Arterial blood gas analysis or venous blood gas analysis for adult hospitalised patients with respiratory presentations: a systematic review

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundIdentification of hypoxaemia and hypercapnia is essential for the diagnosis and treatment of acute respiratory failure. While arterial blood gas (ABG) analysis is standard for PO2 and PCO2 measurement, venous blood gas (VBG) analysis is increasingly used as an alternative. Previous systematic reviews established that VBG reporting of PO2 and PCO2 is less accurate, but the impacts on clinical management and patient outcomes are unknown.AimsThis study aimed to systematically review available evidence of the clinical impacts of using ABGs or VBGs and examine the arteriovenous difference in blood gas parameters.MethodsA comprehensive search of the MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Library databases since inception was conducted. Included studies were prospective or cross‐sectional studies comparing peripheral ABG to peripheral VBG in adult non‐critical care inpatients presenting with respiratory symptoms.ResultsOf 15 119 articles screened, 15 were included. No studies were found that examined clinical impacts resulting from using VBG compared to ABG. Included studies focused on the agreement between ABG and VBG measurements of pH, PO2, PCO2 and HCO3−. Due to the heterogeneity of the included studies, qualitative evidence synthesis was performed. While the arteriovenous difference in pH and HCO3− was generally predictable, the difference in PO2 and PCO2 was more significant and less predictable.ConclusionsOur study reinforces the notion that VBG is not comparable to ABG for physiological measurements. However, a key revelation from our research is the significant lack of data regarding the clinical implications of using VBG instead of ABG, a common scenario in clinical practice. This highlights a critical knowledge gap.