Limits of Intermittent Jugular Bulb Oxygen Saturation Monitoring in the Management of Severe Head Trauma Patients

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
To evaluate, in a prospective, observational study, whether bilateral monitoring of jugular bulb oxyhemoglobin saturation (SjO2), in addition to standard monitoring, results in modification of the management of severe head trauma. The patients underwent bilateral jugular bulb cannulation and observation at 8-hour intervals, during which SjO2 was measured and the neurological condition and physiological variables were assessed. The study group was responsible for evaluating whether the physician's decision-making process was influenced by the detection of SjO2 abnormalities. The SjO2 discrepancy in simultaneous bilateral samples was also evaluated to determine whether it interfered with the interpretation of data and with clinical decision-making. The SjO2-related complications were monitored. Thirty patients underwent 319 observations. In 96% of patients, SjO2 was normal or high and had no influence on the diagnostic or therapeutic strategies. Treatment decisions were dictated by changes in clinical status and in intracranial and cerebral perfusion pressure. When these parameters were abnormal, treatment was administered, even if SjO2 was normal (101 observations). Conversely, when SjO2 was the only detected abnormality (34 observations), no treatment was administered. Abnormally low SjO2 values, caused by hypovolemia and hypocapnia, were detected in 3.4% of observations and actually modified the management. The discrepancies in simultaneous bilateral samples were substantial and gave rise to relevant interpretation problems. Fifteen percent of jugular catheters showed evidence of bacterial colonization. Intermittent SjO2 monitoring did not substantially influence the management of severe head trauma. Therefore, recommendation for its routine use in all patients seems inadvisable, and indications for this invasive method should no longer be defined on the basis of experts’ opinions, but rather on randomized, prospective studies.