Department of Neonatology, Munich Clinic Harlaching, Sanatoriumsplatz 2, Munich, 81545, Germany.
Chair of Mathematical Modelling, Mathematical Faculty, Technical University of Munich, Boltzmannstr. 3, Garching, 85748, Germany.
Eur J Pediatr. 2022 May;181(5):2087-2096. doi: 10.1007/s00431-022-04392-0. Epub 2022 Feb 12.
One of the most feared neurological complications of premature birth is intraventricular hemorrhage, frequently triggered by fluctuations in cerebral blood flow (CBF). Although several techniques for CBF measurement have been developed, they are not part of clinical routine in neonatal intensive care. A promising tool for monitoring of CBF is its numerical assessment using standard clinical parameters such as mean arterial pressure, carbon dioxide partial pressure (pCO) and oxygen partial pressure (pO). A standard blood gas analysis is performed on arterial blood. In neonates, capillary blood is widely used for analysis of blood gas parameters. The purpose of this study was the assessment of differences between arterial and capillary analysis of blood gases and adjustment of the mathematical model for CBF calculation to capillary values. The statistical analysis of pCO and pO values collected from 254 preterm infants with a gestational age of 23-30 weeks revealed no significant differences between arterial and capillary pCO and significantly lower values for capillary pO. The estimated mean differences between arterial and capillary pO of 15.15 mmHg (2.02 kPa) resulted in a significantly higher CBF calculated for capillary pO compared to CBF calculated for arterial pO. Two methods for correction of capillary pO were proposed and compared, one based on the mean difference and another one based on a regression model.
Capillary blood gas analysis with correction for pO as proposed in the present work is an acceptable alternative to arterial sampling for the assessment of CBF.
• Arterial blood analysis is the gold standard in clinical practice. However, capillary blood is widely used for estimating blood gas parameters. • There is no significant difference between the arterial and capillary pCO values, but the capillary pO differs significantly from the arterial one.
• The lower capillary pO values yield significantly higher values of calculated CBF compared to CBF computed from arterial pO measurements. • Two correction methods for the adjustment of capillary pO to arterial pO that made the difference in the calculated CBF insignificant have been proposed.
评估动脉与毛细血管血气分析之间的差异,并调整用于计算脑血流(CBF)的数学模型以适应毛细血管值。
统计了 254 例胎龄为 23-30 周的早产儿的动脉血气分析结果,结果显示,动脉与毛细血管 pCO 之间无显著差异,而毛细血管 pO 显著低于动脉 pO。估计的动脉与毛细血管 pO 之间的平均差异为 15.15mmHg(2.02kPa),这导致与动脉 pO 相比,毛细血管 pO 计算的 CBF 值显著升高。提出并比较了两种用于校正毛细血管 pO 的方法,一种基于平均差异,另一种基于回归模型。
本研究提出的校正毛细血管 pO 的血气分析方法是一种可接受的替代动脉取样的方法,用于评估 CBF。
在临床实践中,动脉血分析是金标准。然而,毛细血管血广泛用于估计血气参数。
毛细血管 pO 较低会导致计算的 CBF 值显著高于从动脉 pO 测量值计算出的 CBF 值。已经提出了两种校正毛细血管 pO 以适应动脉 pO 的方法,这使得计算出的 CBF 值无显著差异。
本研究结果表明,与动脉 pO 相比,校正毛细血管 pO 的血气分析方法是一种评估 CBF 的可靠方法。