Literature DB >> 25592251

Evaluation of acid-base status in patients admitted to ED-physicochemical vs traditional approaches.

Elvira-Markela Antonogiannaki1, Ioanna Mitrouska2, Vassilis Amargianitakis3, Dimitris Georgopoulos4.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study is to evaluate the value of physicochemical, base excess (BE), and plasma bicarbonate concentration ([HCO3(-)]) approaches on the assessment of acid-base status in patients presented to the emergency department (ED).
METHODS: Upon presentation at ED, patients whose arterial blood was deemed in need of analysis were studied. Arterial blood gases, serum electrolytes, and proteins were measured and used to derive [HCO3(-)], BE, anion gap (AG), AG adjusted for albumin (AGadj), strong ion difference, strong ion gap (SIG) and SIG corrected for water excess/deficit (SIGcor). In each patient the acid-base status was evaluated using the BE, [HCO3(-)], and physicochemical approaches.
RESULTS: A total of 365 patients were studied. Compared with BE (n = 202) and [HCO3(-)] (n = 151), physicochemical approach (n = 279) identified significantly more patients with metabolic acid-base disturbances (P < .0001). Significantly fewer patients with unmeasured anions acidosis were identified with AGadj than with SIGcor (164 vs 230; P < .0001). On the basis of BE, 75 patients had normal acid-base balance, and 65 (87%) of them exhibited at least 1 hidden acid-base disturbance, identified by the physicochemical approach. The corresponding values with [HCO3(-)] approach were 108 and 95 (88%) patients. When patients with high AGadj were excluded, 44 patients with BE and 67 with [HCO3(-)] approach had normal acid-base status, and most of them exhibited at least 1 acid-base disturbance with the physicochemical approach, whereas 12 and 21 patients, respectively, had high SIGcor.
CONCLUSION: Compared with the BE and [HCO3(-)] methods, the physicochemical approach has a better diagnostic accuracy to identify metabolic acid-base disturbances.
Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25592251     DOI: 10.1016/j.ajem.2014.12.010

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Emerg Med        ISSN: 0735-6757            Impact factor:   2.469


  6 in total

1.  A simplified quantitative acid-base approach for patients with acute respiratory diseases.

Authors:  Michalis Agrafiotis; Maria Papathanassiou; Christos Karachristos; Eleni Kerezidou; Stavros Tryfon; Evangelia Serasli; Diamantis Chloros
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2019-04-05       Impact factor: 2.502

2.  Comparison of a modified Story approach to traditional evaluation of acid-base disturbances in patients with shock: a cohort study.

Authors:  Matheus Golenia Dos Passos; Luciana Bergamini Blaya; Márcio Manozzo Boniatti
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2021-05-02       Impact factor: 1.977

3.  A physiology-based mathematical model for the selection of appropriate ventilator controls for lung and diaphragm protection.

Authors:  Binghao Zhang; Damian Ratano; Laurent J Brochard; Dimitrios Georgopoulos; James Duffin; Michael Long; Tom Schepens; Irene Telias; Arthur S Slutsky; Ewan C Goligher; Timothy C Y Chan
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2020-02-01       Impact factor: 1.977

Review 4.  Traditional approach versus Stewart approach for acid-base disorders: Inconsistent evidence.

Authors:  Satoshi Kimura; Muhammad Shabsigh; Hiroshi Morimatsu
Journal:  SAGE Open Med       Date:  2018-09-25

5.  Impact of Acid-Base Status on Mortality in Patients with Acute Pesticide Poisoning.

Authors:  Hyo-Wook Gil; Min Hong; HwaMin Lee; Nam-Jun Cho; Eun-Young Lee; Samel Park
Journal:  Toxics       Date:  2021-01-23

6.  A comparison of prognostic significance of strong ion gap (SIG) with other acid-base markers in the critically ill: a cohort study.

Authors:  Kwok M Ho; Norris S H Lan; Teresa A Williams; Yusra Harahsheh; Andrew R Chapman; Geoffrey J Dobb; Sheldon Magder
Journal:  J Intensive Care       Date:  2016-06-29
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.