Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Waveform capnography in neonatal intensive care: is it unreliable?
  1. Theodore Dassios1,2,
  2. Emma E Williams2,
  3. Anne Greenough2,3
  1. 1 Neonatal Intensive Care Unit, King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, London, UK
  2. 2 Department of Women and Children's Health, School of Life Sciences, Faculty of Life Science and Medicine, King's College London, London, UK
  3. 3 Asthma UK Centre in Allergic Mechanisms of Asthma, King's College London, London, London, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Theodore Dassios, Neonatal Intensive Care Unit, King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London SE5 9RS, UK; theodore.dassios{at}

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

We read with interest the study by Scrivens et al,1 which evaluated the evidence on the applicability of waveform capnography in neonatal intensive care. While in principle we agree that currently there is insufficient evidence to support the routine application of tidal capnography in clinical practice, we would like to describe some more recent developments that could inform future clinical practice and research.

The authors highlight that end-tidal carbon dioxide (ET-CO2) values under-read the true arterial CO2 and that agreement between arterial and ET-CO2 decreases with increasing severity of lung disease, suggesting a decreased reliability of the method in those babies who require the closest monitoring. The ET-CO2 value, …

View Full Text


  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests SLE Ltd, South Croydon, UK, provided the microstream capnographs but were not involved in the design or analysis of the study.

  • Patient consent for publication Not required.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.