Literature DB >> 27590096

Assessing Acid-Base Status: Physiologic Versus Physicochemical Approach.

Horacio J Adrogué1, Nicolaos E Madias2.   

Abstract

The physiologic approach has long been used in assessing acid-base status. This approach considers acids as hydrogen ion donors and bases as hydrogen ion acceptors and the acid-base status of the organism as reflecting the interaction of net hydrogen ion balance with body buffers. In the physiologic approach, the carbonic acid/bicarbonate buffer pair is used for assessing acid-base status and blood pH is determined by carbonic acid (ie, Paco2) and serum bicarbonate levels. More recently, the physicochemical approach was introduced, which has gained popularity, particularly among intensivists and anesthesiologists. This approach posits that the acid-base status of body fluids is determined by changes in the dissociation of water that are driven by the interplay of 3 independent variables: the sum of strong (fully dissociated) cation concentrations minus the sum of strong anion concentrations (strong ion difference); the total concentration of weak acids; and Paco2. These 3 independent variables mechanistically determine both hydrogen ion concentration and bicarbonate concentration of body fluids, which are considered as dependent variables. Our experience indicates that the average practitioner is familiar with only one of these approaches and knows very little, if any, about the other approach. In the present Acid-Base and Electrolyte Teaching Case, we attempt to bridge this knowledge gap by contrasting the physiologic and physicochemical approaches to assessing acid-base status. We first outline the essential features, advantages, and limitations of each of the 2 approaches and then apply each approach to the same patient presentation. We conclude with our view about the optimal approach.
Copyright © 2016 National Kidney Foundation, Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Stewart approach; acid-base disorders; acid-base status; anion gap; base excess; diagnosis; physicochemical approach; physiologic approach

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27590096     DOI: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2016.04.023

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Kidney Dis        ISSN: 0272-6386            Impact factor:   8.860


  7 in total

1.  Intact carbonic acid is a viable protonating agent for biological bases.

Authors:  Daniel Aminov; Dina Pines; Philip M Kiefer; Snehasis Daschakraborty; James T Hynes; Ehud Pines
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2019-09-30       Impact factor: 11.205

2.  The Janus faces of bicarbonate therapy in the ICU: con.

Authors:  Ankit Sakhuja; Hernando Gomez; John A Kellum
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2019-11-14       Impact factor: 17.440

Review 3.  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

Review 4.  Diagnosis and management of metabolic acidosis: guidelines from a French expert panel.

Authors:  Boris Jung; Mikaël Martinez; Yann-Erick Claessens; Michaël Darmon; Kada Klouche; Alexandre Lautrette; Jacques Levraut; Eric Maury; Mathieu Oberlin; Nicolas Terzi; Damien Viglino; Youri Yordanov; Pierre-Géraud Claret; Naïke Bigé
Journal:  Ann Intensive Care       Date:  2019-08-15       Impact factor: 6.925

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.  Analysis of pH and electrolytes in blood and ruminal fluid, including kidney function tests, in sheep undergoing long-term surgical procedures.

Authors:  Lucie M Grimm; Esther Humann-Ziehank; Norman Zinne; Patrick Zardo; Martin Ganter
Journal:  Acta Vet Scand       Date:  2021-11-14       Impact factor: 1.695

7.  Complications of regional citrate anticoagulation: accumulation or overload?

Authors:  Antoine G Schneider; Didier Journois; Thomas Rimmelé
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2017-11-19       Impact factor: 9.097

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.