BACKGROUND: We prospectively compared transcutaneous (TC) versus end-tidal (ET) carbon dioxide monitoring during neurosurgical procedures in adults. METHODS: After calibration and an equilibration time for the TC-CO2 monitor, arterial blood gas (ABG) values were obtained as clinically indicated. The PaCO2 values were compared with the values recorded by the noninvasive monitors (TC and ET). RESULTS: The ET-CO2 to PaCO2 difference was 6.1 +/- 5.6 mm Hg, and the TC-CO2 to PaCO2 difference was 3.7 +/- 2.9 mm Hg. The difference between the PaCO2 and ET-CO2 was 3 mm Hg or less in 17 of 57 values, while the difference between the PaCO2 and TC-CO2 was 3 mm Hg or less in 35 of 57 values. Linear regression analysis of ET-CO2 versus PaCO2 revealed a slope of 0.381 +/- 0.007. Linear regression analysis of TC-CO2 versus PaCO2 revealed a slope of 1.17 +/- 0.008. CONCLUSION: Transcutaneous CO2 monitoring provides a more accurate estimate of PaCO2 than ET-CO2 monitoring during neurosurgical procedures.
BACKGROUND: We prospectively compared transcutaneous (TC) versus end-tidal (ET) carbon dioxide monitoring during neurosurgical procedures in adults. METHODS: After calibration and an equilibration time for the TC-CO2 monitor, arterial blood gas (ABG) values were obtained as clinically indicated. The PaCO2 values were compared with the values recorded by the noninvasive monitors (TC and ET). RESULTS: The ET-CO2 to PaCO2 difference was 6.1 +/- 5.6 mm Hg, and the TC-CO2 to PaCO2 difference was 3.7 +/- 2.9 mm Hg. The difference between the PaCO2 and ET-CO2 was 3 mm Hg or less in 17 of 57 values, while the difference between the PaCO2 and TC-CO2 was 3 mm Hg or less in 35 of 57 values. Linear regression analysis of ET-CO2 versus PaCO2 revealed a slope of 0.381 +/- 0.007. Linear regression analysis of TC-CO2 versus PaCO2 revealed a slope of 1.17 +/- 0.008. CONCLUSION: Transcutaneous CO2 monitoring provides a more accurate estimate of PaCO2 than ET-CO2 monitoring during neurosurgical procedures.
Authors: Joanna M Dion; Chris McKee; Joseph D Tobias; Daniel Herz; Paul Sohner; Steven Teich; Marc Michalsky Journal: J Clin Monit Comput Date: 2014-06-11 Impact factor: 2.502