Comparing the EMMA capnograph with sidestream capnography and arterial carbon dioxide pressure at 284 kPa.

IF 0.8 4区 医学 Q4 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Xavier Ce Vrijdag, Hanna van Waart, Chris Sames, Jamie W Sleigh, Simon J Mitchell
{"title":"Comparing the EMMA capnograph with sidestream capnography and arterial carbon dioxide pressure at 284 kPa.","authors":"Xavier Ce Vrijdag, Hanna van Waart, Chris Sames, Jamie W Sleigh, Simon J Mitchell","doi":"10.28920/dhm53.4.327-332","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Capnography aids assessment of the adequacy of mechanical patient ventilation. Physical and physiological changes in hyperbaric environments create ventilation challenges which make end-tidal carbon dioxide (ETCO<sub>2</sub>) measurement particularly important. However, obtaining accurate capnography in hyperbaric environments is widely considered difficult. This study investigated the EMMA capnograph for hyperbaric use.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We compared the EMMA capnograph to sidestream capnography and the gold standard arterial carbon dioxide blood gas analysis in a hyperbaric chamber. In 12 resting subjects breathing air at 284 kPa, we recorded ETCO<sub>2</sub> readings simultaneously derived from the EMMA and sidestream capnographs during two series of five breaths (total 24 measurements). An arterial blood gas sample was also taken simultaneously in five participants.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Across all measurements there was a difference of about 0.1 kPa between the EMMA and sidestream capnographs indicating a very slight over-estimation of ETCO<sub>2</sub> by the EMMA capnograph, but fundamentally good agreement between the two end-tidal measurement methods. Compared to arterial blood gas pressure the non-significant difference was about 0.3 and 0.4 kPa for the EMMA and sidestream capnographs respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In this study, the EMMA capnograph performed equally to the sidestream capnograph when compared directly, and both capnography measures gave clinically acceptable estimates of arterial PCO<sub>2</sub>.</p>","PeriodicalId":11296,"journal":{"name":"Diving and hyperbaric medicine","volume":"53 4","pages":"327-332"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10735710/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Diving and hyperbaric medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.28920/dhm53.4.327-332","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Capnography aids assessment of the adequacy of mechanical patient ventilation. Physical and physiological changes in hyperbaric environments create ventilation challenges which make end-tidal carbon dioxide (ETCO2) measurement particularly important. However, obtaining accurate capnography in hyperbaric environments is widely considered difficult. This study investigated the EMMA capnograph for hyperbaric use.

Methods: We compared the EMMA capnograph to sidestream capnography and the gold standard arterial carbon dioxide blood gas analysis in a hyperbaric chamber. In 12 resting subjects breathing air at 284 kPa, we recorded ETCO2 readings simultaneously derived from the EMMA and sidestream capnographs during two series of five breaths (total 24 measurements). An arterial blood gas sample was also taken simultaneously in five participants.

Results: Across all measurements there was a difference of about 0.1 kPa between the EMMA and sidestream capnographs indicating a very slight over-estimation of ETCO2 by the EMMA capnograph, but fundamentally good agreement between the two end-tidal measurement methods. Compared to arterial blood gas pressure the non-significant difference was about 0.3 and 0.4 kPa for the EMMA and sidestream capnographs respectively.

Conclusions: In this study, the EMMA capnograph performed equally to the sidestream capnograph when compared directly, and both capnography measures gave clinically acceptable estimates of arterial PCO2.

比较 EMMA 毛细血管通气记录仪与侧流毛细血管通气记录仪以及 284 千帕的动脉二氧化碳压力。
导言:二氧化碳呼气监测有助于评估患者机械通气的充分性。高压氧环境中的物理和生理变化给通气带来了挑战,因此潮气末二氧化碳(ETCO2)的测量尤为重要。然而,人们普遍认为在高压氧环境中很难获得准确的毛细血管造影。本研究调查了用于高压氧环境的 EMMA 毛细血管通气记录仪:我们在高压氧舱中将 EMMA 毛细血管通气记录仪与侧流毛细血管通气记录仪和黄金标准动脉二氧化碳血气分析仪进行了比较。在 12 名呼吸 284 kPa 空气的静息受试者身上,我们同时记录了 EMMA 和侧流毛细血管通气记录仪在两次 5 次呼吸过程中得出的 ETCO2 读数(共 24 次测量)。我们还同时采集了五名参与者的动脉血气样本:在所有测量中,EMMA 和侧流毛细血管通气记录仪之间的差值约为 0.1 kPa,这表明 EMMA 毛细血管通气记录仪对 ETCO2 的估计略有偏高,但两种潮气末测量方法之间的一致性基本良好。与动脉血气压相比,EMMA 和侧流毛细血管通气记录仪的非显著性差异分别约为 0.3 和 0.4 kPa:在这项研究中,直接比较时,EMMA 毛细血管通气记录仪与侧流毛细血管通气记录仪的性能相当,两种毛细血管通气记录仪都能提供临床上可接受的动脉 PCO2 估计值。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Diving and hyperbaric medicine
Diving and hyperbaric medicine 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
22.20%
发文量
37
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Diving and Hyperbaric Medicine (DHM) is the combined journal of the South Pacific Underwater Medicine Society (SPUMS) and the European Underwater and Baromedical Society (EUBS). It seeks to publish papers of high quality on all aspects of diving and hyperbaric medicine of interest to diving medical professionals, physicians of all specialties, scientists, members of the diving and hyperbaric industries, and divers. Manuscripts must be offered exclusively to Diving and Hyperbaric Medicine, unless clearly authenticated copyright exemption accompaniesthe manuscript. All manuscripts will be subject to peer review. Accepted contributions will also be subject to editing.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信