Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16826387›Full record

ArticleIntensive care medicine2006

Mixed venous oxygen saturation cannot be estimated by central venous oxygen saturation in septic shock.

Marjut Varpula, Sari Karlsson, Esko Ruokonen, Ville Pettilä

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Intensive care medicine, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. One approach to circulation and blood flow in the critical care unit.World journal of critical care medicine · 2019
    Review
  6. Article
  7. [Venous saturation : Between oxygen delivery and consumption].Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin · 2017
    Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Should We Monitor ScVO(2) in Critically Ill Patients?Cardiology research and practice · 2012
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Marjut VarpulaHelsinki University Hospital, POB 340, 00029 HUS, Helsinki, Finland. marjut.varpula@hus.fi
Sari Karlsson
Esko Ruokonen
Ville Pettilä

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveCentral venous oxygen saturation (ScvO2) in initial resuscitation is included in the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines. ScvO2 monitoring has also been suggested to be comparable to mixed venous oxygen saturation (SvO2) for clinical purposes. The aim of our study was to assess the correlation and agreement of ScvO2 and SvO2 and compare ScvO2-SvO2 difference to lactate, oxygen-derived and hemodynamic parameters in early septic shock in ICU after initial resuscitation. DESIGN AND

settingProspective clinical study with 16 patients with septic shock at two university hospital ICUs. A dose of norepinephrine over 0.1 microg/kg/min was required for inclusion. MEASUREMENTS AND

resultsFive paired ScvO2 and SvO2 samples at 6-h intervals, altogether 72 samples, were collected during 24 h. The mean SvO2 was below the mean ScvO2 at all time points. Bias of difference was 4.2% and 95% limits of agreement ranged from -8.1% to 16.5%. The difference correlated significantly to CI and DO2.

conclusionsThe difference between paired ScvO2 and SvO2 varies highly. Therefore, SvO2 may not be estimated on the basis of ScvO2 in treatment of septic shock after resuscitation period in ICU.

Indexed as

AdultBlood Gas AnalysisFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedOximetryOxygenProspective StudiesShock, SepticStatistics, NonparametricOxygen

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.