Why the study?
The efficacy of continuous venous oximetry to supplement traditional hemodynamic monitoring in critically ill surgical patients was evaluated.
Does continuous venous oximetry accurately reflect intermittent in vitro SvO2 and overall oxygen balance in critically ill surgical patients?
Population
39 critically ill surgical patients
Comparison
Continuous in vivo SvO2 measurement vs intermittent in vitro SvO2 measurement
Design
Prospective observational study
Key result
Continuous venous oximetry reliably predicted intermittently measured in vitro SvO2 (0.694 vs 0.698) and correlated highly with the oxygen utilization coefficient (r = -0.96, p<0.001).
Authors
Loading...
Supports continuous venous oximetry as SvO2 surrogate in critically ill surgical patients; leaves open whether adoption improves outcomes.
Observational (n=39)
Does continuous venous oximetry accurately reflect intermittent in vitro SvO2 and overall oxygen balance in critically ill surgical patients?
Absolute Event Rate: 0.694% vs 0.698%
Continuous venous oximetry is a reliable predictor of intermittent in vitro SvO2 and reflects the overall balance between oxygen consumption and delivery in critically ill surgical patients.
Loren D. Nelson (1986) conducted an observational in critically ill surgical patients (n=39). Continuous venous oximetry vs. In vitro methods (intermittent SvO2 measurement) was evaluated on Difference in SvO2 between continuous in vivo values and in vitro values. Continuous venous oximetry reliably predicted intermittently measured in vitro SvO2 (0.694 vs 0.698) and correlated highly with the oxygen utilization coefficient (r = -0.96, p<0.001).