Skip to main content
Cureus logoLink to Cureus
. 2024 Feb 5;16(2):e53661. doi: 10.7759/cureus.53661

Accuracy of Transcutaneous Carbon Dioxide Measurement During Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Under Monitored Anesthesia Care: A Prospective Observational Study

Yuki Okazawa 1,2,, Yuki Kataoka 3,4,5,6, Kazuo Shindo 2
Editors: Alexander Muacevic, John R Adler
PMCID: PMC10917651  PMID: 38455779

Abstract

Background

Transcutaneous carbon dioxide tension (PtcCO2) measurement is a promising alternative to arterial carbon dioxide tension (PaCO2) measurement. PaCO2 measurement is invasive and intermittent, whereas PtcCO2 measurement is non-invasive and continuous. However, previous studies evaluating PtcCO2measurements did not include patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), who experience anticipated hemodynamic changes, particularly before and after valve placement. Therefore, we investigated whether PtcCO2 measurement could provide an alternative to PaCO2 measurement during transfemoral TAVR under monitored anesthesia care (MAC) with local anesthesia.

Methodology

We conducted a prospective observational study. We included all consecutive patients with severe aortic stenosis who were scheduled to undergo a transfemoral TAVR under MAC at our institution from November 1, 2020, to April 30, 2021. During the procedures, PaCO2 and PtcCO2 were concurrently monitored six times as a reference standard and index test, respectively. PtcCO2 was monitored continuously using a non-invasive earlobe sensor. The agreement between PtcCO2 and PaCO2 measurements was assessed using the Bland-Altman method, and the 95% limits of agreement were calculated. Based on previous studies, we determined that 95% limits of agreement of ±6.0 mmHg would be clinically acceptable to define PtcCO2 as an alternative to PaCO2.

Results

We obtained 88 measurement pairs from 15 patients. The lower and upper 95% limits of agreement between the PtcCO2 and PaCO2 measurements were -4.22 mmHg and 6.56 mmHg, respectively.

Conclusions

During TAVR under MAC with local anesthesia, PtcCO2 measurement could not provide a viable alternative to PaCO2 measurement to reduce high PaCO2 events. This study focused on comparing intraoperative periods before and after valve implantation. Therefore, further investigation is warranted to assess the impact of various factors, including the prosthetic valve type and the hemodynamic effects of balloon aortic valvuloplasty, on PtcCO2 measurement in TAVR.

Keywords: non-invasive monitoring, procedural sedation and analgesia, transcatheter aortic valve repair, transcutaneous carbon dioxide tension, monitored anesthesia care (mac)

Introduction

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has become a revolutionary treatment for elderly patients with severe symptomatic aortic valve stenosis [1]. Initially, general anesthesia (GA) was the principal anesthetic technique used during TAVR. However, as clinicians gained experience and devices improved, transfemoral TAVR is increasingly being performed under monitored anesthesia care (MAC) or procedural sedation and analgesia instead of GA [2,3]. Furthermore, registry studies have reported lower 30-day mortality rates with procedural sedation and analgesia than with GA [2,3], and a randomized clinical trial reported that vasopressors or inotropes were used less frequently during conscious sedation than during GA [4].

When TAVR is performed under MAC rather than GA, careful respiratory status monitoring is essential. The risk of hypercapnia and respiratory acidosis is significantly higher for patients undergoing transfemoral TAVR under sedation than it is for those undergoing the procedure under GA [5]. Moreover, respiratory distress, which may arise from factors such as pulmonary congestion due to the supine position, aspiration, or overdose of sedatives, has been attributed as the cause of emergency conversion from sedation to GA during TAVR in 23% of patients [6]. In addition to these respiratory effects, the hemodynamic effects of hypercapnia must also be considered. In a study of healthy young adult male volunteers, an increase in arterial carbon dioxide tension (PaCO2) from 38.7 (0.3) mmHg (mean (standard error)) to 50.2 (0.9) mmHg caused a corresponding increase in left ventricular workload, arterial pressure, and heart rate. This is thought to be due to sympathetic nervous system activation [7]. This sympathetic stimulation may lead to adverse cardiovascular events in patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS). In patients with AS, there is already a state of elevated left ventricular pressure. Thus, hypercapnic respiratory acidosis is a serious potential complication during TAVR under MAC. To prevent respiratory distress, it is necessary to monitor changes in respiratory rate and consciousness level, as well as pay attention to changes in PaCO2.

PaCO2 is measured by arterial blood gas analysis. Other methods to assess PaCO2 include measurement of end-tidal carbon dioxide tension (PetCO2) and transcutaneous carbon dioxide tension (PtcCO2). PetCO2, measured by capnography, is sometimes used to monitor respiratory patterns during sedation. This is useful because the waveform of the capnography can be used to monitor the patient’s respiratory pattern [8]. However, the PetCO2 value itself does not always accurately reflect PaCO2. Several studies have addressed the differences between PaCO2 and PetCO2 measured by capnography [9,10]. The patient’s breathing pattern, such as apnea or hypopnea, affects PetCO2 measurement. This leads to unreliable absolute values of PetCO2. PetCO2 underestimates PaCO2 in spontaneously breathing patients [9,10].

By contrast, PtcCO2 measurement has been reported as a promising alternative to PaCO2 measurement in recent years. PaCO2 measurement offers intermittent data, while PtcCO2 measurement is non-invasive and enables continuous monitoring. PtcCO2 measurement can be performed by attaching a sensor to the skin, and good compatibility with PaCO2 has been reported [11-16]. However, previous studies evaluating PtcCO2 measurements did not include patients undergoing TAVR, who experience anticipated hemodynamic changes, particularly before and after valve placement [17-19].

Therefore, this study investigated whether PtcCO2 measurement could provide an alternative to PaCO2 measurement during transfemoral TAVR under MAC with local anesthesia.

As a side note, we presented this study’s results at the 26th Annual Meeting of the Japanese Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists in Kanazawa, Japan, on October 14, 2021.

Materials and methods

Reporting guidelines and approvals

This study followed the STAndards for Reporting Diagnostic accuracy studies (i.e., STARD) 2015 reporting guidelines [20]. Furthermore, our single-center, prospective, observational study protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Hyogo Prefectural Amagasaki General Medical Center, Hyogo, Japan (#2-135; approved on October 20, 2020). We did not register the protocol on a publicly accessible server, but the protocol was filed with the Institutional Review Board. All participants (or their next of kin) provided written informed consent before entering the study and could withdraw consent at any time.

Participants

This study included all consecutive patients with severe AS who were scheduled for transfemoral TAVR under MAC with local anesthesia at our institution from November 1, 2020, to April 30, 2021.

Patients who preoperatively used vasoactive drugs, required intraoperative conversion to GA, had earlobe skin disorders, or did not provide consent were excluded.

Monitored anesthesia care with local anesthesia strategies

MAC was achieved by continuous dexmedetomidine infusion and an intermittent bolus of propofol (0.1-0.2 mg/kg) or midazolam (0.02 mg/kg). The dexmedetomidine infusion was started at a rate of 1.4 µg/kg/hour for approximately 10 minutes until there was no response to the call and was reduced to 0.7 µg/kg/hour. Analgesia was provided by intermittent intravenous fentanyl (0.5-2 µg/kg), and local anesthesia was administered at the puncture site. The attending anesthesiologists titrated the sedative and analgesic drug doses to induce moderate-to-deep sedation [21] and maintain adequate spontaneous ventilation during the TAVR procedure. Particularly during the placement of the prosthetic valve, the sedation level was adjusted to achieve deep sedation. The choice of sedative and analgesic techniques was at the discretion of the anesthesiologists. Interventionalists applied local anesthesia (1% lidocaine) at the puncture site and adjusted the local anesthesia dosage.

Study protocol and measurements

We monitored PaCO2 as a reference standard and PtcCO2 as an index test. PaCO2 was measured with the ABL800 FLEX® blood gas analyzer (Radiometer, Copenhagen, Denmark) and PtcCO2 was monitored continuously using a non-invasive TCM5® earlobe sensor (Radiometer, Copenhagen, Denmark) heated to 42°C. Automatic calibration using the integrated system in TCM5® was conducted for each patient before device placement. The electrode was attached to the earlobe skin with a clip. To facilitate contact with the electrode, we swabbed the earlobe with alcohol before placing the electrode. We also monitored the patients with a five-lead electrocardiogram and measured oxygen saturation by pulse oximetry, non-invasive blood pressure, invasive arterial blood pressure, and the bispectral index.

We performed six simultaneous PtcCO2 and PaCO2 measurements during the TAVR procedure. It has been reported that PtcCO2 values tend to lag several minutes behind PaCO2 measurements in their response [22]. Therefore, measurements were taken at points where the hemodynamic and respiratory statuses were relatively stable. The PtcCO2 and PaCO2 results were available to the attending anesthesiologists for clinical decision-making. The first (T1), second (T2), and third (T3) measurements were taken before valve implantation and the fourth (T4), fifth (T5), and sixth (T6) measurements were taken after valve implantation. T1 was measured immediately after insertion of the radial arterial catheter; T2 and T3 were measured two and thirty minutes after the first heparin administration, respectively. T4 was measured five minutes after the implantation of the prosthetic valve, T5 was measured two minutes after the first protamine administration, and T6 was measured at the end of surgery.

We also collected baseline data for each participant including age, sex, the Society of Thoracic Surgeons mortality score [23], and the presence of comorbidities. Additionally, we recorded intraoperative data, including anesthesia and procedure times, type of valve used in the procedure, use of sedatives, analgesics, or vasopressors, and their dosages.

Statistical analysis

The patient characteristics and intraoperative data were presented as the mean (standard deviation, SD) or absolute values with percentages, as appropriate.

We analyzed the agreement between the measurements of PtcCO2 and PaCO2 by Bland-Altman analysis and calculated 95% limits of agreement [24]. A study of surgical intensive care unit (ICU) patients established a clinically acceptable range of 7.5 mmHg as clinically acceptable to define the two methods as interchangeable [11]. In addition, other studies comparing the measurements of PtcCO2 and PaCO2 [25,26] were referenced, and we determined that 95% limits of agreement of ±6.0 mmHg would be clinically acceptable to define PtcCO2 as an alternative to PaCO2. Applying a two-sided type 1 error rate of 5% with 80% power, 83 pairs of measurements were calculated to be required to detect 95% limits of agreement with a mean difference of 1.0 mmHg and an SD of 2.0 mmHg [27]. We planned to take six intraoperative measurements per patient. Therefore, 14 patients were required. We decided to monitor 20 patients to allow for possible missing values. All analyses were performed using RStudio Cloud Version 1.4.1718-1 (The R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria).

Post hoc analysis

Recognizing the possibility of fixed and proportional errors between the mean and the difference between the two measurements, we performed a post hoc linear univariate regression analysis using “mean of measures” as the independent variable and “difference of measures” as the dependent variable.

Results

Participant demographics

We included 27 patients from November 1, 2020, to April 30, 2021. Of these, four patients were excluded because they declined to participate. One patient was excluded for a rescheduled surgery, and three patients were excluded because of a shortage of device components. The remaining 19 patients underwent measurements. However, two patients were converted to GA due to the need for transesophageal echocardiography for morphological assessment, two patients had inadequate device settings, and two pairs of results had missing measurements; therefore, they were excluded. Finally, we obtained 88 measurement pairs from 15 patients (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Study flow diagram.

Figure 1

 The baseline participant characteristics are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1. Baseline characteristics of participants who underwent transaortic valve replacement.

Data are presented as the mean (standard deviation) or absolute number (%).

STS = Society of Thoracic Surgeons; eGFR = estimated glomerular filtration rate; TIA = transient ischemic attack; ABI = ankle-brachial index; LVEF = left ventricular ejection fraction; AVA = aortic valve area

Variable Overall (n = 15)
Age (years) 84.73 (5.38)
Female patients 12 (80%)
STS score (%) 5.37 (2.24)
Height (cm) 149.55 (9.93)
Body weight (kg) 55.02 (9.85)
Hypertension 13 (87%)
Diabetes mellitus 4 (27%)
Dyslipidemia 7 (47%)
Atrial fibrillation 3 (20%)
Chronic kidney disease (eGFR < 60) 10 (67%)
Prior stroke/TIA 0 (0%)
Peripheral arterial disease 1 (7%)
Right ABI 1.09 (0.09)
Left ABI 1.08 (0.18)
LVEF (%) 63.87 (9.97)
AVA (cm2) 0.82 (0.28)
Peak pressure gradient (mmHg) 78.93 (21.05)
Mean pressure gradient (mmHg) 46.67 (14.09)

The anesthetic and surgical characteristics are summarized in Table 2.

Table 2. Anesthetic and surgical characteristics of participants who underwent transaortic valve replacement.

Data are presented as the mean (standard deviation) or absolute number (%).

Variable Overall (n = 15)
Anesthesia time (minute) 150 (20.56)
Procedure time (minute) 102.47 (18.22)
Balloon-expandable valve 13 (87%)
Self-expanding valve 2 (13%)
Norepinephrine therapy 1 (7%)
Total dose of norepinephrine (µg/kg) 0.65
Phenylephrine therapy 10 (67%)
Total dose of phenylephrine (µg/kg) 7.18 (7.45)
Ephedrine therapy 4 (27%)
Total ephedrine (mg/kg) 0.13 (0.07)
Nicardipine therapy 9 (60%)
Total nicardipine (µg/kg) 7.51 (5.28)
Dexmedetomidine 15 (100%)
Total dose of dexmedetomidine (µg/kg) 1.52 (0.30)
Propofol 14 (93%)
Total dose of propofol (mg/kg) 0.73 (0.35)
Midazolam 3 (20%)
Total dose of midazolam (mg/kg) 0.02 (0.01)
Fentanyl 15 (100%)
Total dose of fentanyl (µg/kg) 1.63 (0.33)

Primary outcome

Figure 2 presents the PtcCO2 and PaCO2 measurement results. Bland-Altman analysis indicated that the lower and upper 95% limits of agreement between the two measurements were -4.22 mmHg and 6.56 mmHg, respectively.

Figure 2. Bland–Altman plots for each set of pairs.

Figure 2

The plot depicts the arterial carbon dioxide tension (PaCO2) value minus the transcutaneous carbon dioxide tension (PtcCO2) value (Y-axis) against the average of PaCO2 and PtcCO2 (X-axis). The black horizontal lines represent the 95% limits of agreement. The red horizontal line indicates zero.

Before and after transcatheter aortic valve replacement

Figure 3 presents the measurements before and after valve implantation. The lower and upper 95% limits of agreement before valve implantation were -4.10 mmHg and 5.97 mmHg, respectively. The lower and upper 95% limits of agreement after valve implantation were -4.34 mmHg and 7.12 mmHg, respectively.

Figure 3. Bland–Altman plots for each set of pairs before (A) and after (B) transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

Figure 3

The plot depicts the arterial carbon dioxide tension (PaCO2) value minus the transcutaneous carbon dioxide tension (PtcCO2) value (Y-axis) against the average of PaCO2 and PtcCO2 (X-axis). The black horizontal lines represent the 95% limits of agreement. The red horizontal line indicates zero.

Post hoc analysis

Linear univariate regression analysis yielded a slope of 0.226 (p < 0.001), and an intercept of -11.183 (p < 0.001).

Discussion

This study investigated the agreement between PtcCO2 and PaCO2 measurements during TAVR under MAC. We found that the lower 95% limit of agreement between the two measurements was >6 mmHg, which we had originally assumed to be the clinically acceptable margin; the difference was greater after valve implantation than it was before the procedure. We performed a post hoc regression analysis and found fixed and proportional errors.

Our results indicated that during TAVR under MAC with local anesthesia, PtcCO2 measurement could not provide a viable alternative to PaCO2 measurement to reduce high PaCO2 events. Previous studies assessed the agreement between PtcCO2 and PaCO2 in various situations, such as during GA [12], one-lung ventilation [13], deep sedation [14], after cardiac surgery [15], and in the surgical ICU [11]. These studies reported that the 95% limits of agreement between the two methods were within ±6 mmHg. However, these studies did not include patients who experienced rapid changes in their cardiovascular function, which can occur during the TAVR procedure [17-19]. Our results suggested that PtcCO2 measurement may be an unsuitable alternative to PaCO2 measurement during TAVR. Additionally, the post hoc analysis showed positive proportional errors. Therefore, PtcCO2 measurement could serve as an alternative to PaCO2, considering the trend that the higher the average value of PtcCO2 and PaCO2, the greater the difference between the two measurements. Further research is necessary to ascertain whether PtcCO2 can serve as an alternative to PaCO2 by devising a conversion equation between the two measurements.

Theoretically, the underlying mechanism of PtcCO2 instability might be hemodynamic change. Previous studies have shown that PtcCO2 measurements are unreliable in patients with low cardiac output [28] or major cutaneous vasoconstriction, which causes extremities or whole body livedo reticularis [29]. There are two possible hemodynamic changes during the TAVR procedure: hemodynamic changes due to pacing during valve implantation and hemodynamic changes due to the release of aortic valve stenosis after valve implantation.

During TAVR, rapid right ventricular pacing is used to perform balloon aortic valvuloplasty before prosthetic valve implantation [30,31] or to deploy the prosthetic valve in the appropriate position [1]. Rapid right ventricular pacing aims to reduce cardiac output from the left ventricle, and the systolic pressure target is <60 mmHg [31]. In cases of balloon-expandable valves, rapid pacing is essential. Conversely, for self-expanding valves, controlled pacing may be employed, allowing for continuous cardiac output [32]. Accordingly, significant hemodynamic changes occur during TAVR and may lead to differences in PtcCO2 and PaCO2 readings. However, our study did not directly measure the hemodynamic changes occurring during valve implantation. To clarify this mechanism, it is necessary to compare PtcCO2 and PaCO2 during valve implantation when hemodynamic changes are pronounced.

In addition to these hemodynamic changes during valve replacement, peripheral perfusion changes after valve replacement might cause inconsistency between PtcCO2 and PaCO2 measurements. A previous observational study using catheterization hemodynamic analysis reported that the relief of AS by TAVR causes a significant elevation of blood pressure and aortic forward expansion wave power [17]. In addition, pressure waveform analysis in this study revealed a slight increase in the delay of the backward pressure wave. Peripheral vasodilation following TAVR was suggested to have affected this delay [17]. Thus, TAVR may alter peripheral perfusion, which, in turn, may have affected PtcCO2 measurements. However, we did not directly evaluate peripheral perfusion in this study. To understand this mechanism, further research is needed to measure peripheral perfusion by non-invasive methods [33] and investigate TAVR-induced peripheral perfusion changes.

This study had several limitations. First, we did not evaluate the effects of vasoactive drugs on PtcCO2 measurements. However, in critically ill adult patients, the PtcCO2 and PaCO2 measurement biases were not different from patients receiving norepinephrine [11]. Therefore, we suspect that vasoactive drugs did not affect the PtcCO2 measurements. To clarify this point, future research is needed on the effects of vasoactive drugs on peripheral circulation in the earlobe. Second, we did not investigate the effects of sedative or analgesic drug administration timings or respiratory patterns during the procedure. Any change in respiratory status immediately before the PtcCO2 measurement could have affected the absolute numerical value of PtcCO2. It has been reported that PtcCO2 values tend to lag several minutes behind PaCO2 measurements in their response [22]. Thus, PtcCO2 values may not have immediately reflected changes in PaCO2 values associated with changes in respiratory patterns. Considering this influence, we planned to perform the measurements at times when the respiratory status was relatively stable. Third, we did not investigate the influence of various interventions, such as different types of artificial valves or balloon dilation, which can alter hemodynamics, on the timing of PtcCO2 measurements. In addition, we did not assess the variability in post-valve implantation hemodynamic recovery among cases. Future studies should examine how these changes in hemodynamics affect PtcCO2 measurements. Fourth, there were inadequate device settings and missing data. The inadequate device settings include issues such as insufficient adhesion of the sensor, the intrusion of air bubbles between the sensor and the earlobe, and damage to the equipment [14]. However, the required pre-determined sample size was achieved and, thus, these events had a minimal effect on the results.

Conclusions

During TAVR under MAC with local anesthesia, PtcCO2 measurement could not provide a viable alternative to PaCO2 measurement to reduce high PaCO2 events. This study primarily focused on comparing the periods before and after valve implantation during TAVR. However, it is important to recognize that other factors, such as the type of prosthetic valve and the hemodynamic effects of balloon aortic valvuloplasty, can also significantly influence the procedure. Therefore, further investigation with increased sample size is warranted to understand how these different hemodynamic changes might impact PtcCO2 measurement during TAVR.

Acknowledgments

We appreciate the advice and expertise of Dr. Masanao Toma, Director of Cardiology at Hyogo Prefectural Amagasaki General Medical Center.

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Author Contributions

Concept and design:  Yuki Okazawa, Yuki Kataoka, Kazuo Shindo

Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data:  Yuki Okazawa, Yuki Kataoka, Kazuo Shindo

Drafting of the manuscript:  Yuki Okazawa, Yuki Kataoka, Kazuo Shindo

Critical review of the manuscript for important intellectual content:  Yuki Okazawa, Yuki Kataoka, Kazuo Shindo

Supervision:  Yuki Kataoka, Kazuo Shindo

Human Ethics

Consent was obtained or waived by all participants in this study. Institutional Review Board of Hyogo Prefectural Amagasaki General Medical Center, Hyogo, Japan issued approval #2-135

Animal Ethics

Animal subjects: All authors have confirmed that this study did not involve animal subjects or tissue.

References

  • 1.Transcatheter aortic-valve implantation for aortic stenosis in patients who cannot undergo surgery. Leon MB, Smith CR, Mack M, et al. N Engl J Med. 2010;363:1597–1607. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1008232. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Conscious sedation versus general anesthesia in transcatheter aortic valve replacement: the German Aortic Valve Registry. Husser O, Fujita B, Hengstenberg C, et al. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2018;11:567–578. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2017.12.019. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Conscious sedation versus general anesthesia for transcatheter aortic valve replacement: insights from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry. Hyman MC, Vemulapalli S, Szeto WY, et al. Circulation. 2017;136:2132–2140. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.116.026656. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.General versus local anesthesia with conscious sedation in transcatheter aortic valve implantation: the randomized SOLVE-TAVI trial. Thiele H, Kurz T, Feistritzer HJ, et al. Circulation. 2020;142:1437–1447. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.046451. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Comparison of sedation and general anaesthesia for transcatheter aortic valve implantation on cerebral oxygen saturation and neurocognitive outcome†. Mayr NP, Hapfelmeier A, Martin K, et al. Br J Anaesth. 2016;116:90–99. doi: 10.1093/bja/aev294. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Early outcome in patients requiring conversion to general anesthesia during transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Mayr NP, Pellegrini C, Rheude T, et al. Am J Cardiol. 2020;127:99–104. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2020.04.024. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Cardiovascular effects of carbon dioxide in man. Cullen DJ, Eger EI 2nd. Anesthesiology. 1974;41:345–349. doi: 10.1097/00000542-197410000-00006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Capnography for procedural sedation and analgesia in the emergency department. Krauss B, Hess DR. Ann Emerg Med. 2007;50:172–181. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2006.10.016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.An evaluation of a transcutaneous and an end-tidal capnometer for noninvasive monitoring of spontaneously breathing patients. Stein N, Matz H, Schneeweiss A, Eckmann C, Roth-Isigkeit A, Hüppe M, Gehring H. https://rc.rcjournal.com/content/51/10/1162. Respir Care. 2006;51:1162–1166. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Comparison of end-tidal, arterial, venous, and transcutaneous P(CO(2)) Fujimoto S, Suzuki M, Sakamoto K, et al. Respir Care. 2019;64:1208–1214. doi: 10.4187/respcare.06094. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Transcutaneous PCO2 monitoring in critically ill adults: clinical evaluation of a new sensor. Bendjelid K, Schütz N, Stotz M, Gerard I, Suter PM, Romand JA. Crit Care Med. 2005;33:2203–2206. doi: 10.1097/01.ccm.0000181734.26070.26. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Clinical investigation of a new combined pulse oximetry and carbon dioxide tension sensor in adult anaesthesia. Rohling R, Biro P. J Clin Monit Comput. 1999;15:23–27. doi: 10.1023/a:1009950425204. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.A comparative evaluation of transcutaneous and end-tidal measurements of CO2 in thoracic anesthesia. Oshibuchi M, Cho S, Hara T, Tomiyasu S, Makita T, Sumikawa K. Anesth Analg. 2003;97:776–779. doi: 10.1213/01.ANE.0000074793.12070.1E. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Detection of hypoventilation during deep sedation in patients undergoing ambulatory gynaecological hysteroscopy: a comparison between transcutaneous and nasal end-tidal carbon dioxide measurements. De Oliveira GS Jr, Ahmad S, Fitzgerald PC, McCarthy RJ. Br J Anaesth. 2010;104:774–778. doi: 10.1093/bja/aeq092. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.The revised digital transcutaneous PCO2/SpO2 ear sensor is a reliable noninvasive monitoring tool in patients after cardiac surgery. Roediger R, Beck-Schimmer B, Theusinger OM, et al. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2011;25:243–249. doi: 10.1053/j.jvca.2010.06.021. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Transcutaneous carbon dioxide monitoring accurately predicts arterial carbon dioxide partial pressure in patients undergoing prolonged laparoscopic surgery. Xue Q, Wu X, Jin J, Yu B, Zheng M. Anesth Analg. 2010;111:417–420. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0b013e3181e30b54. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Acute effects of transcatheter aortic valve replacement on central aortic hemodynamics in patients with severe aortic stenosis. Michail M, Hughes AD, Comella A, et al. Hypertension. 2020;75:1557–1564. doi: 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.119.14385. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Systemic vascular load in calcific degenerative aortic valve stenosis: insight from percutaneous valve replacement. Yotti R, Bermejo J, Gutiérrez-Ibañes E, et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015;65:423–433. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2014.10.067. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Intraoperative cerebral perfusion disturbances during transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Fanning JP, Walters DL, Wesley AJ, et al. Ann Thorac Surg. 2017;104:1564–1568. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2017.04.053. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.STARD 2015: an updated list of essential items for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies. Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, et al. BMJ. 2015;351:0. doi: 10.1136/bmj.h5527. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Practice guidelines for moderate procedural sedation and analgesia 2018: a report by the American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Moderate Procedural Sedation and Analgesia, the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons, American College of Radiology, American Dental Association, American Society of Dentist Anesthesiologists, and Society of Interventional Radiology. Anesthesiology. 2018;128:437–479. doi: 10.1097/ALN.0000000000002043. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Combining transcutaneous blood gas measurement and pulse oximetry. Eberhard P, Gisiger PA, Gardaz JP, Spahn DR. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11900043/ Anesth Analg. 2002;94:0–80. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.The Society of Thoracic Surgeons 2008 cardiac surgery risk models: part 2--isolated valve surgery. O'Brien SM, Shahian DM, Filardo G, et al. Ann Thorac Surg. 2009;88:0–42. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2009.05.056. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Bland JM, Altman DG. Lancet. 1986;1:307–310. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Monitoring carbon dioxide tension and arterial oxygen saturation by a single earlobe sensor in patients with critical illness or sleep apnea. Senn O, Clarenbach CF, Kaplan V, Maggiorini M, Bloch KE. Chest. 2005;128:1291–1296. doi: 10.1378/chest.128.3.1291. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Transcutaneous PCO2 monitors are more accurate than end-tidal PCO2 monitors. Hirabayashi M, Fujiwara C, Ohtani N, Kagawa S, Kamide M. J Anesth. 2009;23:198–202. doi: 10.1007/s00540-008-0734-z. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Sample size for assessing agreement between two methods of measurement by Bland-Altman method. Lu MJ, Zhong WH, Liu YX, Miao HZ, Li YC, Ji MH. Int J Biostat. 2016;12:1–8. doi: 10.1515/ijb-2015-0039. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Transcutaneous PCO2 monitoring on adult patients in the ICU and the operating room. Tremper KK, Shoemaker WC, Shippy CR, Nolan LS. Crit Care Med. 1981;9:752–755. doi: 10.1097/00003246-198110000-00017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Transcutaneous arterial carbon dioxide pressure monitoring in critically ill adult patients. Rodriguez P, Lellouche F, Aboab J, Buisson CB, Brochard L. Intensive Care Med. 2006;32:309–312. doi: 10.1007/s00134-005-0006-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Treatment of symptomatic severe aortic stenosis with a novel resheathable supra-annular self-expanding transcatheter aortic valve system. Manoharan G, Walton AS, Brecker SJ, Pasupati S, Blackman DJ, Qiao H, Meredith IT. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2015;8:1359–1367. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2015.05.015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Transcatheter aortic valve replacement using a self-expanding bioprosthesis in patients with severe aortic stenosis at extreme risk for surgery. Popma JJ, Adams DH, Reardon MJ, et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;63:1972–1981. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2014.02.556. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Best practices in left ventricular pacing for transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Blusztein D, Raney A, Walsh J, Nazif T, Woods C, Daniels D. Struct Heart. 2023;7:100213. doi: 10.1016/j.shj.2023.100213. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Noninvasive monitoring of peripheral perfusion. Lima A, Bakker J. Intensive Care Med. 2005;31:1316–1326. doi: 10.1007/s00134-005-2790-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Cureus are provided here courtesy of Cureus Inc.

RESOURCES