BACKGROUND: Management strategies for preoperative infants with hypoplastic left heart syndrome (HLHS) include increased inspired nitrogen (hypoxia) and increased inspired carbon dioxide (hypercarbia). There are no studies directly comparing these 2 therapies in humans. This study compares the impact of hypoxia versus hypercarbia on oxygen delivery, under conditions of fixed minute ventilation. METHODS AND RESULTS: Ten anesthetized and paralyzed preoperative infants with HLHS were evaluated in a prospective, randomized, crossover trial comparing hypoxia (17% FIO(2)) with hypercarbia (2.7% FICO(2)). Each patient was treated in a random order (10 minutes per condition) with a recovery period (15 to 20 minutes) in room air. Arterial (SaO(2)) and superior vena caval (SvO(2)) co-oximetry and cerebral oxygen saturation (ScO(2)) measurements were made at the end of each condition and recovery period. ScO(2) was measured by near infrared spectroscopy. Hypoxia significantly decreased both SaO(2) (-5.2+/-1.1%, P=0.0014) and SvO(2) (-5.6+/-1.7%, P=0.009) compared with baseline, but arteriovenous oxygen saturation (AVO(2)) difference (SaO(2)-SvO(2)) and ScO(2) remained unchanged. Hypercarbia decreased SaO(2) (-2.6+/-0.6%, P=0.002) compared with baseline but increased both ScO(2) (9.6+/-1.8%, P=0.0001) and SvO(2) (6+/-2.2%, P=0.022) and narrowed the AVO(2) difference (-8.5+/-2.3%, P=0.005). Both hypoxia and hypercarbia decreased the balance between pulmonary and systemic blood flow (Qp:Qs) compared with baseline. CONCLUSIONS: In preoperative infants with HLHS, under conditions of anesthesia and paralysis, although Qp:Qs falls in both conditions, oxygen delivery is unchanged during hypoxia and increased during hypercarbia. These data cannot differentiate cerebral from systemic oxygen delivery.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Management strategies for preoperative infants with hypoplastic left heart syndrome (HLHS) include increased inspired nitrogen (hypoxia) and increased inspired carbon dioxide (hypercarbia). There are no studies directly comparing these 2 therapies in humans. This study compares the impact of hypoxia versus hypercarbia on oxygen delivery, under conditions of fixed minute ventilation. METHODS AND RESULTS: Ten anesthetized and paralyzed preoperative infants with HLHS were evaluated in a prospective, randomized, crossover trial comparing hypoxia (17% FIO(2)) with hypercarbia (2.7% FICO(2)). Each patient was treated in a random order (10 minutes per condition) with a recovery period (15 to 20 minutes) in room air. Arterial (SaO(2)) and superior vena caval (SvO(2)) co-oximetry and cerebral oxygen saturation (ScO(2)) measurements were made at the end of each condition and recovery period. ScO(2) was measured by near infrared spectroscopy. Hypoxia significantly decreased both SaO(2) (-5.2+/-1.1%, P=0.0014) and SvO(2) (-5.6+/-1.7%, P=0.009) compared with baseline, but arteriovenousoxygen saturation (AVO(2)) difference (SaO(2)-SvO(2)) and ScO(2) remained unchanged. Hypercarbia decreased SaO(2) (-2.6+/-0.6%, P=0.002) compared with baseline but increased both ScO(2) (9.6+/-1.8%, P=0.0001) and SvO(2) (6+/-2.2%, P=0.022) and narrowed the AVO(2) difference (-8.5+/-2.3%, P=0.005). Both hypoxia and hypercarbia decreased the balance between pulmonary and systemic blood flow (Qp:Qs) compared with baseline. CONCLUSIONS: In preoperative infants with HLHS, under conditions of anesthesia and paralysis, although Qp:Qs falls in both conditions, oxygen delivery is unchanged during hypoxia and increased during hypercarbia. These data cannot differentiate cerebral from systemic oxygen delivery.
Authors: Erin M Buckley; Dalton Hance; Thomas Pawlowski; Jennifer Lynch; Felice B Wilson; Rickson C Mesquita; Turgut Durduran; Laura K Diaz; Mary E Putt; Daniel J Licht; Mark A Fogel; Arjun G Yodh Journal: J Biomed Opt Date: 2012-03 Impact factor: 3.170
Authors: Monica E Kleinman; Allan R de Caen; Leon Chameides; Dianne L Atkins; Robert A Berg; Marc D Berg; Farhan Bhanji; Dominique Biarent; Robert Bingham; Ashraf H Coovadia; Mary Fran Hazinski; Robert W Hickey; Vinay M Nadkarni; Amelia G Reis; Antonio Rodriguez-Nunez; James Tibballs; Arno L Zaritsky; David Zideman Journal: Circulation Date: 2010-10-19 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Turgut Durduran; Chao Zhou; Erin M Buckley; Meeri N Kim; Guoqiang Yu; Regine Choe; J William Gaynor; Thomas L Spray; Suzanne M Durning; Stefanie E Mason; Lisa M Montenegro; Susan C Nicolson; Robert A Zimmerman; Mary E Putt; Jiongjiong Wang; Joel H Greenberg; John A Detre; Arjun G Yodh; Daniel J Licht Journal: J Biomed Opt Date: 2010 May-Jun Impact factor: 3.170
Authors: Monica E Kleinman; Allan R de Caen; Leon Chameides; Dianne L Atkins; Robert A Berg; Marc D Berg; Farhan Bhanji; Dominique Biarent; Robert Bingham; Ashraf H Coovadia; Mary Fran Hazinski; Robert W Hickey; Vinay M Nadkarni; Amelia G Reis; Antonio Rodriguez-Nunez; James Tibballs; Arno L Zaritsky; David Zideman Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2010-10-18 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Maria T Zuluaga; Megan E Esch; Natalie Z Cvijanovich; Nalin Gupta; Patrick S McQuillen Journal: Pediatr Crit Care Med Date: 2010-07 Impact factor: 3.624
Authors: Po-Yin Cheung; Laila Obaid; Marwan Emara; Yann Brierley; Scott T Johnson; Grace S Chan; Laurence Jewell; Gregory Korbutt; David L Bigam Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2008-01-31 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: K D Bourke; H M Sondheimer; D D Ivy; B Pietra; B K Gleason; C Mashburn; M M Boucek Journal: Pediatr Cardiol Date: 2003-09-04 Impact factor: 1.655