1 / 12

ASD calculation

ASD calculation. Qp/Qs = (SaO2 – SvO2)/(PvO2-PaO2) SaO2 Systemic arterial O2 Saturation SvO2 Mixed Venous O2 PvO2 Pulmonary vein O2 saturation PaO2 Pulmonary Artery O2 saturation For ASD cases, Mixed venous O2 = (3SVC sat +1IVC sat)/4. O2 Saturations: IVC 82%

paytah
Download Presentation

ASD calculation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. ASD calculation Qp/Qs = (SaO2 – SvO2)/(PvO2-PaO2) SaO2 Systemic arterial O2 Saturation SvO2 Mixed Venous O2 PvO2 Pulmonary vein O2 saturation PaO2 Pulmonary Artery O2 saturation For ASD cases, Mixed venous O2 = (3SVC sat +1IVC sat)/4

  2. O2 Saturations: IVC 82% SVC 70% RA 85% PA 88% RV 84.5% Wedge 98.5% LV 97.5% LA 97% PvO2

  3. SaO2 = 97.5 • SvO2 = (3 x SVC + 1 x IVC) / 4 = (3 x 70 + 82) / 4 = 73 • PvO2 = 97.5 • PaO2 = 88 Qp/Qs = (SaO2 – SvO2)/(PvO2-PaO2) = (97.5 – 73)/(97.5 – 88) = 24.5/9.5 = 2.57

  4. J Thoracic Cardiovascular Surgery 1999; 118; 674-80

  5. 122 Patients Enrolled 14 Straight to Surgery 108 patients to attempted closure by device To Cath Lab 61 successful device closure 47 unsuccessful or not attempted due to: - large size of defect (27) -multiple defects (8) - location to close to other structures (11) Surgery

  6. JACC 2002; 39; 1836-44

  7. Procedure Success Rate: Device 96% vs Surgery 100% (p=0.006)

  8. Age range from few months to 82 years, significantly older in device group

  9. Total Complications: Device Group 7.2% (32) versus 24% (37), p<0.001

More Related