|
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Original articles |
1 Royal Children's Hospital, Australia
2 Newborn Emergency Transport Service (Victoria), Australia
3 Royal Women's Hospital, Australia
* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: david.tingay{at}rch.org.au.
Accepted 22 April 2005
| Abstract |
|---|
Objective:To assess the accuracy of end-tidal carbon dioxide during neonatal transport compared with arterial and transcutaneous measurements.
Design:Paired end-tidal and transcutaneous carbon dioxide recordings were measured frequently during road transport of 21 ventilated neonates . The first paired carbon dioxide (CO2) values were compared with an arterial blood gas. The differences between arterial CO2 (PaCO2), transcutaneous CO2 (PtcCO2) and end-tidal CO2 (PetCO2) (P(a- Tc)CO2, P(a-Et) CO2 and P(Tc-Et) CO2) were analysed. The Bland-Altman method was used to assess bias and repeatability.
Results:PetCO2 correlated strongly with PaCO2 and PtcCO2. However PetCO2 underestimated PaCO2 at a clinically unacceptable level (mean - 1.1 kPa [SD 0.70]) and did not trend reliably over time within individual subjects. The PetCO2 bias was independent of the PaCO2 and severity of lung disease. Conclusions: End-tidal CO2 had an unacceptable underrecording bias. Transcutaneous CO2 should, currently, be considered the preferred method of non-invasive CO2 monitoring for neonatal transport.
Keywords: Carbon dioxide, infant, newborn, mechanical ventilation, patient monitoring, patient transport
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
E J Molloy and K Deakins Are carbon dioxide detectors useful in neonates? Arch. Dis. Child. Fetal Neonatal Ed., July 1, 2006; 91(4): F295 - F298. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | REGISTER |
| ARCH DIS CHILD | FETAL NEONATAL ED | ED PRACTICE |