Pratik Sinha1, Neil Soni. 1. Chelsea and Westminster Hospital, 369 Fulham Road, London SW10 9NH, UK. p.sinha@imperial.ac.uk
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Physiological dead space should be a routine measurement in ventilated patients but measuring dead space using the Douglas bag (DB) method is cumbersome and requires corrections for compressed ventilator gas. These factors make this method impractical in the critical care setting. Volumetric capnography (VCAP) offers a relatively simple solution to calculating dead space. Few studies have been conducted to directly compare dead space measured by VCAP and the DB method in critically unwell adults. METHOD: Prospective observational study of 48 mechanically ventilated adults ICU patients. Dead space was calculated simultaneously using VCAP (CO(2)SMO) and the Bohr-Enghoff equation. In total, 168 paired readings were taken. Single-breath CO(2) waveform areas under the curve were computed automatically by software to calculate physiological dead space. The calculated value of P(Ē(CO(2))) was also recorded from the CO(2)SMO device. Exhaust ventilator gas was collected in a 10-l mixing chamber. P(Ē(CO(2))) was measured in the chamber following correction for compressed gas. RESULTS: The study demonstrated good agreement between physiological V(D)/V(T) calculated by VCAP and corrected (mean bias 0.03), and uncorrected (mean bias 0.02) Bohr-Enghoff method. There was good correlation between the two methods of measurement (VCAP vs corrected r(2) = 0.90 P < 0.001, VCAP vs uncorrected r(2) = 0.90, P < 0.001). There was good correlation between [Formula: see text] calculated by the CO(2)SMO and in the exhaust collected gas (mean bias 0.08). CONCLUSIONS: VCAP shows good agreement with Douglas Bag method in measuring physiological V(D)/V(T) over a wide range of dead space fractions.
INTRODUCTION: Physiological dead space should be a routine measurement in ventilated patients but measuring dead space using the Douglas bag (DB) method is cumbersome and requires corrections for compressed ventilator gas. These factors make this method impractical in the critical care setting. Volumetric capnography (VCAP) offers a relatively simple solution to calculating dead space. Few studies have been conducted to directly compare dead space measured by VCAP and the DB method in critically unwell adults. METHOD: Prospective observational study of 48 mechanically ventilated adults ICU patients. Dead space was calculated simultaneously using VCAP (CO(2)SMO) and the Bohr-Enghoff equation. In total, 168 paired readings were taken. Single-breath CO(2) waveform areas under the curve were computed automatically by software to calculate physiological dead space. The calculated value of P(Ē(CO(2))) was also recorded from the CO(2)SMO device. Exhaust ventilator gas was collected in a 10-l mixing chamber. P(Ē(CO(2))) was measured in the chamber following correction for compressed gas. RESULTS: The study demonstrated good agreement between physiological V(D)/V(T) calculated by VCAP and corrected (mean bias 0.03), and uncorrected (mean bias 0.02) Bohr-Enghoff method. There was good correlation between the two methods of measurement (VCAP vs corrected r(2) = 0.90 P < 0.001, VCAP vs uncorrected r(2) = 0.90, P < 0.001). There was good correlation between [Formula: see text] calculated by the CO(2)SMO and in the exhaust collected gas (mean bias 0.08). CONCLUSIONS: VCAP shows good agreement with Douglas Bag method in measuring physiological V(D)/V(T) over a wide range of dead space fractions.
Authors: Thomas J Nuckton; James A Alonso; Richard H Kallet; Brian M Daniel; Jean-François Pittet; Mark D Eisner; Michael A Matthay Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-04-25 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Joan M Raurich; Margalida Vilar; Asunción Colomar; Jordi Ibáñez; Ignacio Ayestarán; Jon Pérez-Bárcena; Juan A Llompart-Pou Journal: Respir Care Date: 2010-03 Impact factor: 2.258
Authors: Hassan Siddiki; Marija Kojicic; Guangxi Li; Murat Yilmaz; Taylor B Thompson; Rolf D Hubmayr; Ognjen Gajic Journal: Crit Care Date: 2010-07-29 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: Fernando Suárez-Sipmann; Jesús Villar; Carlos Ferrando; Juan A Sánchez-Giralt; Gerardo Tusman Journal: Front Physiol Date: 2021-12-21 Impact factor: 4.566
Authors: Massimo Antonelli; Marc Bonten; Maurizio Cecconi; Jean Chastre; Giuseppe Citerio; Giorgio Conti; J R Curtis; Goran Hedenstierna; Michael Joannidis; Duncan Macrae; Salvatore M Maggiore; Jordi Mancebo; Alexandre Mebazaa; Jean-Charles Preiser; Patricia Rocco; Jean-François Timsit; Jan Wernerman; Haibo Zhang Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2013-01-22 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Jonne Doorduin; Joeke L Nollet; Manon P A J Vugts; Lisanne H Roesthuis; Ferdi Akankan; Johannes G van der Hoeven; Hieronymus W H van Hees; Leo M A Heunks Journal: Crit Care Date: 2016-05-05 Impact factor: 9.097