Literature DB >> 29725827

Comparison of a new simplified acid-base tool to the original Stewart-Figge approach: a study on cardiac surgical patients.

Michalis Agrafiotis1, Dimitrios Mpliamplias2, Maria Papathanassiou3, Fotini Ampatzidou4, Georgios Drossos4.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To suggest a simplified method for strong ion gap ([SIG]) calculation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: To simplify [SIG] calculation, we used the following assumptions: (1) the major determinants of apparent strong ion difference ([SIDa]) are [Na+], [K+] and [Cl-] (2) [Ca2+] and [Mg2+] do not contribute significantly to [SIDa] variation and can be replaced by their reference concentrations (3) physiologically relevant pH variation is at the order of 10-2 and therefore we can assume a standard value of 7.4. In the new model, [SIDa] is replaced by its adjusted form, i.e. [SIDa,adj] = [Na+] + [K+] - [Cl-] + 6.5 and [SIG] is replaced by "bicarbonate gap", i.e. [BICgap] = [SIDa,adj] - (0.25·[Albumin]) - (2·[Phosphate]) - [HCO3-]. The model was tested in 224 postoperative cardiac surgical patients.
RESULTS: Strong correlations were observed between [SIDa,adj] and [SIDa] (r = 0.93, p < 0.0001) and between [BICgap] and [SIG] (r = 0.95, p < 0.0001). The mean bias (limits of agreement) of [SIDa,adj] - [SIDa] and of [BICgap]-[SIG] was - 0.6 meq/l (- 2.7 to 1.5) and 0.2 meq/l (- 2 to 2.4), respectively. The intraclass correlation coefficients between [SIDa,adj] and [SIDa] and between [BICgap] and [SIG] were 0.90 and 0.95, respectively. The sensitivities and specificities for the prediction of a [lactate-] > 4 meq/l were 73.4 and 82.3% for a [BICgap] > 12.2 meq/l and 74.5 and 83.1% for a [SIG] > 12 meq/l, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: The [BICgap] model bears a very good agreement with the [SIG] model while being simpler and easier to apply at the bedside. [BICgap] could be used as an alternative tool for the diagnosis of unmeasured ion acidosis.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Anion gap; Base excess; Metabolic acidosis; Stewart–Figge acid–base model

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29725827     DOI: 10.1007/s00540-018-2503-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Anesth        ISSN: 0913-8668            Impact factor:   2.078


  21 in total

Review 1.  Measuring agreement in method comparison studies.

Authors:  J M Bland; D G Altman
Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res       Date:  1999-06       Impact factor: 3.021

2.  Index for rating diagnostic tests.

Authors:  W J YOUDEN
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1950-01       Impact factor: 6.860

3.  A head to head evaluation of 8 biochemical scanning tools for unmeasured ions.

Authors:  Thomas J Morgan; Chris M Anstey; Matthew B Wolf
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2016-04-12       Impact factor: 2.502

4.  A Guideline of Selecting and Reporting Intraclass Correlation Coefficients for Reliability Research.

Authors:  Terry K Koo; Mae Y Li
Journal:  J Chiropr Med       Date:  2016-03-31

5.  Comparison of three different methods of evaluation of metabolic acid-base disorders.

Authors:  Arnaldo Dubin; María M Menises; Fabio D Masevicius; Miriam C Moseinco; Daniela Olmos Kutscherauer; Elizabeth Ventrice; Enrique Laffaire; Elisa Estenssoro
Journal:  Crit Care Med       Date:  2007-05       Impact factor: 7.598

6.  Modern quantitative acid-base chemistry.

Authors:  P A Stewart
Journal:  Can J Physiol Pharmacol       Date:  1983-12       Impact factor: 2.273

7.  Strong ion gap: a methodology for exploring unexplained anions.

Authors:  J A Kellum; D J Kramer; M R Pinsky
Journal:  J Crit Care       Date:  1995-06       Impact factor: 3.425

8.  Stability of the strong ion gap versus the anion gap over extremes of PCO2 and pH.

Authors:  T J Morgan; D M Cowley; S L Weier; B Venkatesh
Journal:  Anaesth Intensive Care       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 1.669

9.  Base excess or buffer base (strong ion difference) as measure of a non-respiratory acid-base disturbance.

Authors:  O Siggaard-Andersen; N Fogh-Andersen
Journal:  Acta Anaesthesiol Scand Suppl       Date:  1995

10.  Conventional or physicochemical approach in intensive care unit patients with metabolic acidosis.

Authors:  Mirjam Moviat; Frank van Haren; Hans van der Hoeven
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2003-05-01       Impact factor: 9.097

View more
  3 in total

1.  Reducing complexity in acid-base diagnosis - how far should we go?

Authors:  Thomas J Morgan
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2019-05-11       Impact factor: 2.502

2.  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

3.  The hidden secrets of a neutral pH-blood gas analysis of postoperative patients according to the Stewart approach.

Authors:  Joost W Janssen; Joris M K van Fessem; Tijmen Ris; Robert Jan Stolker; Markus Klimek
Journal:  Perioper Med (Lond)       Date:  2021-06-08
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.