Nick Mark MD Profile picture
Nov 1 15 tweets 6 min read
Here’s another pulmonary physiology question that *everyone* who gives O2 to patients ought to know:

What is the primary mechanism by which supplemental oxygen can increase PaCO2 in someone with severe COPD?

1/
This is a hard question! You probably learned that "its bad to give someone with COPD ‘too much’ O2 because they might stop breathing”

Turns out hypoxic respiratory drive causing apnea is a MYTH..but there is an important truth here:

A🧵on Oxygen induced hypercapnia!
2/ Image
Every myth has a little kernel of truth:

In the 80s it was shown that giving people with severe COPD (GOLD stage IV) high flow oxygen (15 lpm) made their minute ventilation (VE) drop then return (almost) to normal, but PaCO2 rose significantly.

Why?

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/P…
3/ Image
Initially it was theorized that this increase in PaCO2 was due to loss of hypoxic respiratory drive. This is probably the story you were told in medical or nursing school.

The only problem is this isn't true!

👀 If we look close there are a few problems with this theory...
4/ Image
PaCO2 should be inversely proportional to minute ventilation. If you double you VE you should (roughly) half your PaCO2.

But that's NOT what happened!

Ultimately VE fell by only ~5% (from 10 to 9.5 l/min) but PaCO2 increased by 35% (from 63 to 85 mmHg)!

What did we miss?
5/ Image
Clearly the 5% decrease in minute ventilation (VE) can't possibly explain a 35% rise in PaCO2!

If we do the math, the change in minute ventilation can explain at most 4.8 mmHg of the ~22 mmHg rise in PaCO2.

MYTH busted! This must be more than just a change in ventilation!
6/ Image
It turns out that in addition to carrying oxygen, Hemoglobin also carries carbon dioxide.

It does this 3 ways:
1. Dissolved as CO2 (10%)
2. Bound to hemoglobin as HbCO2 (30%)
3. Buffered as bicarbonate (60% of CO2)
CO2 + H2O --> H2CO3 --> H+ + HCO3-

7/ Image
Hemoglobin picks up CO2 in the tissues (where it is unloading O2), and unloads CO2 in the lungs (where it is picking up O2).

For this reason, dexoygenated Hb is better at carrying CO2 & oxygenated Hb is not good at carrying CO2.
8/ Image
For this reason, administration of high concentrations of Oxygen can "push" CO2 off of hemoglobin and into solution, increased PaCO2.

That's he Haldane Effect - the phenomenon where binding of oxygen to hemoglobin promotes the release of carbon dioxide (raising PaCO2).

9/ Image
Although the Haldane effect is very real it's effect isn't huge; it increases the PaCO2 by about 10%.

This means Haldane can only explain about 6 mmHg of the 22 mmHg increase in PaCO2! This is an important contributor but it isn't explaining most of the rise in CO2.

10/
Sidebar: this doesn't mean the Haldane effect is inconsequential.
If my PaCO2 rose from 40 to 44 mmhg I probably wouldn't notice.
But in someone who chronically retains CO2 this could be a big issue. Going from a PaCO2 of 80 to 88 mmHg could be enough to cause CO2 narcosis...
11/
So what causes O2 induced hypercapnea then?

Recall that different lung areas get differential ventilation. (This is especially true in people with parenchymal disease like COPD)

Fortunately the lung regulates blood flow, decreasing perfusion (Q) to poorly ventilated areas.
12/ Image
But what if we provide 'too much' supplemental oxygen?

This can cause the loss of hypoxic vasoconstriction increasing perfusion to the poorly ventilated alveoli.

(Maybe a better term would be HYPERoxic vasodilation! h/t @sargsyanz for suggesting this perfect term!)

13/ Image
This - the loss of hypoxic vasoconstriction to poorly ventilated lung areas - turns out to be the primary reason for oxygen induced hypercapnea.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/P…

14/ Image
Bottom line:
Giving supplemental O2 to someone w/ severe COPD really *can* cause oxygen induced hypercapnea.

It occurs for three reasons:
1. Loss of hypoxic vasoconstriction --> worse V/Q matching (major reason)
2. Haldane effect
3. Decreased respiratory drive

15/15 ImageImage

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Nick Mark MD

Nick Mark MD Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @nickmmark

Nov 1
What is #MedMastodon & why might we need it?

A short thread explaining what it is & why I think it’s time to consider moving to a free, self-moderated medical community as a #MedTwitter alternative.

med-mastodon.com/web/home

1/
Despite its flaws I think Twitter is a great platform for medicine/science.

It’s a fantastic way to follow breaking news & scientific pubs. It’s a great way to hear what brilliant people think. It can be an OK way to engage in debate.

I’m a better doc because of #MedTwitter
2/
Where else can you see the moment impactful research is published? Or hear the authors explain it & discuss with them?

Where else can you hear about the experience of colleagues around the world?

I’ve learned a lot and made some great friends IRL on here.
3/
Read 12 tweets
Oct 31
Hi #MedTwitter friends -

Hoped it wouldn’t come to this but I just setup med-mastodon.com as a #MedTwitter alternative.

Trying to create a free, open community for sharing & discussing medical topics. Join & create your own free verified account.
Some advantages of mastodon:
- open source, decentralized platform
- a small community that can moderate itself (that means no hate speech, no misinformation)
- 500 characters per "toot"
- built in content warnings & enhanced privacy settings
- cross platform compatible
- free
Read 5 tweets
Oct 30
A case everyone needs to know:

A man admitted for CHF exacerbation is normoxic on ambient air. POCUS shows bilateral pleural effusions.

He develops Afib w/ RVR (HR 150s). A med is given. Suddenly he develops hypoxemia (SpO2 84% on NC, 94% on NRB).

What med & what happened?
1/
Which medication was most likely given for Afib with RVR that could have *caused* this person to become hypoxemic?

2/
This is a textbook example of *loss of hypoxic pulmonary vasoconstriction* due to administration of a calcium channel blocker (diltiazem).

This is a surprisingly common cause of iatrogenic hypoxemia!

A 🧵 about hypoxic pulmonary vasoconstriction & why it really matters!
3/
Read 11 tweets
Oct 11
Want to see how PEEP recruits atelectatic lung?

Here’s a video I shot of pig lungs 🫁 connected to a ventilator. Watch as we increase the PEEP from 0 to 5 to 10 cmH2O.👇
Caveat: Normally the inward elastic recoil of the lungs (causing collapse) is balanced by the outward elastic recoil of the chest wall (causing expansion). At FRC these forces are at equilibrium.

When you have lungs without a chest wall👆, PEEP is essential to prevent collapse. Image
(Fortunately) the physiology of lungs without a chest wall doesn’t happen very often, but you can see this in people undergoing sternotomy:

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8865383/ ImageImageImage
Read 4 tweets
Oct 2
In his latest effort to win the Dunning-Kruger award, VP is now opposed to lung cancer screening.

In order for VP to consider cancer screening “worthwhile” its not enough to prevent lung cancer mortality it must prevent death from literally anything (all cause mortality)
1/
For context, large RCTs have demonstrated the value of lung cancer cancer screening in high risk people: those who are older & with greater 🚬 exposure.

In particular, the NLST (2011) & NELSON (2020) trials found reduced lung cancer mortality with low dose CT screening.
2/
A recent meta-analysis of 9 lung cancer screening RCTs (that included almost 100,000 people) confirmed this finding: low dose CT scans reduce lung cancer mortality.

For every 265 people screened, 1 death from lung cancer is prevented.
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32583338/

3/
Read 14 tweets
Oct 1
Lots of misunderstanding about what constitutes harmful misinformation.

We’re not talking about evolving evidence (eg. Vaccine efficacy was 89% vs Delta infection but only 65% vs omicron).

We’re talking about people who literally say vaccines contain microchips & cause AIDS…
If you read the bill (or Gov Newsom’s statement) you can see how narrow it AB2098 is:
- it only applies to Drs who actually practice medicine
- it only covers misinformation directly conveyed to patients
- misinformation must be “malicious” or outside the standard of care
Who won’t be affected by AB2098:
- people who don’t have a medical license
- licensed doctors who share misinformation online
Read 5 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(