| Literature DB >> 19087326 |
Lakhmir S Chawla1, Shirley Shih, Danielle Davison, Christopher Junker, Michael G Seneff.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Base deficit (BD), anion gap (AG), and albumin corrected anion gap (ACAG) are used by clinicians to assess the presence or absence of hyperlactatemia (HL). We set out to determine if these tools can diagnose the presence of HL using cotemporaneous samples.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2008 PMID: 19087326 PMCID: PMC2644323 DOI: 10.1186/1471-227X-8-18
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Emerg Med ISSN: 1471-227X
Availability of serum lactate in Washington DC metro area hospitals
| George Washington University Hospital | 45 | Yes | Yes | Separate or comes with ABG |
| Georgetown University Hospital | 25 | Yes | Yes | Separate or comes with ABG |
| Washington Hospital Center | 60 | Yes | No | Yes |
| Holy Cross Hospital | 42 | Yes | No | Yes |
| Sibley Hospital | 14 | Yes | No | Yes |
| Suburban Hospital | 44 | Yes | No | Yes |
| Providence Hospital | 17 | Yes | No | Yes |
| Specialty Hospital | 22 | No | No | Yes |
| Fairfax Hospital | 60 | Yes | No | Yes |
| Alexandria Hospital | 30 | Yes | Yes | Separate or comes with ABG |
| Washington Adventist Hospital | 36 | Yes | No | Yes |
Demographics and patient characteristics
| Age, years | 62.2 (15.7) |
| Gender (% male) | 59.7% |
| Ethnicity | |
| European American | 42.7% |
| African American | 51.0% |
| Hispanic | 4.9% |
| Asian American | 0.7% |
| Surgical Patients | 56.2% |
| Serum Albumin, g/dL | 2.5 (0.86) |
| Serum lactate, mmol/L | 2.11 (2.6) |
| Base Deficit | 1.50 (5.4) |
| Anion Gap | 9.0 (5.1) |
| Albumin Corrected Anion Gap | 14.1 (3.8) |
| APACHE II Score | 12.8 (7.7) |
| Mean (s.d.) |
Sensitivity, specificity and ROC area under the curve for AG, ACAG & BD.
| Variable | ROC AUC | CIs | ||
| Anion Gap | 0.70 | 0.64 – 0.77 | ||
| ACAG | 0.72 | 0.62 – 0.82 | ||
| Base Deficit | 0.79 | 0.73 – 0.85 | ||
| Variable | Threshold | Sensitivity | Specificity | NPV |
| Anion Gap | 10 | 63.0% | 65.4% | 90.0% |
| 12 | 51.9% | 80.0% | 90.0% | |
| 14 | 39.5% | 88.7% | 88.2% | |
| 16 | 27.2% | 94.0% | 87.0% | |
| ACAG | 10 | 94.4% | 15.5% | 99.4% |
| 12 | 88.9% | 29.2% | 95.3% | |
| 14 | 75.0% | 53.5% | 94.2% | |
| 16 | 55.6% | 74.9% | 92.8% | |
| Base Deficit | 2 | 81.5% | 66.8% | 94.9% |
| 4 | 63.0% | 80.4% | 91.8% | |
| 6 | 50.6% | 88.1% | 90.2% | |
| 8 | 40.7% | 91.6% | 88.8% | |
Hyperlactatemia defined as serum lactate > 2.5 mmol/L
ROC AUC = Receiver operator characteristics area under the curve, AG = anion gap, ACAG = anion gap corrected for albumin, BD = Base Deficit, CI = 95% confidence intervals, NPV = negative predictive value
Sensitivity, specificity and ROC area under the curve for AG, ACAG & BD.
| Variable | ROC AUC | CIs | ||
| Anion Gap | 0.87 | 0.82 – 0.93 | ||
| ACAG | 0.95 | 0.91–0.99 | ||
| Base Deficit | 0.78 | 0.71 – 0.86 | ||
| Variable | Threshold | Sensitivity | Specificity | NPV |
| Anion Gap | 10 | 88.9% | 65.7% | 98.3% |
| 12 | 82.2% | 80.4% | 97.8% | |
| 14 | 66.7% | 89.2% | 96.4% | |
| 16 | 48.9% | 94.5% | 94.9% | |
| ACAG | 10 | 100% | 15.1% | 100% |
| 12 | 100% | 29.8% | 100% | |
| 14 | 100% | 51.5% | 100% | |
| 16 | 92.9% | 74.4% | 99.5% | |
| Base Deficit | 2 | 84.4% | 63.3% | 97.6% |
| 4 | 64.4% | 77.1% | 95.6% | |
| 6 | 51.1% | 84.5% | 94.5% | |
| 8 | 42.2% | 89.5% | 93.9% | |
Hyperlactatemia defined as Lactate > 4.0 mmol/L
ROC AUC = Receiver operator characteristics area under the curve, AG = anion gap, ACAG = anion gap corrected for albumin, BD = Base Deficit, CI = 95% confidence intervals, NPV = Negative Predictive Value
Subset of patients with creatinine > 2.0 mg/dl excluded
| ROC Area Under the Curve for AG, ACAG & BD | ||
| Variable | ROC AUC | CIs |
| Anion Gap | 0.68 | 0.59 – 0.77 |
| ACAG | 0.71 | 0.59 – 0.84 |
| Base Deficit | 0.77 | 0.69 – 0.85 |
| ROC Area Under the Curve for AG, ACAG & BD | ||
| Variable | ROC AUC | CIs |
| Anion Gap | 0.90 | 0.83 – 0.97 |
| ACAG | 0.96 | 0.91–0.99 |
| Base Deficit | 0.75 | 0.62 – 0.88 |
Summary of previous studies
| Study | N | Sensitivity | Specificity | ROC |
| Iberti et al[ | 56 | 21% | ||
| Levraut et al[ | 498 | 44% | 91% | 0.79 |
| Moviat et al[ | 50 | 45% | 16% | |
| Dinh et al[ | 356 | 39% | 89% | 0.76 |
| Chawla et al[ | 285 | 15% | 94% | 0.55 |
| Study | N | Sensitivity | Specificity | ROC |
| Moviat et al[ | 50 | 100% | 11% | |
| Dinh et al[ | 356 | 75% | 59% | 0.75 |
| Chawla et al[ | 285 | 32% | 80% | 0.57 |
| Study | N | Results | ||
| Mikulaschek et al[ | 52 | No correlation between lactate and base deficit | ||
| Waters et al [ | 12 | Base deficit not useful, instead misleading | ||
| Chawla et al[ | 285 | Base Deficit not useful, ROC AUC = 0.64 | ||
ROC = Receiver operator characteristics area under the curve, AG = anion gap, ACAG = anion gap corrected for albumin, BD = Base Deficit, sensitivity and specificity for AG and ACAG are reported at threshold of 12
Figure 1Albumin lactate corrected anion gap (ALCAG) v. serum lactate.
Figure 2Albumin lactate corrected anion gap (ALCAG) v. pH.