↓ Skip to main content

Estimating Arterial Partial Pressure of Carbon Dioxide in Ventilated Patients: How Valid Are Surrogate Measures?

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of the American Thoracic Society, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
19 X users
patent
4 patents
facebook
2 Facebook pages
guideline
1 clinical guideline source

Readers on

mendeley
93 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Estimating Arterial Partial Pressure of Carbon Dioxide in Ventilated Patients: How Valid Are Surrogate Measures?
Published in
Annals of the American Thoracic Society, June 2017
DOI 10.1513/annalsats.201701-034fr
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

The arterial partial pressure of carbon dioxide (PaCO2) is an important parameter in critically ill, mechanically ventilated patients. To limit invasive procedures or for more continuous monitoring of PaCO2, clinicians often rely on venous blood gases, capnography, or transcutaneous monitoring. Each of these has advantages and limitations. Central venous Pco2 allows accurate estimation of PaCO2, differing from it by an amount described by the Fick principle. As long as cardiac output is relatively normal, central venous Pco2 exceeds the arterial value by approximately 4 mm Hg. In contrast, peripheral venous Pco2 is a poor predictor of PaCO2, and we do not recommend using peripheral venous Pco2 in this manner. Capnography offers measurement of the end-tidal Pco2 (PetCO2), a value that is close to PaCO2 when the lung is healthy. It has the advantage of being noninvasive and continuously available. In mechanically ventilated patients with lung disease, however, PetCO2 often differs from PaCO2, sometimes by a large degree, often seriously underestimating the arterial value. Dependence of PetCO2 on alveolar dead space and ventilator expiratory time limits its value to predict PaCO2. When lung function or ventilator settings change, PetCO2 and PaCO2 can vary in different directions, producing further uncertainty. Transcutaneous Pco2 measurement has become practical and reliable. It is promising for judging steady state values for PaCO2 unless there is overt vasoconstriction of the skin. Moreover, it can be useful in conditions where capnography fails (high-frequency ventilation) or where arterial blood gas analysis is burdensome (clinic or home management of mechanical ventilation).

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 19 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 93 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 93 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 13%
Student > Master 10 11%
Other 7 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 5%
Other 16 17%
Unknown 36 39%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 31 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 9%
Engineering 8 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Chemical Engineering 1 1%
Other 4 4%
Unknown 39 42%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 May 2026.
All research outputs
#2,434,746
of 34,457,357 outputs
Outputs from Annals of the American Thoracic Society
#578
of 3,747 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#34,824
of 364,908 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of the American Thoracic Society
#23
of 105 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,457,357 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,747 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 364,908 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 105 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.