We have located links that may give you full text access.
Comparative Study
Journal Article
The accuracy of the central venous blood gas for acid-base monitoring.
Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 2010 March
BACKGROUND: Routine use of central venous blood gases (VBGs) may reduce complications from prolonged arterial cannulation. We investigated the reliability of the VBG as a substitute for arterial blood gas (ABG) in multiple care settings.
METHODS: We developed a VBG adjustment rule of ABG pH = VBG pH + 0.05, ABG CO(2) = VBG PCO(2) -5 mm Hg from prior studies and validated this relationship with simultaneous venous and arterial blood obtained from 187 medical/surgical intensive care, cardiac catheterization laboratory, and coronary care unit patients with central venous access.
RESULTS: The overall accuracy of a normal adjusted VBG (aVBG) to predict a normal ABG was 90%. After adjustment, the mean systematic difference (bias) between ABG and VBG pH decreased from 0.035 +/- 0.02 to -0.015 +/- 0.02 and PCO(2) bias decreased from -4.5 +/- 3.5 to 0.5 +/- 3.5. Intraclass correlation coefficients for agreement improved after applying the adjustment rule to venous pH (from 0.84 to 0.93, P < .001) and PCO(2) (from 0.66 to 0.84, P < .001). Overall diagnostic accuracy of VBG improved from 45% to 74% after adjustment. Multiple logistic regression demonstrated that the factor independently associated with discrepancy between VBG and ABG diagnoses was an abnormal aVBG (OR 6.8, 95% CI 2.8-16.5).
CONCLUSIONS: Because of the high agreement between a normal aVBG with a normal ABG and the small bias between these tests, we recommend use of the adjusted central VBG.
METHODS: We developed a VBG adjustment rule of ABG pH = VBG pH + 0.05, ABG CO(2) = VBG PCO(2) -5 mm Hg from prior studies and validated this relationship with simultaneous venous and arterial blood obtained from 187 medical/surgical intensive care, cardiac catheterization laboratory, and coronary care unit patients with central venous access.
RESULTS: The overall accuracy of a normal adjusted VBG (aVBG) to predict a normal ABG was 90%. After adjustment, the mean systematic difference (bias) between ABG and VBG pH decreased from 0.035 +/- 0.02 to -0.015 +/- 0.02 and PCO(2) bias decreased from -4.5 +/- 3.5 to 0.5 +/- 3.5. Intraclass correlation coefficients for agreement improved after applying the adjustment rule to venous pH (from 0.84 to 0.93, P < .001) and PCO(2) (from 0.66 to 0.84, P < .001). Overall diagnostic accuracy of VBG improved from 45% to 74% after adjustment. Multiple logistic regression demonstrated that the factor independently associated with discrepancy between VBG and ABG diagnoses was an abnormal aVBG (OR 6.8, 95% CI 2.8-16.5).
CONCLUSIONS: Because of the high agreement between a normal aVBG with a normal ABG and the small bias between these tests, we recommend use of the adjusted central VBG.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app