Skip Navigation


BJA Advance Access originally published online on April 30, 2007
British Journal of Anaesthesia 2007 98(6):828-834; doi:10.1093/bja/aem090
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
98/6/828    most recent
aem090v1
Right arrow E-Letters: Submit a response to the article
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Tang, Y.
Right arrow Articles by Baker, A. B.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Tang, Y.
Right arrow Articles by Baker, A. B.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?


© The Board of Management and Trustees of the British Journal of Anaesthesia 2007. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Systematic errors and susceptibility to noise of four methods for calculating anatomical dead space from the CO2 expirogram

Y. Tang*, M. J. Turner and A. B. Baker

Department of Anaesthetics, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, University of Sydney, NSW 2050, Sydney, Australia

* Corresponding author: Department of Anaesthetics, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, University of Sydney, Building 89 Level 4, Missenden Rd, Camperdown, NSW 2050, Australia. E-mail: ytan7763{at}usyd.edu.au

Background: Anatomical dead space is usually measured using the Fowler equal area method. Alternative methods include the Hatch, Cumming, and Bowes methods, in which first, second, and third order polynomials, respectively, fitted to an expired CO2 volume vs expired volume curve, intercept the x-axis at the anatomical dead space. This study assessed systematic errors and susceptibility to noise of the Fowler, Hatch, Cumming, and Bowes dead spaces calculated over 40–80% of the CO2 expirogram.

Methods: Simulated CO2 expirograms with 220 ml anatomical dead space and varying alveolar plateau slopes were generated digitally and zero-mean Gaussian noise added. CO2 expirograms were recorded in 10 anaesthetized human subjects. Anatomical dead space was calculated by the Fowler, Hatch, Cumming, and Bowes methods.

Results: The Fowler, Hatch, Cumming, and Bowes methods displayed systematic biases of –1.8%, 13.2%, 2.4%, and –1.3%, respectively, at a normalized simulated alveolar plateau slope of 1.6 litre–1. At a noise level of 0.0066 vol/vol, the standard deviations of recovered simulated dead spaces were 70.6, 1.8, 2.4, and 3.7 ml, respectively. The Hatch, Cumming, and Bowes methods applied to human expirograms differed significantly from that of Fowler by 13, –4, and –11 ml, respectively. In the human study, the Hatch and Cumming methods yielded the lowest intra-individual dead space variability.

Conclusions: The Fowler method shows greatest susceptibility to measurement noise and the Hatch method exhibits the largest systematic error. The Cumming method, which exhibits both low bias and low noise susceptibility, is preferred for estimating anatomical dead space from CO2 expirograms.

Keywords: airway, dead space; carbon dioxide, measurement; lung, dead space


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.