COMPARISON OF END-TIDAL PCO(2) AND AVERAGE ALVEOLAR EXPIRED PCO(2) DURING POSITIVE END-EXPIRATORY PRESSURE

Citation
Ph. Breen et al., COMPARISON OF END-TIDAL PCO(2) AND AVERAGE ALVEOLAR EXPIRED PCO(2) DURING POSITIVE END-EXPIRATORY PRESSURE, Anesthesia and analgesia, 82(2), 1996, pp. 368-373
Citations number
20
Categorie Soggetti
Anesthesiology
Journal title
ISSN journal
00032999
Volume
82
Issue
2
Year of publication
1996
Pages
368 - 373
Database
ISI
SICI code
0003-2999(1996)82:2<368:COEPAA>2.0.ZU;2-D
Abstract
The measurement of average alveolar expired Pco(2) (PAECO(2)) weights each Pco(2) value on the alveolar plateau of the CO2 expirogram by the simultaneous change in exhaled volume. PAECO(2) can be determined fro m a modified analysis of the Fowler anatomic dead space (VDANAT). In c ontrast, end-tidal PCO2 (PETCO(2)) only measures PCO2 in the last smal l volume of exhalate. In conditions such as mechanical ventilation wit h positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP), where the alveolar plateau can have a significant positive slope, we questioned how much PETCO(2) could overestimate PAECO(2). Accordingly, in six anesthetized ventila ted dogs, we digitally measured and processed tidal PCO2 and flow to d etermine VDANAT. We determined PETCO(2) and PAECO(2) before and after the application of 7.6 cm H2O PEEP. Alveolar dead space to tidal volum e fraction (VD/VT) was determined by [arterial Pco,alveolar PCO2]/arte rial PCO2, where alveolar PCO2 was determined by either PETCO(2) or PA ECO(2). During baseline ventilation, PETCO(2) was 3.4 mm Hg (approxima tely 11%) greater than PaECO(2). Because PEEP significantly increased the slope of the alveolar plateau from 28 to 74 mm Hg/L, the differenc e between PETCO(2) and PAECO(2) significantly increased to 6.6 mm Hg ( approximately 20% difference). THe concurrent increase in VDANAT durin g PEEP decreased alveolar tidal volume and tended to limit the overest imation of PETCO(2) compared to PAECO(2). When alveolar PCO2 was estim ated by PETCO(2), alveolar VD/VT was 18%, compared to an alveolar VD/V T of 26% when alveolar PCO2 was estimated by PAECO(2). This difference was significantly magnified during PEEP ventilation. The overestimati on of PAECO(2) by PETCO(2) can result in a falsely high assessment of overall alveolar PCO2. Moreover, the use of PAECO(2) to estimate alveo lar PCO2 in the determination of the alveolar dead space fraction can result in falsely low and even negative values of alveolar dead space.