%),≤5 mmHg的有15例(37%)。ETCO与PaCO的平均差值为11.2±7.9 mmHg(标准差),与ABG值相差≤3 mmHg的有5例(12%),≤5 mmHg的有11例(26%)。
虽然Cap-CO最准确地反映了ABG测量的PaCO,但在无创连续监测仪中,TCCO比ETCO更准确可靠地测量PaCO,尤其是在肺功能恶化(FEV%≤81%)和/或BMI较高(≥18.7 kg/m²)的患者中。