Comparison of End-Tidal, Arterial, Venous, and Transcutaneous P <sub> CO <sub>2</sub> </sub>

Shota Fujimoto(National Center for Global Health and Medicine), Manabu Suzuki(National Center for Global Health and Medicine), Keita Sakamoto(National Center for Global Health and Medicine), Ritsu Ibusuki(National Center for Global Health and Medicine), Kentaro Tamura(National Center for Global Health and Medicine), Ayako Shiozawa(National Center for Global Health and Medicine), Satoru Ishii(National Center for Global Health and Medicine), Motoyasu Iikura(National Center for Global Health and Medicine), Shinyu Izumi(National Center for Global Health and Medicine), Haruhito Sugiyama(National Center for Global Health and Medicine)
Respiratory Care
July 23, 2019
Cited by 23Open Access
Full Text

Abstract

BACKGROUND: We investigated the measurement of end-tidal partial pressure of carbon dioxide (P ETCO 2 ) with a capnometer in patients with respiratory failure, and we determined whether this technique could provide an alternative to measurement of P aCO 2 using arterial blood gas analysis in the clinical setting. METHODS: We measured P ETCO 2 in subjects with hypoxemic and hypercarbic respiratory failure using a capnometer. We simultaneously measured P aCO 2 , venous partial pressure of carbon dioxide (P v̄CO 2 ), and transcutaneously measured partial pressure P CO 2 (P tcCO 2 ). We analyzed agreements among these parameters with Bland-Altman analysis. We obtained 30 samples from subjects with hypoxemic respiratory failure and 30 samples from subjects with hypercarbic respiratory failure. RESULTS: Thirty subjects with hypoxemic respiratory failure and 18 subjects with hypercarbic respiratory failure participated in this study. Significant relationships were found between P ETCO 2 and P aCO 2 , between P tcCO 2 and P aCO 2 , and between P v̄CO 2 and P aCO 2 . Bland-Altman analysis of P ETCO 2 and P aCO 2 in all subjects revealed a bias of 6.48 mm Hg (95% CI 4.93–8.03, P &lt; .001) with a precision of 6.01 mm Hg. Bland-Altman analysis of P ETCO 2 and P aCO 2 with hypoxemic respiratory failure revealed a bias of 5.14 mm Hg (95% CI 3.35–6.93, P &lt; .001) with a precision of 4.80 mm Hg. Bland-Altman analysis of P ETCO 2 and P aCO 2 in subjects with hypercarbic respiratory failure revealed a bias of 7.83 mm Hg (95% CI 5.27–10.38, P &lt; .001) with a precision of 6.83 mm Hg. CONCLUSIONS: P ETCO 2 can be measured simply using a capnometer, and P ETCO 2 measurements can estimate P aCO 2 . However, the limits of agreement were wide. Therefore, care providers must pay attention to the characteristics and errors of these devices. These results suggest that measurement of P ETCO 2 might be useful for screening for hypercarbic respiratory failure in the clinical setting.


Related Papers