PEDIATRICS Vol. 86 No. 3 September 1990, pp. 495
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow P3Rs: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when P3Rs are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow E-mail this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My File Cabinet
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via CrossRef
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Cornish, J. D.
Right arrow Articles by Dudell, G. G.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Cornish, J. D.
Right arrow Articles by Dudell, G. G.

Letter to the Editor

J. Devn Cornish MD1 and Golde G. Dudell MD1

1 San Diego Regional ECMO Program, 8001 Frost Street, San Diego, California 92123

The concerns raised by Dr Kitterman regarding potential inaccuracies of and risks related to umbilical venous catheterization are true and well stated. Indeed, the authors have great respect for the points he makes.

Nonetheless, it is still the case that arterial oxygen tension is an indirect and a potentially misleading indicator of the adequacy of oxygenation in newborn patients. Although the placement of such catheters is associated with significant risks, these risks are at most comparable to and may in fact be significantly less than those associated with umbilical artery catheterization.