COPD - The "Hypoxic Drive"

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

KLPM

Full Member
10+ Year Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2012
Messages
476
Reaction score
48
So recently I have been "scolded" by a nurse working in the ED for not recognising that COPD patients should not be put on high flow oxygen for fear of obtunding their hypoxic drive.

I have been told by many from anaesthesia and ICU that the hypoxic drive is b*llsh*t or at least very rare. Most of them saying that no COPD patients they managed ever died from too much oxygen but some have come close to failure when someone put them on low O2 for fear of this hypoxic drive. I have also come across many posts that says that hypoxic drive is essentially a myth.

I am just curious where the myth started. Is it just something that someone dreamed up or thought made sense? Is there a study that was published? Any evidence out there that say this is indeed a myth?

Members don't see this ad.
 
So recently I have been "scolded" by a nurse working in the ED for not recognising that COPD patients should not be put on high flow oxygen for fear of obtunding their hypoxic drive.

I have been told by many from anaesthesia and ICU that the hypoxic drive is b*llsh*t or at least very rare. Most of them saying that no COPD patients they managed ever died from too much oxygen but some have come close to failure when someone put them on low O2 for fear of this hypoxic drive. I have also come across many posts that says that hypoxic drive is essentially a myth.

I am just curious where the myth started. Is it just something that someone dreamed up or thought made sense? Is there a study that was published? Any evidence out there that say this is indeed a myth?

It is not an issue fthat we worry about, given the highly monitored and highly staffed environments in which we take care of patients, OR, PACU, ED, ICU. Any blunting of respiratory drive can be overcome by coaching once recognized. Sending a patient who is a chronic CO2 retainer to a floor who wasn't previously on oxygen with new or increased O2, well that may be a different story.
 
It is BS. CO2 retainers aren't dependent on hypoxic drive to breathe. High concentrations of O2 can push CO2 off hemoglobin and thereby increase PaCO2, but it's not a consequence of altered drive, and anyway I don't think anyone really believes it's clinically significant.

Withholding oxygen from a COPD'er who needs it, for fear of making them apneic, is wrong. Topic comes up here every once in a while. This study is over 30 years old. The myth won't die.

That said I do sometimes wonder how hard (easy) it would be to find an expert witness that would testify that you killed a patient by knocking out his hypoxic drive, because everybody knows supplemental O2 kills COPD'ers.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
because everybody knows supplemental O2 kills COPD'ers.

This is sarcasm right?

Well I was just logging into one of my online units. We were discussing medical malpractice etc. First post is by a guy who says that "we no longer give high flow oxygen to de-saturating patient but instead check to make sure they are not CO2 retainers for fear of knocking out their hypoxic drive".

After another forum search it seems that many say O2 should be titrated to around 90%-ish saturation.
 
Last edited:
It is BS. CO2 retainers aren't dependent on hypoxic drive to breathe. High concentrations of O2 can push CO2 off hemoglobin and thereby increase PaCO2, but it's not a consequence of altered drive, and anyway I don't think anyone really believes it's clinically significant.

Withholding oxygen from a COPD'er who needs it, for fear of making them apneic, is wrong. Topic comes up here every once in a while. This study is over 30 years old. The myth won't die.

That said I do sometimes wonder how hard (easy) it would be to find an expert witness that would testify that you killed a patient by knocking out his hypoxic drive, because everybody knows supplemental O2 kills COPD'ers.

Thanks for the info. I have seen PC02 of C02 retainers rise on more than one occasion after giving supplemental oxygen. I always attributed it to decreased drive.
 
So recently I have been "scolded" by a nurse working in the ED for not recognising that COPD patients should not be put on high flow oxygen for fear of obtunding their hypoxic drive.

I have been told by many from anaesthesia and ICU that the hypoxic drive is b*llsh*t or at least very rare. Most of them saying that no COPD patients they managed ever died from too much oxygen but some have come close to failure when someone put them on low O2 for fear of this hypoxic drive. I have also come across many posts that says that hypoxic drive is essentially a myth.

I am just curious where the myth started. Is it just something that someone dreamed up or thought made sense? Is there a study that was published? Any evidence out there that say this is indeed a myth?

In advanced COPD, hypoxic pulmonary vasoconstriction is crucial for maintaining whatever semblance of normoxemia they have. HPV helps turn shunty alveoli (V/Q cclose to 0) into normal-ish alveoli, and in turn send blood to dead-space alveoli (V/Q = infinity), to also help normalize those alveoli. If you suddenly increase alveolar PO2 dramatically, you can blow the HPV system and worsen both oxygenation and ventilation (dead space). So, giving "extra" O2 could lead a high PaCO2 by this mechanism, and hence look like this hypoxic-drive phenomenon. At least, this is my understanding of the "don't give a ton of O2 to advanced COPD'ers" thinking.

It's always reasonable to keep COPD'ers and others' sats at 88-92%, or potentially a little higher if you like. But shooting for 100% sat WHILE sending people to inappropriately low levels of care WHILE poorly understanding their pathophys is probably how this hypoxic drive thing was ever invented in the first place.
 
So recently I have been "scolded" by a nurse working in the ED for not recognising that COPD patients should not be put on high flow oxygen for fear of obtunding their hypoxic drive.

I had a ccu nurse "school" me on why my 84 y/o COPD pt s/p GA extubated on the table after a TAVI was retaining CO2. "The nasal cannula is set too high, you knocked his hypoxic drive." My reply: "ok, can I finish report?" No point in wasting time arguing with these people.

In advanced COPD, hypoxic pulmonary vasoconstriction is crucial for maintaining whatever semblance of normoxemia they have. HPV helps turn shunty alveoli (V/Q cclose to 0) into normal-ish alveoli, and in turn send blood to dead-space alveoli (V/Q = infinity), to also help normalize those alveoli. If you suddenly increase alveolar PO2 dramatically, you can blow the HPV system and worsen both oxygenation and ventilation (dead space). So, giving "extra" O2 could lead a high PaCO2 by this mechanism, and hence look like this hypoxic-drive phenomenon. At least, this is my understanding of the "don't give a ton of O2 to advanced COPD'ers" thinking.

This is what I was taught.
 
I have been taught that too. The people that seem to perpetuate this myth a lot (at least where I am) include ED nurses, ICU nurses and those that work on the respiratory ward. The more worrying part is all the respiratory residents who manage COPD patients on f*ck all oxygen.
 
I have been taught that too. The people that seem to perpetuate this myth a lot (at least where I am) include ED nurses, ICU nurses and those that work on the respiratory ward. The more worrying part is all the respiratory residents who manage COPD patients on f*ck all oxygen.

Don't forget preclinical physiology professors :laugh:
 
A good chunk of my physiology knowledge was taught to me by ICU and anaesthesia guys. That probably goes to show how few classes I actually attended in those pre-clinical years. Although I always loved/laughed when PhDs try to inject little clinical "knowledge" into their lectures. Especially all the pharmacology talks where they try to teach us how to use certain drugs only to find out that they are used very differently in the real world.
 
A good chunk of my physiology knowledge was taught to me by ICU and anaesthesia guys. That probably goes to show how few classes I actually attended in those pre-clinical years. Although I always loved/laughed when PhDs try to inject little clinical "knowledge" into their lectures. Especially all the pharmacology talks where they try to teach us how to use certain drugs only to find out that they are used very differently in the real world.

Haha...or not used at all
 
In advanced COPD, hypoxic pulmonary vasoconstriction is crucial for maintaining whatever semblance of normoxemia they have. HPV helps turn shunty alveoli (V/Q cclose to 0) into normal-ish alveoli, and in turn send blood to dead-space alveoli (V/Q = infinity), to also help normalize those alveoli. If you suddenly increase alveolar PO2 dramatically, you can blow the HPV system and worsen both oxygenation and ventilation (dead space). So, giving "extra" O2 could lead a high PaCO2 by this mechanism, and hence look like this hypoxic-drive phenomenon. At least, this is my understanding of the "don't give a ton of O2 to advanced COPD'ers" thinking.

It's always reasonable to keep COPD'ers and others' sats at 88-92%, or potentially a little higher if you like. But shooting for 100% sat WHILE sending people to inappropriately low levels of care WHILE poorly understanding their pathophys is probably how this hypoxic drive thing was ever invented in the first place.

Bingo! Increased V/Q mismatch (here its shunting). Their minute ventillation doesnt drop.

Main thing is to not correct paco2 in CO2 retainers. That will stop em breathing.

From another poster, How does hyperoxygenation displace co2 from HB in the bloodstream increasing ones pac02? I dont understand that one.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
From another poster, How does hyperoxygenation displace co2 from HB in the bloodstream increasing ones pac02? I dont understand that one.

Haldane effect. Clinically significant? I doubt it.

I've also read that V/Q changes via decreased HPV is a theory to account for a PaCO2 increase, but I sort of wonder about that. Since CO2 is so much more soluble than O2 I wouldn't expect a huge change there. Or maybe I'm underestimating the effect.
 
I am familiar with haldane effect but it shouldnt displace CO2 off of hemoglobin in the blood stream in the face hyperoxemia. Right? its been a while.
 
I've also read that V/Q changes via decreased HPV is a theory to account for a PaCO2 increase, but I sort of wonder about that. Since CO2 is so much more soluble than O2 I wouldn't expect a huge change there. Or maybe I'm underestimating the effect.

Fakinthefunk is correct, HPV inhibition is the currently accepted theory.

However, I like PGG don't understand this either....

Take for example inspired NO:

"Since NO exists in a gaseous form, it can be applied to the pulmonary vessels by administering it as an inhaled gas. What this means, is that when NO is inhaled, it selectively dilates blood vessels in only those lung segments that are actively participating in gas exchange (oxygen & carbon dioxide) at the alveolar-capillary level. In other words, this increases the blood flow to areas of the lung where oxygen is being provided and thus improves oxygen levels in the body. This is known as ventilation-perfusion (V/Q) matching."

The theory why inspired NO works so well is that it improves V/Q mismatching. If this is the case, administering oxygen would dilate the vessels that were most richly ventilated because those alveoli would have the highest PaO2 levels. The alveoli that are diseased would not ventilate very well due to little PaO2 and hence constrict. I don't understand how this increases shunt.

Administering O2 IV (if possible) would increase the PaO2 systemically and I can see this inhibiting HPV. But since its delivered at the alveolar level, it should not decrease shunt.

Am I missing something?
 
After thinking about this further, I can only think of 2 hypotheses why it decreases HPV.

1) increased PaO2 in general inhibits HPV. Meaning as PaO2 increases, HPV is inhibited on individual alveolar units.

Or

2) A steal phenomenon. The well perfused alveoli already are maximally dilated and adding PaO2 to diseased alveoli will dilate these vessels slightly which steal perfusion from the healthy alveoli.

These are just thoughts but I honestly have no clue.
 
I'm no expert but I think the haldane effect would only be significant in the setting of super high CO2 retention causing a lowered O2 binding to hemoglobin.

Giving a bad COPD'er a lot of O2 wouldn't bump up their PaO2 much anyway for much haldane effect to drive down CO2 drive. Their lungs aren't good enough to take up all the O2.

Also extra O2 is often good for anyone with bad pulmonary hypertension ie) COPD'ers.
The whole surfactant reduction and burning up the lungs thing with high FiO2 I guess would be the counter argument.

Maybe what I wrote was wrong. I gotta start reading more again.
 
Most of my chronic retaining COPDrs live in the 60-60 club, (paO2 60 pCO2 60) a paO2 of 60 = roughly SpO2 of 88-90%. I never try and drive thm above that. They don't gain any benefit with u96% sats and may actually be harmed for the reasons most of you mentioned. That said, supplemental oxygen has better mortality data in COPD than spiriva or any other medicine, save smoking cessation, which I believe is the only therapy shown to decrease the rate of decline in FEV1, that said, 88–90% is plenty.
 
Good stuff. Im gonna go back to the books and read up on haldane and bohr. Everything is about optimized uptake and release of 02 when and where its needed. From what yall are sayin, hyperoxemia will decrease the release of 02 to their peripheral tissues and result it increased CO2 in bloodstream as a result (and decreased Hb affinity of C02, which shouldnt matter at all for CO2 transport as its so soluble).

This isnt how I remember it as gas exchange (concentrations of CO2 and O2) is primairly driven by concentrations of PAlv vs pa (pulm art) in pulmonary circulation, rather than a high pa02 concentration in the blood, drive gas exchange. But its all intertwined isnt it. Pa02 has a minimal effect on tissue oxygenation as its so insoluble UNLESS you further increase its concentration via hyperbarics.

Anyways thanks for getting me interested in these effects again!
 
OK now all that being said, let me tell why high FIO2 is dangerous in the recovery room:
Nurses like to see the saturation as perfect as possible because it looks good on the chart!
It doesn't matter if the patient is breathing effectively or not, all that matters is a good SPO2.
This is where blasting these patients with high O2 is dangerous because it delays the desaturation until the CO2 has reached very high levels and the patient becomes comatose as a result.
This applies to all patients and not specifically to COPD patients.
The most common cause of hypoxia in the recovery room is hypoventilation and giving too much oxygen will mask the hypoventilation and allow the nurses to catch up on their computer work but it's certainly not a good thing for the patient.
 
therefore you have created an increase in dead space(Perfusion without ventilation, high V/Q).

Something isnt adding up here for me... HPV is subverted due to the supp o2 so these alveoli now have perfusion but due to copd still have poor ventilation...which would be a low V/Q i thought?
 
Last edited:
The high fraction of inspired O2 leads to alveoli that are normally not perfused due to hypoxic pulmonary vasoconstriction to become perfused due to the inhibition of HPV from the supplemental oxygen.

I still don't understand how high FiO2 impairs HPV? If this was the case, doing OLV with a FiO2 of 100% would abolish the HPV to the opposing lung. We know this is not the case.

Despite this oxygen supplementation these specific alveoli are still impaired from the ventilation stand point, therefore you have created an increase in dead space(Perfusion without ventilation, high V/Q).

These specific alveoli that are impaired from ventilation would still have a low PAO2 and low PaO2. The well ventilated alveoli would have an increased PaO2 and perfusion would increase. HPV would improve V/Q mismatch in this setting.

Just doesn't make sense to me.
 
I still don't understand how high FiO2 impairs HPV? If this was the case, doing OLV with a FiO2 of 100% would abolish the HPV to the opposing lung. We know this is not the case.

These specific alveoli that are impaired from ventilation would still have a low PAO2 and low PaO2. The well ventilated alveoli would have an increased PaO2 and perfusion would increase. HPV would improve V/Q mismatch in this setting.

Just doesn't make sense to me.

In terms of the one lung ventilation you are not ventilating that lung, it has been isolated. So that inspired oxygen of 100% is not being transmitted to the lung and has a limited impact on inhibiting HPV for that lung. In the case of the COPD patient you are providing supplemental oxygen to all the alveoli of the lungs, even the dysfunctional ones.

Quoting from this article "The mechanism for high Pvo2 inhibition of HPV is presumably due to reverse diffusion of oxygen, causing the oxygen tension of either the vessels, interstitial or alveolar spaces, or all of these to be increased above the HPV threshold. That is, if enough oxygen can get to some receptor in the small arteriole-capillary-alveolar area, then the vessels will not vasoconstrict."
 
Last edited:
The high fraction of inspired O2 leads to alveoli that are normally not perfused due to hypoxic pulmonary vasoconstriction to become perfused due to the inhibition of HPV from the supplemental oxygen. Despite this oxygen supplementation these specific alveoli are still impaired from the ventilation stand point, therefore you have created an increase in dead space(Perfusion without ventilation, low V/Q). The minute ventilation in these patients was unchanged, so the drive to breath is still the same but the efficiency of this ventilation is what decreased leading to the increase in arterial carbon dioxide.

Study Citation(s)
#1
#2


In the same study(citation 1) it was noted that the Haldane effect is also believed to contribute to this increase in PaCO2. Normally this would be clinically insignificant, however, due to the increased dead space in these patients' as noted above, the individual has a limited ability to increase minute ventilation to blow off the increase in arterial carbon dioxide.

There are a bunch of articles out there that review the myth/fact, but most seem to cite these two studies as the evidence.

This is what is the current accepted thinking I believe. However RxBoy has a good point about how NO goes to the better ventilated units and causes vasodilation to better the V/Q matching, then how come Oxygen doesn't do the same.

And I have seen this done too often by IM residents on the floor. RN goes to intern/resident on night saying pt is hypoxic to 90%. Doesn't look at why he is hypoxic instead a knee jerk is to put him on NC and we all know what happens next. So its no wonder nurses in CCU and ICU do not know this.
 
This is what is the current accepted thinking I believe. However RxBoy has a good point about how NO goes to the better ventilated units and causes vasodilation to better the V/Q matching, then how come Oxygen doesn't do the same.

And I have seen this done too often by IM residents on the floor. RN goes to intern/resident on night saying pt is hypoxic to 90%. Doesn't look at why he is hypoxic instead a knee jerk is to put him on NC and we all know what happens next. So its no wonder nurses in CCU and ICU do not know this.


Nitric oxide is beneficial in certain pathological states, this does not mean it can be applied to all diseases such as COPD with the presumption that it will improve V/Q matching. Based on a brief Pubmed/Google search at best it seems nitric oxide does not improve V/Q matching in COPD patients', in other studies it shows a worsening of V/Q matching.
 
OK now all that being said, let me tell why high FIO2 is dangerous in the recovery room:
Nurses like to see the saturation as perfect as possible because it looks good on the chart!
It doesn't matter if the patient is breathing effectively or not, all that matters is a good SPO2.
This is where blasting these patients with high O2 is dangerous because it delays the desaturation until the CO2 has reached very high levels and the patient becomes comatose as a result.
This applies to all patients and not specifically to COPD patients.
The most common cause of hypoxia in the recovery room is hypoventilation and giving too much oxygen will mask the hypoventilation and allow the nurses to catch up on their computer work but it's certainly not a good thing for the patient.

I agree. I always tell the PACU nurses that Pox is a crappy monitor for ventilation. It watches oxygenation okay, but not ventilation.
I remember a study years back where they took healthy people, put nasal cannula O2 on, then gave them enough narcotic (Fentanyl, IIRC) until their respiratory rate was ~1,
Most of the subjects maintained a Pox of ~94%, even with a RR of one. Who knows what their CO2 must have been.
Anyway, I tell them that, especially in the presence of supplemental O2, Pox is a crappy ventilation monitor, and they shouldn't depend on it.
 
It is BS. CO2 retainers aren't dependent on hypoxic drive to breathe. High concentrations of O2 can push CO2 off hemoglobin and thereby increase PaCO2, but it's not a consequence of altered drive, and anyway I don't think anyone really believes it's clinically significant.

Withholding oxygen from a COPD'er who needs it, for fear of making them apneic, is wrong. Topic comes up here every once in a while. This study is over 30 years old. The myth won't die.

That said I do sometimes wonder how hard (easy) it would be to find an expert witness that would testify that you killed a patient by knocking out his hypoxic drive, because everybody knows supplemental O2 kills COPD'ers.

I wish we could "favorite" a post.
 
Pie 944 :wow, amazing explanation..thx u..but i have other questions if u don't mind :

This worsening dead space is thought to be major underlying reason for the increased content of carbon dioxide in patients' with obstructive lung disease who receive supplemental oxygen, not decreased drive to breath as is often cited.

1) so, do you mean that the importance of maintaining hypoxic drive in COPD patients is just a myth?
2) how should i manage COPD patient with decreased consciousness( probably because of CO2 narcose)--low sat 60-70%? at my place, we usually intubate this patient,give the patient high FiO2 first and then titrate it..put on the caphnograph, ACMV, set the RR a little bit slow, decrease I :E ratio..evaluate blood gas every 1-2 hour to guide the titration..so,have i done i corrrectly?

thx for the info
 
Pie 944 :wow, amazing explanation..thx u..but i have other questions if u don't mind :

The explanation was not that amazing after I read it again.

Hopefully this isn't filled with errors like my prior posts. I apologize, it's a confusing enough subject without misinformation.

Background


Dead Space - Areas of ventilation without perfusion. At the extreme a V/Q of infinity.

Shunt - Areas of perfusion without ventilation. At the extreme a V/Q of zero.

The spectrum is everything in between.

So in units with a higher V/Q(excessive ventilation in relation to perfusion, or low perfusion in relation to ventilation) you are more towards the dead space spectrum, and have worse dead space/difficulties removing carbon dioxide compared to lung units with a normalized ratio.

Units with a lower V/Q(excessive perfusion in relation to ventilation, or low ventilation in relation to perfusion) you are more towards the shunt spectrum and have difficulties with oxygenation compared to a lung unit with a normalized ratio.

The cause of increased arterial carbon dioxide when giving COPD patients supplemental oxygen is not due to decreased respiratory drive. The respiratory drive has been shown not to change in multiple studies of COPD patients with supplemental oxygen.

The increase in arterial carbon dioxide is due to two effects, HPV and the Haldane effect in relation V/Q.


HPV:

The goal of HPV is to distribute blood flow to lung units with high V/Q, lowering this ratio and improving the match between ventilation and perfusion. It also diverts blood flow away from lung units with low V/Q and improve the ventilation and perfusion match between these units as well.

In the patient with COPD, lung units with poor ventilation have the blood(by HPV) forced to lung units with high ventilation. The lung units with high V/Q now by HPV have more blood being distributed to them and a lower V/Q ratio. Hence it transitions the lung unit away from the spectrum of dead space(improving ability to remove carbon dioxide). In addition, the poorly ventilated unit(low V/Q) now has blood flow diverted from it, increasing the V/Q, and reducing physiological shunt to improve oxygenation.

In addition, by driving blood to areas where oxygenation is more efficient it also utilizes the Haldane effect to help remove carbon dioxide.

Haldane Effect:

Deoxygenated hemoglobin binds H+ more efficiently than oxygenated blood, therefore blood will carry more carbon dioxide when deoxygenated. As the blood reaches an area of high oxygen concentration(lungs) the blood becomes oxygenated and binds H+ less efficiently leading to release carbon dioxide where it can be exchanged to the atmosphere.

Therefore, the greater oxygen gradient between the mixed venous and arterial blood(a-mV), the greater amount of CO2 will be displaced due to the Haldane effect and be able to be ventilated to the atmosphere. In situations where the oxygen difference between the mixed venous and arterial blood is smaller due to poor oxygenation, less CO2 will be displaced and unable to be removed by the lungs. This can be referred to as 'Haldane deadspace.'

In the COPD patient a poorly ventilated lung unit with normal perfusion is an example of this. Even though by V/Q ratio it appears low, hence would be on the shunt spectrum, because of the minimum change in the oxygen a-mV gradient, this also causes Haldane deadspace.

However, this effect is minimized by HPV which maximizes the displacement of CO2 by the Haldane effect by driving blood to lung units with adequate oxygen(large gradient, increased CO2 displacement).

Supplemental Oxygen:


When you give a patient with COPD supplemental oxygen it inhibits the above processes leading to an increase in arterial carbon dioxide, but not due to decreased ventilatory drive.

By giving supplemental oxygenation you are inhibiting the HPV as described above.

Now the blood that was diverted towards units with elevated V/Q helping to normalize them and improve dead space is now lost. Therefore, these lung units once again have excess ventilation in relation to perfusion and experience a relative worsening of dead space(the V/Q is increasing again)

In addition, by having this supplemental oxygen the blood is now once again flowing to poorly ventilated lung units due to the inhibition of HPV. This leads to a decreased oxygen gradient(a-mV) and less carbon dioxide being displaced by the Haldane effect and worsening of the Haldane deadspace.

Finally at higher levels of supplemental oxygenation your mixed venous saturation which is on the steeper portion of the oxyhemoglobin dissociation curve increases more than the arterial saturation on the flat portion of the curve. This also narrows your oxygen gradient(Arterial-mV) and further worsens Haldane deadspace.

I'm sorry for the prior posts and any confusion they caused. I've read this over a few times and am confident mistakes still exist in it.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
...Aaaaand I'm done studying for my respiratory physiology exam this week.


Been lurking here for 2 years, since when I was still a pre-med, and I'm convinced that the anesthesiology forum is the best on this entire site. You're physio rockstars, but super cool non-***holes. You seem to genuinely love what you do, but are still pragmatic and not overly-idealistic. This is where the best personal finance advice is regularly doled out. And everyone loves guns... awesome.
 
Top