OBJECTIVE: To evaluate a combined transcutaneous carbon dioxide pressure (tcPCO(2)) and pulse oximetry sensor in sheep and dogs. ANIMALS: 13 adult sheep and 11 adult dogs. PROCEDURES: During inhalation anesthesia, for the first 10 minutes following sensor placement, arterial blood gas was analyzed and tcPCO(2) was recorded every 2 minutes. Subsequently, the animals were hyper-, normo-, and hypoventilated. The simultaneously obtained tcPCO(2) and PaCO(2) values were analyzed by use of Bland-Altman statistical analysis. RESULTS: Mean +/- SD overall difference between tcPCO(2) and PaCO(2) 10 minutes after sensor application was 13.3 +/- 8.4 mm Hg in sheep and 8.9 +/- 12 mm Hg in dogs. During hyper-, normo-, and hypoventilation, mean difference (bias) and precision (limits of agreement [bias +/- 2 SD]) between tcPCO(2) and PaCO(2) values were 13.2 +/- 10.4 mm Hg (limits of agreement, -7.1 and 33.5 mm Hg) in sheep and 10.6 +/- 10.5 mm Hg (limits of agreement, -9.9 and 31.2 mm Hg) in dogs, respectively. Changes in PaCO(2) induced by different ventilation settings were detected by the tcPCO(2) sensor with a lag (response) time of 4.9 +/- 3.5 minutes for sheep and 6.2 +/- 3.6 minutes for dogs. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The tcPCO(2) sensor overestimated PaCO(2) in sheep and dogs and followed changes in PaCO(2) with a considerable lag time. The tcPCO(2) sensor might be useful for noninvasive monitoring of changes but cannot be used as a surrogate measure for PaCO(2).
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate a combined transcutaneous carbon dioxide pressure (tcPCO(2)) and pulse oximetry sensor in sheep and dogs. ANIMALS: 13 adult sheep and 11 adult dogs. PROCEDURES: During inhalation anesthesia, for the first 10 minutes following sensor placement, arterial blood gas was analyzed and tcPCO(2) was recorded every 2 minutes. Subsequently, the animals were hyper-, normo-, and hypoventilated. The simultaneously obtained tcPCO(2) and PaCO(2) values were analyzed by use of Bland-Altman statistical analysis. RESULTS: Mean +/- SD overall difference between tcPCO(2) and PaCO(2) 10 minutes after sensor application was 13.3 +/- 8.4 mm Hg in sheep and 8.9 +/- 12 mm Hg in dogs. During hyper-, normo-, and hypoventilation, mean difference (bias) and precision (limits of agreement [bias +/- 2 SD]) between tcPCO(2) and PaCO(2) values were 13.2 +/- 10.4 mm Hg (limits of agreement, -7.1 and 33.5 mm Hg) in sheep and 10.6 +/- 10.5 mm Hg (limits of agreement, -9.9 and 31.2 mm Hg) in dogs, respectively. Changes in PaCO(2) induced by different ventilation settings were detected by the tcPCO(2) sensor with a lag (response) time of 4.9 +/- 3.5 minutes for sheep and 6.2 +/- 3.6 minutes for dogs. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The tcPCO(2) sensor overestimated PaCO(2) in sheep and dogs and followed changes in PaCO(2) with a considerable lag time. The tcPCO(2) sensor might be useful for noninvasive monitoring of changes but cannot be used as a surrogate measure for PaCO(2).