Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Should We Abandon Measuring SvO2 or ScvO2 in Patients with Sepsis?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Annual Update in Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine 2019

Part of the book series: Annual Update in Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine ((AUICEM))

  • 1874 Accesses

Abstract

The mixed venous oxygen saturation (SvO2) has been used to assess the adequacy of oxygen delivery (DO2) to oxygen consumption (VO2). Since central venous catheters (CVCs) are now more often inserted than pulmonary artery catheters (PAC) in critically ill patients, central venous oxygen saturation (ScvO2) has been proposed as a substitute for SvO2. In 2001, Rivers et al. proposed a step-by-step strategy called early goal-directed therapy (EGDT) that aimed at normalizing the ScvO2 within the first 6 h of resuscitation of patients with severe sepsis or septic shock [1]. A single-center randomized controlled trial (RCT) showed that application of EGDT significantly decreased mortality in comparison with a control group, in which ScvO2 was not used [1]. Following the publication by Rivers et al. [1], EGDT was endorsed by the Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) in 2004 [2]. More recently, three multicenter RCTs (ProCESS [3], ARISE [4] and ProMISe [5]) compared EGDT (using ScvO2) to standard care (with no use of ScvO2). In none of these trials did EGDT show any benefit in terms of outcome, as confirmed by a meta-analysis [6]. Differences between the trials (design/study population/management of the control group/general management of patients with sepsis) may have contributed to the divergent results of these trials [7]. Nevertheless, the SSC experts removed ScvO2 (and SvO2) from the recommendations of the most recent version of the SSC guidelines [8]. While targeting specific predefined values in all patients may be questioned, it is probably unwise to neglect the potential interest of measuring SvO2/ScvO2 in patients with sepsis. In this chapter, we discuss why there is still a place for the measurement of SvO2 or ScvO2 in patients with sepsis.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Rivers E, Nguyen B, Havstad S, et al. Early goal-directed therapy in the treatment of severe sepsis and septic shock. N Engl J Med. 2001;345:1368–77.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Dellinger RP, Carlet JM, Masur H, et al. Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock. Crit Care Med. 2004;32:858–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Yealy DM, Kellum JA, Huang DT, et al. A randomized trial of protocol-based care for early septic shock. N Engl J Med. 2014;370:1683–93.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Peake SL, Delaney A, Bailey M, et al. Goal-directed resuscitation for patients with early septic shock. N Engl J Med. 2014;371:1496–506.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Mouncey PR, Osborn TM, Power GS, et al. Trial of early, goal-directed resuscitation for septic shock. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:1301–11.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Rowan KM, Angus DC, Bailey M, et al. Early, goal-directed therapy for septic shock - a patient-level meta-analysis. N Engl J Med. 2017;376:2223–34.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Rhodes A, Evans LE, Alhazzani W, et al. Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock: 2016. Intensive Care Med. 2017;43:304–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. De Backer D, Vincent JL. Early goal-directed therapy: do we have a definitive answer? Intensive Care Med. 2016;42:1048–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Kasnitz P, Druger GL, Yorra F, Simmons DH. Mixed venous oxygen tension and hyperlactatemia. JAMA. 1976;236:570–4.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Schlichtig R, Cowden WL, Chaitman BR. Tolerance of unusually low mixed venous oxygen saturation. Adaptations in the chronic low cardiac output syndrome. Am J Med. 1986;80:813–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Vincent JL, De Backer D. Circulatory shock. N Engl J Med. 2013;369:1726–34.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Chawla LS, Zia H, Gutierrez G, Katz NM, Seneff MG, Shah M. Lack of equivalence between central and mixed venous oxygen saturation. Chest. 2004;126:1891–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Reinhart K, Kuhn HJ, Hartog C, Bredle DL. Continuous central venous and pulmonary artery oxygen saturation monitoring in the critically ill. Intensive Care Med. 2004;30:1572–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 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;103:249–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Varpula M, Karlsson S, Ruokonen E, Pettilä V. Mixed venous oxygen saturation cannot be estimated by central venous oxygen saturation in septic shock. Intensive Care Med. 2006;32:1336–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Gutierrez G, Comignani P, Huespe L, et al. Central venous to mixed venous blood oxygen and lactate gradients are associated with outcome in critically ill patients. Intensive Care Med. 2008;34:1662–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. van Beest PA, van Ingen J, Boerma EC, et al. No agreement of mixed venous and central venous saturation in sepsis, independent of sepsis origin. Crit Care. 2010;14:R219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. De Backer D, Creteur J, Noordally O, Smail N, Gulbis B, Vincent JL. Does hepato-splanchnic VO2/DO2 dependency exist in critically ill septic patients? Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1998;157:1219–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Boulain T, Garot D, Vignon P, et al. Prevalence of low central venous oxygen saturation in the first hours of intensive care unit admission and associated mortality in septic shock patients: a prospective multicentre study. Crit Care. 2014;18:609.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Pope JV, Jones AE, Gaieski DF, Arnold RC, Trzeciak S, Shapiro NI. Multi-center study of central venous oxygen saturation (ScvO2) as a predictor of mortality in patients with sepsis. Ann Emerg Med. 2010;55:40–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Textoris J, Fouché L, Wiramus S, et al. High central venous oxygen saturation in the latter stages of septic shock is associated with increased mortality. Crit Care. 2011;15:R176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Monnet X, Julien F, Ait-Hamou N, et al. Lactate and veno-arterial carbon dioxide difference/arterial-venous oxygen difference ratio, but not central venous oxygen saturation, predict increase in oxygen consumption in fluid responders. Crit Care Med. 2013;41:1412–20.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Cecconi M, De Backer D, Antonelli M, et al. Consensus on circulatory shock and hemodynamic monitoring. Task force of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine. Intensive Care Med. 2014;40:1795–815.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Teboul JL, Saugel B, Cecconi M, et al. Less invasive hemodynamic monitoring in critically ill patients. Intensive Care Med. 2016;42:1350–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Service de réanimation médicale, Univ Paris-Sud, AP-HP, Hôpitaux Universitaires Paris-Sud, Hôpital de Bicêtre, Le Kremlin-Bicêtre, France

    J.-L. Teboul & X. Monnet

  2. Department of Intensive Care, CHIREC Hospitals, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium

    D. De Backer

Authors
  1. J.-L. Teboul
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. X. Monnet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. D. De Backer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J.-L. Teboul .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Dept. of Intensive Care, Erasme Hospital, Université libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium

    Jean-Louis Vincent

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Teboul, JL., Monnet, X., De Backer, D. (2019). Should We Abandon Measuring SvO2 or ScvO2 in Patients with Sepsis?. In: Vincent, JL. (eds) Annual Update in Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine 2019. Annual Update in Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-06067-1_17

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-06067-1_17

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-06066-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-06067-1

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation