Can a Venous Blood Gas (VBG) be used to assess carbon dioxide (CO2) levels?

Medical Advisory BoardAll articles are reviewed for accuracy by our Medical Advisory Board
Educational purpose only • Exercise caution as content is pending human review
Article Review Status
Submitted
Under Review
Approved

Last updated: November 9, 2025View editorial policy

Personalize

Help us tailor your experience

Which best describes you? Your choice helps us use language that's most understandable for you.

Can You Use a VBG to Assess CO2?

Yes, venous blood gas (VBG) accurately assesses CO2 levels and can replace arterial blood gas (ABG) for evaluating ventilation and acid-base status in most clinical situations. 1, 2

Accuracy of VBG for CO2 Assessment

VBG provides clinically reliable PCO2 measurements with predictable differences from arterial values:

  • The mean difference between arterial and venous PCO2 is approximately 4-6.5 mm Hg in hemodynamically stable patients, with venous values being slightly higher 2, 3
  • In critically ill patients, VBG PCO2 correlates strongly with ABG PCO2 (Pearson correlation 0.93), with a mean difference of 4.8 mm Hg 4
  • The 95% limits of agreement between arterial and central venous PCO2 are -12.3 to 4.8 mm Hg, which is clinically acceptable for most decision-making 3

Clinical Applications

VBG excels at detecting respiratory acidosis and monitoring ventilation:

  • Elevated venous PCO2 (>58 mm Hg) reliably indicates respiratory acidosis 1
  • VBG has 100% sensitivity and 93.8% specificity for detecting hypercapnia (PaCO2 >6.0 kPa/45 mm Hg) 5
  • VBG can effectively screen for arterial hypercapnia and guide ventilation management 2

Conversion to Arterial Values

If arterial values are needed, simple conversion formulas provide accurate estimates:

  • Arterial PCO2 = Venous PCO2 × 0.83 6
  • Alternatively: Arterial PCO2 = Venous PCO2 - 5 mm Hg 2
  • Arterial pH = Venous pH + 0.05 units 2

Important Caveats

VBG reliability decreases in specific clinical scenarios:

  • In patients with circulatory failure or shock, the arterio-venous difference increases 4-fold, making VBG less reliable for precise CO2 assessment 2, 1
  • Central venous samples are more reliable than peripheral venous samples, though the difference is not clinically significant in most cases 3
  • Proper sample handling is critical—air bubbles, delayed analysis, or improper storage significantly affect results 1

Practical Advantages

VBG offers substantial clinical benefits over ABG:

  • Safer procedure with fewer complications than arterial puncture 3
  • Less painful for patients 5
  • Easier to obtain, reducing delays in care 2
  • Can be drawn from existing central venous access without additional puncture 3

Bottom line: Use VBG for CO2 assessment in hemodynamically stable patients; reserve ABG for patients with shock, severe circulatory failure, or when precise oxygenation assessment is required. 1, 2

Professional Medical Disclaimer

This information is intended for healthcare professionals. Any medical decision-making should rely on clinical judgment and independently verified information. The content provided herein does not replace professional discretion and should be considered supplementary to established clinical guidelines. Healthcare providers should verify all information against primary literature and current practice standards before application in patient care. Dr.Oracle assumes no liability for clinical decisions based on this content.

Have a follow-up question?

Our Medical A.I. is used by practicing medical doctors at top research institutions around the world. Ask any follow up question and get world-class guideline-backed answers instantly.