Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2010 Mar;55(3):288-93.

End-tidal and arterial carbon dioxide measurements correlate across all levels of physiologic dead space

Affiliations

End-tidal and arterial carbon dioxide measurements correlate across all levels of physiologic dead space

S David McSwain et al. Respir Care. 2010 Mar.

Abstract

Background: End-tidal carbon dioxide (P(ETCO(2))) is a surrogate, noninvasive measurement of arterial carbon dioxide (P(aCO(2))), but the clinical applicability of P(ETCO(2)) in the intensive care unit remains unclear. Available research on the relationship between P(ETCO(2)) and P(aCO(2)) has not taken a detailed assessment of physiologic dead space into consideration. We hypothesized that P(ETCO(2)) would reliably predict P(aCO(2)) across all levels of physiologic dead space, provided that the expected P(ETCO(2))-P(aCO(2)) difference is considered.

Methods: Fifty-six mechanically ventilated pediatric patients (0-17 y old, mean weight 19.5 +/- 24.5 kg) were monitored with volumetric capnography. For every arterial blood gas measurement during routine care, we measured P(ETCO(2)) and calculated the ratio of dead space to tidal volume (V(D)/V(T)). We assessed the P(ETCO(2))-P(aCO(2)) relationship with Pearson's correlation coefficient, in 4 V(D)/V(T) ranges.

Results: V(D)/V(T) was <or= 0.40 for 125 measurements (25%), 0.41-0.55 for 160 measurements (32%), 0.56-0.70 for 154 measurements (31%), and >0.7 for 54 measurements (11%). The correlation coefficients between P(ETCO(2)) and P(aCO(2)) were 0.95 (mean difference 0.3 +/- 2.1 mm Hg) for V(D)/V(T) <or= 0.40, 0.88 (mean difference 5.9 +/- 4.3 mm Hg) for V(D)/V(T) 0.41-0.55, 0.86 (mean difference 13.6 +/- 5.2 mm Hg) for V(D)/V(T) 0.56-0.70, and 0.78 (mean difference 17.8 +/- 6.7 mm Hg) for V(D)/V(T) >0.7.

Conclusions: There were strong correlations between P(ETCO(2)) and P(aCO(2)) in all the V(D)/V(T) ranges. The P(ETCO(2))-P(aCO(2)) difference increased predictably with increasing V(D)/V(T).

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
End-tidal carbon dioxide versus arterial carbon dioxide at different ranges of physiologic dead space. A) At a physiologic dead space to tidal volume ratio (Vd/Vt) ≤ 0.4 the correlation is very strong (ρ = 0.95). B) At Vd/Vt of 0.40-0.55 (ρ = 0.88), C) 0.55-0.7 (ρ = 0.86), and D) > 0.7 (ρ = 0.78), the correlation coefficients decrease slightly but remain moderately strong.
Figure 1
Figure 1
End-tidal carbon dioxide versus arterial carbon dioxide at different ranges of physiologic dead space. A) At a physiologic dead space to tidal volume ratio (Vd/Vt) ≤ 0.4 the correlation is very strong (ρ = 0.95). B) At Vd/Vt of 0.40-0.55 (ρ = 0.88), C) 0.55-0.7 (ρ = 0.86), and D) > 0.7 (ρ = 0.78), the correlation coefficients decrease slightly but remain moderately strong.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Bland-Altman plots of ETCO2 versus PaCO2. These plots do not take into account the expected change in the ETCO2-PaCO2 gradient seen with increasing physiologic dead space. So it is impossible to tell whether the variation seen in these plots is due to variation in physiologic dead space within each subset or to unreliability of ETCO2 as a surrogate measure.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Bland-Altman plots of ETCO2 versus PaCO2. These plots do not take into account the expected change in the ETCO2-PaCO2 gradient seen with increasing physiologic dead space. So it is impossible to tell whether the variation seen in these plots is due to variation in physiologic dead space within each subset or to unreliability of ETCO2 as a surrogate measure.

Comment in

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. American Heart Association 2005 American Heart Association (AHA) guidelines for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and emergency cardiovascular care (ECC) of pediatric and neonatal patients: pediatric advanced life support. Pediatrics. 2006;117(5):e1005–e1028. - PubMed
    1. Birmingham PK, Cheney FW, Ward RJ. Esophageal intubation: a review of detection techniques. Anesth Analg. 1986;65(8):886–891. - PubMed
    1. Knapp S, Kofler J, Stoiser B, Thalhammer F, Burgmann H, Posch M, et al. The assessment of four different methods to verify tracheal tube placement in the critical care setting. Anesth Analg. 1999;88(4):766–770. - PubMed
    1. Roberts WA, Maniscalco WM, Cohen AR, Litman RS, Chhibber A. The use of capnography for recognition of esophageal intubation in the neonatal intensive care unit. Pediatr Pulmonol. 1995;19(5):262–268. - PubMed
    1. Kannan S, Manji M. Survey of use of end-tidal carbon dioxide for confirming tracheal tube placement in intensive care units in the UK. Anaesthesia. 2003;58(5):476–479. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources