Infrared end-tidal CO2 measurement does not accurately predict arterial CO2 values or end-tidal to arterial PCO2 gradients in rabbits with lung injury.

End-tidal PCO2 (PETCO2) measurements from two commercially available neonatal infrared capnometers with different sampling systems and a mass spectrometer were compared with arterial PCO2 (PaCO2) to determine whether the former could predict the latter in mechanically ventilated rabbits with and without lung injury. The effects of tidal volume, ventilator frequency and type of lung injury on the gradient between PETCO2 and PaCO2 (delta P(a-ET)CO2) were evaluated. Twenty rabbits were studied: 10 without lung injury, 5 with saline lavage and 5 with lung injury by meconium instillation. Paired measurements of PETCO2 by two infrared capnometers and a mass spectrometer were compared to PaCO2. In the rabbits without lung injury, the values from the infrared capnometers and mass spectrometer correlated strongly with PaCO2 (r > or = 0.91) despite differences in the slopes of the linear regression between PETCO2 and PaCO2 and in delta P(a-ET)CO2 (P < 0.05). Values from the mainstream IR-capnometer more closely approximated the line of identity than the regression between the sidestream IR-capnometer values or the mass spectrometer and PaCO2, but tended to overestimate PaCO2. The delta P(a-ET)CO2 was similar at all tidal volumes and ventilator frequencies, regardless of capnometer type. In the rabbits with induced lung injury, while there was a positive correlation between the slopes of the regression between PETCO2 and PaCO2 for both capnometers (r > or = 0.70), none of the regression slopes approximated the line of identity. The delta P(a-ET)CO2 was greater in rabbits with injured than noninjured lungs (P < 0.05). The delta P(a-ET)CO2 was similar among capnometers regardless of tidal volume, ventilator frequency, or type of lung injury. The 95% confidence interval of plots PaCO2 against PETCO2 was large for rabbits with injured and noninjured lungs.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)