Masters Degrees (Anaesthesiology and Critical Care)

Permanent URI for this collection

https://scholar.sun.ac.za/handle/10019.1/3549

Browse

Browsing Masters Degrees (Anaesthesiology and Critical Care) by Subject "Cardiovascular system"

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Comparison of minimally and more invasive methods of determining mixed venous oxygenation
    (Stellenbosch : Stellenbosch University, 2013-12) Smit, Marli; Levin, Andrew I.; Coetzee, J. F.; Stellenbosch University. Faculty of Medicine & Health Sciences. Dept. of Anesthesia and Critical Care.
    ENGLISH ABSTRACT: Circulatory efficiency is the relationship between oxygen consumption and global oxygen delivery. Manipulation of circulatory efficiency has been shown to be beneficial in critically ill surgical and medical adults, and in children. Circulatory efficiency is best assessed by measuring an index of mixed venous oxygenation (content, saturation and partial pressure) and viewing this in the context of oxygen consumption. Mixed venous oxygenation has until now required intermittent sampling via a pulmonary artery catheter, or by using a pulmonary artery catheter equipped with a fibre optic bundle for continuous mixed venous oxygen saturation monitoring. However, the use of the pulmonary artery catheter is declining as it has been (correctly or incorrectly) indicted of being an “invasive” tool. Attempts have been made to estimate mixed venous oxygenation non-invasively using the “NICO” monitor[6], near infrared spectroscopy[7], skeletal muscle oxygen saturation[8], thenar muscle oxygen saturation[9] and transtracheal pulse oximetry.[4]While all of them effectively trended mixed venous oxygen saturation, their accuracy and use as a resuscitation endpoint are in doubt. Sampling central venous as a surrogate of mixed venous oxygenation is fraught with problems, particularly in sicker patients. Significant differences in oxygenation can be demonstrated between the pulmonary arterial and central venous sampling sites in shock states,[3, 10] in acutely ill post-surgical patients [11] and under varying hemodynamic conditions.[12] With the decline in the use of the pulmonary artery catheter, minimally invasive cardiac output determination is becoming increasingly popular. Apart from that their accuracy (particularly un-calibrated devices) has been questioned; they also cannot determine mixed venous oxygen saturation. To obtain a more reliable and refined, but less invasive, estimate of mixed venous oxygenation would be beneficial. The primary aim of this study was therefore to investigate whether venous oxygenation (mixed venous oxygen content, saturation and partial pressure) could be accurately predicted by minimally invasive methods of determining cardiac output and non-invasive calorimetric methods of measuring oxygen consumption. The methods compared were the current invasive gold standard represented by direct sampling of mixed venous blood and thermodilution cardiac output using a pulmonary artery catheter, with a less invasive method of calculating mixed venous saturation, the latter comprised of 4 elements: 1. Cardiac output was measured using a minimally invasive technique, namely lithium dilution (LiDCo®). 2. Oxygen consumption was measured with a non-invasive calorimetric device (M-COVX™ module manufactured by General Electric Corporation). 3. Arterial oxygen content was estimated using blood sampled via an arterial catheter. 4. These 3 variables were inputted into Fick’s equation and solved for venous oxygen content (CvO2 = CaO2 –VO2/CO). Thereafter, using the calculated venous oxygen content as well as the haemoglobin concentration, mixed venous oxygen saturation and partial pressure was estimated using an Excel® spreadsheet (Appendix G) relating oxygen saturation and partial pressure using standard oxygen dissociation curve formula, and calculating oxygen content from various haemoglobin concentrations. Analysis of the data was performed predominantly using Bland Altman analysis. LiDCo® derived cardiac output overestimated that measured using intermittent thermodilution PAC by a clinically significant average of 0.82liters/minute or 26%. The pulmonary artery catheter derived oxygen consumption underestimated that measured by the metabolic module by 52 ml/minute or 27%. Oxygen consumption was the parameter having the largest percentage error (27%) and difference between the Bland Altman upper and lower limits of agreement. The difference between oxygen consumption measured by indirect calorimetry is expected to exceed that calculated using the indirect Fick method by 20 to 30% because intra-pulmonary oxygen consumption is excluded when using this method.[ 13] However, the scatter exhibited by the calorimetry estimations of oxygen consumption was probably the major reason for the discrepancy between the calculated and measured mixed venous oxygenation variables. Despite small (12.0 to 26.3 %) differences between measurements in individual patients, venous oxygenation variables measured by the invasive and less invasive techniques were statistically different. We also considered the magnitude of these differences to be clinically significant as we were of the opinion that relying on the calculated results could adversely impact clinical decision-making. In conclusion, we could not estimate venous oxygenation accurately enough using minimally invasive methods of determining cardiac output and non-invasive methods of measuring oxygen consumption to be clinically useful.