Jan J. van Wijk M.D. , Norani H. Gangaram-Panday M.D. , Willem van Weteringen M.D. , Bas Pullens M.D., Ph.D , Simone E. Bernard M.D. , Sanne E. Hoeks Ph.D , Irwin K.M. Reiss M.D., Ph.D , Robert J. Stolker M.D., Ph.D , Lonneke M. Staals M.D., Ph.D
{"title":"The clinical application of transcutaneous carbon dioxide monitoring during rigid bronchoscopy or microlaryngeal surgery in children","authors":"Jan J. van Wijk M.D. , Norani H. Gangaram-Panday M.D. , Willem van Weteringen M.D. , Bas Pullens M.D., Ph.D , Simone E. Bernard M.D. , Sanne E. Hoeks Ph.D , Irwin K.M. Reiss M.D., Ph.D , Robert J. Stolker M.D., Ph.D , Lonneke M. Staals M.D., Ph.D","doi":"10.1016/j.jclinane.2024.111692","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Study objective</h3><div>During rigid bronchoscopies and microlaryngeal surgery (MLS) in children, there is currently no reliable method for managing ventilation strategies based on carbon dioxide (CO<sub>2</sub>) levels. This study aimed to investigate the effects of the clinical implementation of transcutaneous CO<sub>2</sub> (tcPCO<sub>2</sub>) monitoring during rigid bronchoscopies or MLS.</div></div><div><h3>Design</h3><div>Prospective observational study.</div></div><div><h3>Setting</h3><div>Operating theatre of a tertiary pediatric hospital, from January 2019 to March 2021.</div></div><div><h3>Patients</h3><div>Children with an age < 18 years, undergoing rigid bronchoscopy or MLS, were eligible for inclusion. Children with tracheostomy and/or skin conditions limiting tcPCO<sub>2</sub> monitoring were excluded.</div></div><div><h3>Interventions</h3><div>TcPCO<sub>2</sub> monitoring was performed in two groups; blinded before clinical implementation (control group) and visible for ventilation management after clinical implementation (tcPCO<sub>2</sub> group).</div></div><div><h3>Measurements</h3><div>The total tcPCO<sub>2</sub> load outside of the normal range (35–48 mm Hg) was calculated as the area under the curve (AUC) and compared between the groups. Anesthesiologists in the tcPCO<sub>2</sub> group received a questionnaire after each procedure.</div></div><div><h3>Main results</h3><div>A total of 120 patients were included. No significant differences were found between the two groups in the AUC during the procedure (19,202 (7,863–44,944) vs 17,737 (9,800–47,566) mm Hg · s, <em>P</em> = 0.84) or between different ventilation strategies. The maximal tcPCO<sub>2</sub> level was 69.2 (62.1–81.2) mm Hg in the control group and 71.1 (62.8–80.8) mm Hg, (<em>P</em> = 0.85) in the tcPCO<sub>2</sub> group. Spontaneous breathing was associated with lower tcPCO<sub>2</sub> levels. The general satisfaction score of tcPCO<sub>2</sub> monitoring rated by the anesthesiologist was 8.19 (0.96).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>TcPCO<sub>2</sub> levels reached approximately twice the upper limit of the normal range during rigid bronchoscopy and MLS. Availability of tcPCO<sub>2</sub> monitoring did not affect these high levels, despite adjustments in strategy. However, tcPCO<sub>2</sub> monitoring provides valuable insight in CO<sub>2</sub> load and applied ventilation strategies.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":15506,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Anesthesia","volume":"100 ","pages":"Article 111692"},"PeriodicalIF":5.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Anesthesia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0952818024003210","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Study objective
During rigid bronchoscopies and microlaryngeal surgery (MLS) in children, there is currently no reliable method for managing ventilation strategies based on carbon dioxide (CO2) levels. This study aimed to investigate the effects of the clinical implementation of transcutaneous CO2 (tcPCO2) monitoring during rigid bronchoscopies or MLS.
Design
Prospective observational study.
Setting
Operating theatre of a tertiary pediatric hospital, from January 2019 to March 2021.
Patients
Children with an age < 18 years, undergoing rigid bronchoscopy or MLS, were eligible for inclusion. Children with tracheostomy and/or skin conditions limiting tcPCO2 monitoring were excluded.
Interventions
TcPCO2 monitoring was performed in two groups; blinded before clinical implementation (control group) and visible for ventilation management after clinical implementation (tcPCO2 group).
Measurements
The total tcPCO2 load outside of the normal range (35–48 mm Hg) was calculated as the area under the curve (AUC) and compared between the groups. Anesthesiologists in the tcPCO2 group received a questionnaire after each procedure.
Main results
A total of 120 patients were included. No significant differences were found between the two groups in the AUC during the procedure (19,202 (7,863–44,944) vs 17,737 (9,800–47,566) mm Hg · s, P = 0.84) or between different ventilation strategies. The maximal tcPCO2 level was 69.2 (62.1–81.2) mm Hg in the control group and 71.1 (62.8–80.8) mm Hg, (P = 0.85) in the tcPCO2 group. Spontaneous breathing was associated with lower tcPCO2 levels. The general satisfaction score of tcPCO2 monitoring rated by the anesthesiologist was 8.19 (0.96).
Conclusions
TcPCO2 levels reached approximately twice the upper limit of the normal range during rigid bronchoscopy and MLS. Availability of tcPCO2 monitoring did not affect these high levels, despite adjustments in strategy. However, tcPCO2 monitoring provides valuable insight in CO2 load and applied ventilation strategies.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Clinical Anesthesia (JCA) addresses all aspects of anesthesia practice, including anesthetic administration, pharmacokinetics, preoperative and postoperative considerations, coexisting disease and other complicating factors, cost issues, and similar concerns anesthesiologists contend with daily. Exceptionally high standards of presentation and accuracy are maintained.
The core of the journal is original contributions on subjects relevant to clinical practice, and rigorously peer-reviewed. Highly respected international experts have joined together to form the Editorial Board, sharing their years of experience and clinical expertise. Specialized section editors cover the various subspecialties within the field. To keep your practical clinical skills current, the journal bridges the gap between the laboratory and the clinical practice of anesthesiology and critical care to clarify how new insights can improve daily practice.