Comparison of central venous minus arterial carbon dioxide pressure to arterial minus central venous oxygen content ratio and lactate levels as predictors of mortality in critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Arnaldo Dubin, Cecilia Inés Loudet, Francisco Javier Hurtado, Mario Omar Pozo, Daniel Comande, Luz Gibbons, Federico Rodriguez Cairoli, Ariel Bardach
{"title":"Comparison of central venous minus arterial carbon dioxide pressure to arterial minus central venous oxygen content ratio and lactate levels as predictors of mortality in critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Arnaldo Dubin, Cecilia Inés Loudet, Francisco Javier Hurtado, Mario Omar Pozo, Daniel Comande, Luz Gibbons, Federico Rodriguez Cairoli, Ariel Bardach","doi":"10.5935/0103-507X.20220026-pt","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The central venousarterial carbon dioxide pressure to arterial-central venous oxygen content ratio (Pcv-aCO2/Ca-cvO2) is frequently used as a surrogate for tissue oxygenation. We aimed to identify and synthesize literature and quality of evidence supporting Pcv-aCO2/Ca-cvO2 as a predictor of mortality in critically ill patients compared with lactate.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched several databases for studies measuring Pcv-aCO2/Ca-cvO2 in critically ill patients. Independent investigators performed the article screening and data extraction. A random-effects metaanalysis was performed. Pooled standardized mean differences (SMD) were used to compare the prognostic ability of Pcv-aCO2/Ca-cvO2 and lactate.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We initially retrieved 172 studies; 17 were included for qualitative description, and 10 were included for quantitative synthesis. The mean Pcv-aCO2/Ca-cvO2 was higher in nonsurvivors than in survivors (pooled SMD = 0.75; 95%CI 0.34 - 1.17; I2 = 83%), as was the case with lactate levels (pooled SMD = 0.94; 95%CI 0.34 - 1.54; I2 = 92%). Both tests were statistically significant predictors of mortality, albeit with overlapping 95%CIs between them.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Moderate-quality evidence showed little or no difference in the ability of Pcv-aCO2/Ca-cvO2, compared with lactate, to predict mortality. Nevertheless, our conclusions are limited by the considerable heterogeneity among the studies.PROSPERO registration: CRD42019130387.</p>","PeriodicalId":53519,"journal":{"name":"Revista Brasileira de Terapia Intensiva","volume":"34 2","pages":"279-286"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9354115/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista Brasileira de Terapia Intensiva","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5935/0103-507X.20220026-pt","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: The central venousarterial carbon dioxide pressure to arterial-central venous oxygen content ratio (Pcv-aCO2/Ca-cvO2) is frequently used as a surrogate for tissue oxygenation. We aimed to identify and synthesize literature and quality of evidence supporting Pcv-aCO2/Ca-cvO2 as a predictor of mortality in critically ill patients compared with lactate.

Methods: We searched several databases for studies measuring Pcv-aCO2/Ca-cvO2 in critically ill patients. Independent investigators performed the article screening and data extraction. A random-effects metaanalysis was performed. Pooled standardized mean differences (SMD) were used to compare the prognostic ability of Pcv-aCO2/Ca-cvO2 and lactate.

Results: We initially retrieved 172 studies; 17 were included for qualitative description, and 10 were included for quantitative synthesis. The mean Pcv-aCO2/Ca-cvO2 was higher in nonsurvivors than in survivors (pooled SMD = 0.75; 95%CI 0.34 - 1.17; I2 = 83%), as was the case with lactate levels (pooled SMD = 0.94; 95%CI 0.34 - 1.54; I2 = 92%). Both tests were statistically significant predictors of mortality, albeit with overlapping 95%CIs between them.

Conclusion: Moderate-quality evidence showed little or no difference in the ability of Pcv-aCO2/Ca-cvO2, compared with lactate, to predict mortality. Nevertheless, our conclusions are limited by the considerable heterogeneity among the studies.PROSPERO registration: CRD42019130387.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
比较中心静脉负动脉二氧化碳压力与动脉负中心静脉含氧量比值和乳酸水平作为预测重症患者死亡率的指标:系统综述和荟萃分析。
目的:中心静脉动脉二氧化碳压力与动脉中心静脉血氧含量比值(Pcv-aCO2/Ca-cvO2)经常被用作组织氧合的替代指标。与乳酸相比,Pcv-aCO2/Ca-cvO2 可预测重症患者的死亡率:我们在多个数据库中检索了测量重症患者 Pcv-aCO2/Ca-cvO2 的研究。独立研究人员进行了文章筛选和数据提取。我们进行了随机效应荟萃分析。汇总标准化均值差异(SMD)用于比较 Pcv-aCO2/Ca-cvO2 和乳酸的预后能力:我们最初检索了 172 项研究,其中 17 项用于定性描述,10 项用于定量综合。非幸存者的 Pcv-aCO2/Ca-cvO2 平均值高于幸存者(汇总 SMD = 0.75;95%CI 0.34 - 1.17;I2 = 83%),乳酸盐水平也是如此(汇总 SMD = 0.94;95%CI 0.34 - 1.54;I2 = 92%)。这两项检测对预测死亡率均有统计学意义,尽管它们之间的 95%CIs 有所重叠:中等质量的证据显示,与乳酸相比,Pcv-aCO2/Ca-cvO2 预测死亡率的能力几乎没有差异。尽管如此,我们的结论还是受到了研究间相当大的异质性的限制:CRD42019130387。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Revista Brasileira de Terapia Intensiva
Revista Brasileira de Terapia Intensiva Medicine-Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine
自引率
0.00%
发文量
114
审稿时长
15 weeks
期刊最新文献
Patient-level costs of central line-associated bloodstream infections caused by multidrug-resistant microorganisms in a public intensive care unit in Brazil: a retrospective cohort study Critical COVID-19 and neurological dysfunction - a direct comparative analysis between SARS-CoV-2 and other infectious pathogens. Reply to: Epistaxis as a complication of high-flow nasal cannula therapy in adults. Robust, maintainable, emergency invasive mechanical ventilator. Erratum.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1