Central venous oxygenation: when physiology explains apparent discrepancies
- 6.6k Downloads
Central venous oxygen saturation (ScvO2) >70% or mixed venous oxygen saturation (SvO2) >65% is recommended for both septic and non-septic patients. Although it is the task of experts to suggest clear and simple guidelines, there is a risk of reducing critical care to these simple recommendations. This article reviews the basic physiological and pathological features as well as the metrological issues that provide clear evidence that SvO2 and ScvO2 are adaptative variables with large inter-patient variability. This variability is exemplified in a modeled population of 1,000 standard ICU patients and in a real population of 100 patients including 15,860 measurements. In these populations, it can be seen how optimizing one to three of the four S(c)vO2 components homogenized the patients and yields a clear dependency with the fourth one. This explains the discordant results observed in large studies where cardiac output was increased up to predetermined S(c)vO2 thresholds following arterial oxygen hemoglobin saturation, total body oxygen consumption needs and hemoglobin optimization. Although a systematic S(c)vO2 goal-oriented protocol can be statistically profitable before ICU admission, appropriate intensive care mandates determination of the best compromise between S(c)vO2 and its four components, taking into account the specific constraints of each individual patient.
KeywordsCardiac Output Survive Sepsis Campaign Lactate Clearance Venous Blood Flow Mixed Venous Oxygen Saturation
Arterial oxygen hemoglobin saturation
Central venous oxygen saturation
Mixed venous oxygen saturation
Total body oxygen consumption
A recent review of the literature concluded that `central venous oxygen saturation (ScvO2) is a very important measurement, which can be easily taken in a critical care environment by both medical and nursing staff. It provides an understanding of the patient's oxygen delivery, oxygen consumption and cardiac output. It has a key role within early goal-directed Cdecrease mortality when taken and analyzed appropriately' . Indeed, ScvO2 > 70% or mixed venous oxygen saturation (SvO2) >65% is recommended for both septic and non-septic patients -.
There is no debate that a major task of experts is to determine clear and simple rules for the early treatment of life-threatening disorders. As a consequence of the worldwide promotion of these recommendations, however, there is a risk of reducing intensive care to these simple protocols. The objective of this review is to highlight the basic physiological and pathological features as well as the metrological issues that provide clear evidence that, in reality, and for each specific patient, SvO2 and ScvO2 are complex dynamic variables that may not always provide an appropriate cutoff for all clinical settings -. This may explain that targeting unique S(c)vO2 thresholds may balance positive and negative effects and may produce hazardous results in large studies.
The fundamental equilibrium
where eSvO2 is the expected SvO2 to maintain the equilibrium.
Any change in metabolic needs triggers active neuro-hormonal regulation to enable the actual VO2 to equalize to the VO2 needs as soon as possible. Under basal metabolic conditions, VO2 needs depend mostly on age, gender, height and weight -. In the resting state, physiological changes in the basal metabolism are mostly due to digestion and body temperature. A normal meal usually increases the metabolic rate by 4 to 10% and each degree change in temperature over or under 37°C alters VO2 needs by 13% . Consequently, the expected VO2 of resting patients may be easily computed or found from normative tables.
When the VO2 gap exceeds the tissue O2 reserve, the cell moves from aerobic to anaerobic metabolism, leading to tissue hypoxia and dysoxia ,. This can be first observed when the right-hand side of Equation 5 is excessively low (low SaO2, high VO2 needs, low CO or low Hb), such that SvO2 cannot decrease proportionally to maintain the equilibrium and a difference occurs between limited SvO2 and very low eSvO2.
A second pathological situation is observed in the case of impaired tissue O2 convection between hemoglobin and mitochondria, such that the arterial blood flow is not sufficiently unloaded and SvO2 increases over eSvO2. This can be seen when the O2 gradient is low due to a deficit in utilization (for example, from mitochondrial blockage, cyanide poisoning, and so on) and/or when O2 tissue diffusion is impaired by an excessive distance or a reduced surface area (for example, in the presence of edema, inflammation, microclots, reduced capillary density, anatomical and/or functional shunts). In septic shock or in late stage shock caused by any mechanism, SvO2 cannot decrease sufficiently due to a combination of these elementary mechanisms ,-.
In both situations, the parallel changes in SvO2, CO and Hb predicted by Equation 3 may be lost since VO2 is expected to increase as well up to its needed value.
Except in experimental conditions, these two pathological situations are usually combined . We can reasonably speculate that, depending on the initial mechanisms of shock, its magnitude, and the adaptive possibilities of each patient, SvO2 will cover a wide range of values and will not provide by itself clear indications for guiding therapy. The same considerations will also lead to significant discordance between different studies according to the heterogeneity of their populations for each of the elementary mechanisms described above .
The reference method for assessing SvO2 requires mixed venous blood sampling through a pulmonary artery catheter and direct measurement of hemoglobin saturation using a multi-wavelength spectrophotometer (co-oximeter) . When the blood sampling procedure is correct and the sample is immediately analyzed using a properly calibrated co-oximeter, the SvO2 measurement is accurate (bias <0.5%), precise (2 standard deviations (SD)/mean =1.3%) and linear (R2 = 1) ,. Even with such good performance indices, however, the least significant change in a unique measurement (2√2 ± 2SD/mean) is 3.7%, meaning that a SvO2 value of 65% needs to change to >68.7% or <61.3% to have a 95% chance of being real.
Continuous monitoring of SvO2 using a fiber-optic sensor placed at the tip of a pulmonary catheter has acceptable accuracy (bias <1%) when properly calibrated and recalibrated using a co-oximeter . The precision is necessarily lower (2SD/mean >5%) ,, but is compensated by a very fast response (almost instantaneous) , allowing averaging of several elementary measurements (N) in a few milliseconds and decreasing the standard error of the mean (2SD/√N). Averaging 10 elementary measurements when continuously monitoring SvO2 allows the same least significant changes to be achieved as when analyzing a unique mixed venous blood sample.
At the turn of the century, it was suggested that ScvO2 should be used as a surrogate of SvO2, owing to the fact that it is easier and less invasive to insert a central line than a pulmonary catheter. ScvO2 is similar to SvO2 in normal patients, being about 2 to 3% lower because many of the vascular circuits that drain into the inferior vena cava may have non-oxidative phosphorylation (renal, portal, hepatic blood flows) and therefore extract less O2,. However, several studies have shown that ScvO2 may not predict SvO2 in patients suffering shock, depending on the O2 flows and O2 extractions of the different tissue compartments, and where measurements are taken -. The coefficient of variation (2SD/mean) between ScvO2 and SvO2 may exceed ±20% ,. Even paired changes in ScvO2 and SvO2 are not necessarily parallel; they were only found in 55% of cases in one study . It is only when considering trend lines that changes in ScvO2 and SvO2 become more consistent .
Finally, there is a huge body of evidence (often with a degree of mathematical evidence) that SvO2 values vary widely in ICU patients, either for physiological, pathological or metrological reasons. Therefore, the appropriate SvO2 for achieving an adequate body energy supply is specific to each individual patient and to its specific time-evolving situation. There is no basic evidence for targeting any clear-cut SvO2 value. From the considerations listed above, it seems more appropriate to tune a multivariate compromise represented by an acceptable range of the four SvO2 component trend lines with the objective of fulfilling global and local metabolic needs. This compromise must be assessed in terms of predicted benefit and risk of any change.
A variety of clinical evidence has provided us with a message in accordance with these fundamentals, showing no interest in targeting specific values of SvO2 and/or ScvO2 in large populations of patients -. However, other studies have presented indisputable evidence that targeting a specific value of SvO2/ScvO2 can be of interest for lactate clearance , morbidity , and mortality . Accordingly, the Surviving Sepsis Campaign recommends maximizing mixed or central venous oxygen saturation . The contradiction is apparent. As previously mentioned and detailed above, all results can be predicted by the homogeneity/heterogeneity of the patient population.
From the modeled population seen in Figure 4, we can simulate the increase in CO required to reach a target SvO2 of >65% (presumably equivalent to ScvO2 > 70%). Such an increase would be required in 39.5% of the patients, up to 1.2 L/minute.m−2 (average 0.17 ± 0.16), which seems to be a reasonable objective.
However, the Surviving Sepsis Campaign recommended a target Hb of 70 to 90 g/L whereas in Rivers and colleagues' study the hematocrit was increased up to 30%, which represents an Hb >100 g/L. This has major consequences for SvO2. If we consider again the population modeled in Figure 4, reducing Hb from 100 to 90 g/L displaces the frequency distribution leftwards and it would be more difficult to target SvO2 to >65%. The simulation shows that an increase in CO would be necessary for 79.5% of the patients, up to 1.7 L/minute.m2, with an average increase of 0.39 ± 0.24. If targeting Hb to 70 g/L, an increase in CO would be necessary for 98.7% of the patients, up to 2.7 L/minute.m2 with a mean increase of 1.30 ± 0.44. All these estimations are derived with constant VO2 needs, ignoring the caloric effects of increasing CO . Therefore, targeting the same SvO2 objective as Rivers and colleagues without targeting the same Hb has strong consequences for CO stimulation. Finally, SvO2 must be viewed as a compromise. Increasing Hb may have favorable  or detrimental effects . Increasing CO may also have positive , or negative results -. The final decision depends, therefore, on the specific conditions and limitations of each patient. This statement is reinforced by two recent reports. In the study of Jones and colleagues  management to increase lactate clearance was equivalent to targeting specific ScvO2 values in septic shock. Moreover, the ProCESS trial has shown that, in academic hospitals, the Rivers and colleagues' protocol was not superior to usual care despite significant increases in blood transfusion, dobutamine and vasopressor use . The comparable mortality may only be explained by an absence of impact on mortality of these interventions, which seems unlikely, or by the fact that targeting a unique ScvO2 value in heterogeneous patients may balance positive and negative effects. Whether a unique SvO2 or ScvO2 goal would be beneficial or not depends, therefore, on the quality of care in the control group and on the inter-individual dispersion of the difference between the target and the optimal ScvO2 value allowing VO2 needs to be met. We have seen that this optimal value may be far from a fixed target. These results should not discourage us from monitoring SvO2 or ScvO2 but encourage us to include these variables in a multimodal analysis.
Basic physiology tells us that SvO2 is not a regulated variable but an adaptive variable depending on four elementary regulated components: VO2 needs, SaO2, Hb and CO. Consequently, SvO2 is widely fluctuating. There is no physiological argument for targeting particular values of SvO2 (or its surrogate ScvO2) by specific interventions except in homogenized populations, where optimizing one to three of the four SvO2 components may yield a clear dependency with the fourth one. This explains the apparently contradictory results observed in large studies where CO was increased up to specific SvO2 thresholds and confirms the basic physiology predicting large inter-patient variability. Although a systematic SvO2 goal-oriented protocol can be statistically profitable before ICU admission, one would expect from any trained intensivist a more sophisticated, multivariate approach and a determination of the best compromise between SvO2 and its components, taking into account the specific constraints of each individual patient.
- 2.Dellinger RP, Levy MM, Rhodes A, Annane D, Gerlach H, Opal SM, Sevransky JE, Sprung CL, Douglas IS, Jaeschke R, Osborn TM, Nunnally ME, Townsend SR, Reinhart K, Kleinpell RM, Angus DC, Deutschman CS, Machado FR, Rubenfeld GD, Webb SA, Beale RJ, Vincent JL, Moreno R: Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock: 2012. Crit Care Med. 2013, 41: 580-637. 10.1097/CCM.0b013e31827e83af.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 3.Carl M, Alms A, Braun J, Dongas A, Erb J, Goetz A, Göpfert M, Gogarten W, Grosse J, Heller A, Heringlake M, Kastrup M, Kröner A, Loer S, Marggraf G, Markewitz A, Reuter M, Schmitt DV, Schirmer U, Wiesenack C, Zwissler B, Spies C: Guidelines for intensive care in cardiac surgery patients: haemodynamic monitoring and cardio-circulatory treatment guidelines of the German Society for Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery and the German Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2007, 55: 130-148. 10.1055/s-2007-964939.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 4.Nieminen MS, Böhm M, Cowie MR, Drexler H, Filippatos GS, Jondeau G, Hasin Y, Lopez-Sendon J, Mebazaa A, Metra M, Rhodes A, Swedberg K, Priori SG, Garcia MA, Blanc JJ, Budaj A, Cowie MR, Dean V, Deckers J, Burgos EF, Lekakis J, Lindahl B, Mazzotta G, Morais J, Oto A, Smiseth OA, Garcia MA, Dickstein K, Albuquerque A, Conthe P, et al: Executive summary of the guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of acute heart failure: the Task Force on Acute Heart Failure of the European Society of Cardiology. Eur Heart J. 2005, 26: 384-416. 10.1093/eurheartj/ehi044.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 8.Guyton A: Energetics and metabolic rate. Guyton and Hall Textbook of Medical Physiology. 2011, Saunders, Philadelpia, PA, 829-Google Scholar
- 16.Gleiter CH, Freudenthaler S, Delabar U, Eckardt KU, Muhlbauer B, Gundert-Remy U, Osswald H: Erythropoietin production in healthy volunteers subjected to controlled haemorrhage: evidence against a major role for adenosine. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 1996, 42: 729-735. 10.1046/j.1365-2125.1996.00484.x.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 19.Guyton A, Jones C, Coleman T: Circulatory Physiology: Cardiac Output and Its Regulation. 1963, WB Saunders, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
- 23.Abudiab MM, Redfield MM, Melenovsky V, Olson TP, Kass DA, Johnson BD, Borlaug BA: Cardiac output response to exercise in relation to metabolic demand in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. Eur J Heart Fail. 2013, 15: 776-785. 10.1093/eurjhf/hft026.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 36.Nakamura M, Homma A, Tatsumi E, Uesho K, Taenaka Y, Masuzawa T, Nakamura T, Zhang B, Kakuta Y, Imada K, Nakatani T, Takano H: Mixed venous oxygen saturation as a promising parameter for physiologic control of total artificial heart. Asaio J. 2000, 46: 761-766. 10.1097/00002480-200011000-00020.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 43.Lequeux PY, Bouckaert Y, Sekkat H, Van der Linden P, Stefanidis C, Huynh CH, Bejjani G, Bredas P: Continuous mixed venous and central venous oxygen saturation in cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2010, 27: 295-299. 10.1097/EJA.0b013e3283315ad0.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 46.Dueck MH, Klimek M, Appenrodt S, Weigand C, Boerner U: Trends but not individual values of central venous oxygen saturation agree with mixed venous oxygen saturation during varying hemodynamic conditions. Anesthesiology. 2005, 103: 249-257. 10.1097/00000542-200508000-00007.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 55.Villanueva C, Colomo A, Bosch A, Concepción M, Hernandez-Gea V, Aracil C, Graupera I, Poca M, Alvarez-Urturi C, Gordillo J, Guarner-Argente C, Santaló M, Muñiz E, Guarner C: Transfusion strategies for acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding. N Engl J Med. 2013, 368: 11-21. 10.1056/NEJMoa1211801.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 57.Lobo SM, Lobo FR, Polachini CA, Patini DS, Yamamoto AE, de Oliveira NE, Serrano P, Sanches HS, Spegiorin MA, Queiroz MM, Christiano AC, Savieiro EF, Alvarez PA, Teixeira SP, Cunrath GS: Prospective, randomized trial comparing fluids and dobutamine optimization of oxygen delivery in high-risk surgical patients [ISRCTN42445141]. Crit Care. 2006, 10: R72-10.1186/cc4913.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 58.Schreiber T, Hueter L, Gaser E, Schmidt B, Schwarzkopf K, Karzai W: Effects of a catecholamine-induced increase in cardiac output on lung injury after experimental unilateral pulmonary acid instillation. Crit Care Med. 2007, 35: 1741-1748. 10.1097/01.CCM.0000269374.85160.BF.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 59.Challand C, Struthers R, Sneyd JR, Erasmus PD, Mellor N, Hosie KB, Minto G: Randomized controlled trial of intraoperative goal-directed fluid therapy in aerobically fit and unfit patients having major colorectal surgery. Br J Anaesth. 2012, 108: 53-62. 10.1093/bja/aer273.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 60.Drakos SG, Kfoury AG, Gilbert EM, Long JW, Stringham JC, Hammond EH, Jones KW, Bull DA, Hagan ME, Folsom JW, Horne BD, Renlund DG: Multivariate predictors of heart transplantation outcomes in the era of chronic mechanical circulatory support. Ann Thorac Surg. 2007, 83: 62-67. 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2006.07.050.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 61.Hernandez G, Bruhn A, Luengo C, Regueira T, Kattan E, Fuentealba A, Florez J, Castro R, Aquevedo A, Pairumani R, McNab P, Ince C: Effects of dobutamine on systemic, regional and microcirculatory perfusion parameters in septic shock: a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, crossover study. Intensive Care Med. 2013, 39: 1435-1443. 10.1007/s00134-013-2982-0.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. The licensee has exclusive rights to distribute this article, in any medium, for 12 months following its publication. After this time, the article is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.