Mathematical Arterialisation of Capillary Blood for Blood Gas Analysis in Critical Ill Patients

Overview

The aim of the study is to compare capillary blood gas analysis compensated by v-TAC software (aCBGE, aCBGF) to arterial blood gas analysis (ABG) in terms of pH, pCO2 and pO2 and the clinical usefulness of this method compared to the gold standard of ABG.

In clinical practice blood gas analysis is an essential tool for monitoring respiratory status. The gold-standard method is arterial blood gas analysis (ABG) of blood from the patient's radial or femoral artery. An alternative to arterial sampling commonly used is arterialized capillary blood gas analysis from the earlobe (CBGE). Though CBGE is less invasive and can be performed by non-medical staff, it is less useful in the acute setting because an adequate vasodilatation is needed which typically lasts for at least 10 minutes and the quality of results tends to be operator dependable. Different trials have evaluated the agreement between ABG and CBGE. Whereas a close agreement between ABG and CBGE has been found for evaluating pH and the partial pressure of carbon dioxide (PCO2), several trials showed considerable variations for the partial pressure of oxygen (PO2) and that CBGE tends to underestimate PO2. Similar findings apply for capillary blood gas analysis from the fingertip (CBGF) which is even less accurate compared to CBGE in estimating PO2. Recently a method has been developed to calculate ABG values mathematically from peripheral venous blood, supplemented with oxygen saturation (SpO2) measurement by pulse oximetry, by use of venous-to-arterial conversion (v-TAC) software (OBI Medical, Denmark). The principle of the method is a mathematical transformation of venous blood gas analysis (VBG) values to arterialised values (aVBG) by simulating the transport of blood back through the tissue (6). This approach leads to a clinically acceptable agreement between ABG and aVBG for pH and PCO2. For PO2 the limits of agreement of aVBG are similar to those of PO2 from CBGE for values below 75 mmHg and with mean bias close to zero. However, it has not been evaluated previously whether v-TAC software can be used to calculate ABG values from CBGE (aCBGE) or CBGF (aCBGF). As CBGE and CBGF values are much closer to ABG values, compared to VBG values, the agreement between aCBGE/aCBGF and ABG in terms of pH, PCO2 and pO2 might be better compared to CBG without mathematical arterialisation by v-TAC.

Conditions

Interventions

Eligibility

Locations (1)

Outcomes

Central Contacts