This chapter is most relevant to Section F6(vi) from the 2017 CICM Primary Syllabus, which expects the exam candidates to be able to "explain the concept of shunt", and to Section V(ii), which asks them to "explain venous admixture, its relationship to shunt and ventilation-perfusion
(V/Q) mismatch". This specific matter has appeared in Question 6 from the second paper of 2009. The fact that it has only appeared once should not discourage exam candidates from becoming familiar with the topic, as it is fairly fundamental. If one's eyes glaze over from the discussion of the difference between venous admixture and shunt, then at the very least the Berggren equation should be firmly understood and committed to memory, because it is fair game for future questions and viva stations.
- Shunt is the blood which enters the systemic arterial circulation without participating in gas exchange
- Venous admixture is that amount of mixed venous blood which would have to be added to ideal pulmonary end-capillary blood to explain the observed difference between pulmonary end-capillary PO2 and arterial PO2
- Shunt fraction is the calculated ratio of venous admixture to total cardiac output
- The shunt equation, otherwise known as the Berggren equation, is used to calculate the shunt fraction:
Qs/Qt = (CcO2 - CaO2) / (CcO2 - CvO2)
Qs/Qt = shunt fraction (shunt flow divided by total cardiac output)
CcO2 = pulmonary end-capillary O2 content, same as alveolar O2 content
CaO2 = arterial O2 content
CvO2 = mixed venous O2 content
- Sources of venous admixture include:
- "True" intrapulmonary shunt, blood which passes through lung regions where V/Q = 0
- V/Q scatter, blood which passes through lung regions where V/Q < 1.0
- Thebesian veins, which contribute myocardial venous blood with low oxygen content
- Bronchial veins, which drain the bronchial walls
- Intracardiac right-to-left shunts
- Normal shunt fraction in healthy adults breathing room air is said to be close to 0% (probably 0.4-1%)
- Normal venous admixture is usually about 3% of the cardiac output.
The most detailed explanation of these concepts can be found in "Understanding the meaning of the shunt fraction calculation" by Cruz & Metting (1987), but this article is not freely available, and by virtue of being comprehensive may be unreasonable for last-minute revision. A better reference is probably Bigeleisen (2001), which is not only a free article, but also one which was written with the express intention of explaining these concepts to people who are then expected to teach others.
What is "shunt"? An authoritative-sounding document from the 1970s ("Glossary on respiration and gas exchange", Hughes et al, 1973) defines it as :
"Vascular connection between circulatory pathways so that venous blood is diverted into vessels containing arterialized blood"
So, that's clearly not the sort of shunt we are talking about here. For respiratory physiology,Wests' (p.68 of the 10th edition) defines shunt as:
"blood that enters the arterial system without going through ventilated areas of the lung"
West does not try to make a distinction between venous admixture and shunt, but in other textbooks (Nunn's and Levitzky included) the two terms are made distinct. In the 8th edition of Nunn's (p. 123), venous admixture is defined as:
"the degree of admixture of mixed venous blood with pulmonary endcapillary blood that would be required to produce the observed difference between the arterial and the pulmonary end-capillary PO2 (usually taken to equal ideal alveolar PO2)"
Thus, "venous admixture" is the calculated estimate of how much hypoxic blood would be required to produce the measured arterial oxygen results, for a given cardiac output. It is a volume of deoxygenated blood from the venous circulation which appears to have bypassed the lungs, not participating in any gas exchange.
So... How is this different to shunt? Well. The two terms are often used interchangeably. For the editors of Nunn's, the confusion in students must have been viewed as having such magnitude as to warrant a brief subsection on the nomenclature, at the end of which the authors admitted that, even though the two concepts are distinct, "venous admixture is ...often loosely termed shunt".
However, venous admixture is not shunt. It is a calculated volume which appears to have bypassed the pulmonary gas exchange surface. It is the product of the shunt equation, which assumes that there are only two kinds of alveoli (perfectly ventilated and perfectly collapsed). "True" intrapulmonary shunt, in contrast, is the volume of venous blood which actually bypassed the aerated alveoli, and returned deoxygenated blood to the left heart via the pulmonary circulation. "True" shunt does not integrate the contribution of Thebesian veins and alveolar regions with V/Q ratios between 0 and 1.0, or any other added sources of extra venous blood contributing to the systemic circulation (like intracardiac right-to-left shunts) and therefore the calculated venous admixture volume will usually be larger.
Thus, venous admixture does not accurately estimate the volume of true intrapulmonary shunt, nor does it help to determine exactly where that extra venous blood is coming from. The very term "venous admixture" implies that there is some known amount of hypoxic venous blood which gets mixed with the arterial circulation, but in actual fact, there is no such thing; you never quite know how much shunt blood volume there is, or how hypoxic that blood is. Instead, one calculates a certain fraction of the cardiac output which consists of that blood. This is a completely reasonable shortcut, because it is actually impossible to measure "true" shunt, as practically one can never separate the fraction of blood coming from truly unventilated lung units (V/Q =0) from blood which comes from merely incompletely ventilated units (V/Q < 1.0). For this reason, we resort to using venous admixture as a surrogate for shunt, and report it as "shunt fraction", or Fshunt.
A classification system seems to exist for shunt, which tends to vary across textbooks (whereas some, eg. West's, abandon the whole idea of classifying things). Not only are the categories different, but the same nominal category may have different meanings to different authors. For example, here is a comparison of Nunn's and Levitzky:
|From Nunn's, 8th edition||From Levitzky, 7th edition|
From Basic Physiology for Anaesthetists by Chambers et al (2015)
These are only a few of the possible taxonomies. Judging by the lack of literature references, these were not composed by the work of some sort of scientific body, but rather concocted by each textbook author independently. As such, it is impossible to say which of them is "better". The exam candidates are invited to choose a system and stick with it.
Without trying to justify any of the existing classification systems or trying to invent a new one, the following list of shunts and shuntish admixtures is offered in an unordered state.
In Question 6 from the second paper of 2009, CICM examiners seem to have expected some statement of a "normal" shunt fraction or venous admixture value. In summary, this is far from clear.
For shunt proper, different sources quote very different fractions. For example, Smeenck et al (1997) explored this in a group of patients undergoing a 100% oxygen text prior to cardiac surgery, and calculated a shunt fraction of 10%. This group, of course, cannot be considered normal or healthy, as they were all awaiting cardiac surgery. Ming et al (2014) used a shunt fraction of 5% as the normal range cut-off for their study evaluating the 100% oxygen test. Sarkar et al (2017) report 2-3% in their review, but do not quote a source. Probably the most authoritative reference on this subject is Wagner et al (1974), who used MIGET to evaluate healthy volunteers. These subjects had essentially no shunt with normal room air, and a mean shunt of around 3.2% while breathing 100% FiO2 (or up to 10.7% in the case of one subject), which the investigators attributed to denitrogenation atelectasis.
Venous admixture, as measured in normal subjects breathing room air, is usually about 3%. This value comes from Said & Banerjee (1963).