| Literature DB >> 30650142 |
Tanja Gärtner1, Veit Zoche-Golob1, Stefanie Redlberger2, Petra Reinhold2, Karsten Donat1.
Abstract
Evaluating acid-base status is important for monitoring dairy herd health. In a field study, we aimed to compare the acid-base status measured by net acid-base excretion (NABE) in urine with results of venous blood analysis in clinically healthy, but possibly metabolically burdened cows in their transition period. For this, we sampled blood from the jugular vein and urine from 145 German Holstein cows within 1 to 76 days post-partum. In blood, the metabolic parameters non-esterified fatty acids (NEFA) and β-hydroxybutyrate (BHB), as well as numerous parameters of the acid-base status were measured. The traditional approach, based on bicarbonate concentration, base excess (BE) and anion gap (AG), was compared to the strong ion approach variables, e.g. acid total (Atot), measured strong ion difference (SIDm), strong ion gap (SIG), and unmeasured anions (XA), respectively. Results of both approaches were set against the outcome of urine analysis, i.e. the NABE, base-acid ratio and pH of urine, in a cluster analysis, which provided 7 moderately stable clusters. Evaluating and interpreting these 7 clusters offered novel insights into the pathophysiology of the acid-base equilibrium in fresh post-partum dairy cows. Especially in case of subclinical acid-base disorders, the parameters of the strong ion difference theory, particularly SIDm, Atot and SIG or XA, provided more in-depth information about acid-base status than the traditional parameters BE, bicarbonate or AG in blood. The acid-base status of fresh cows with protein aberrations in blood could be differentiated in a much better way using the strong ion approach than by traditional blood gas analysis or by the measurement of urinary excretion. Therefore, the strong ion approach seems to be a suitable supplement for monitoring acid-base balance in dairy cattle.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30650142 PMCID: PMC6334950 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0210948
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Description of applied parameters and variables of acid-base equilibrium in blood.
| Parameters / Variables | Units | Values / Formulae | References |
|---|---|---|---|
| S | mmol/L * (mm Hg)-1 | 0.0307 | [ |
| pK1´ | 6.12 | [ | |
| cHCO3- | mmol/L | S * pCO2 * 10(pH-pK1´) | [ |
| AG | mEq/L | (cNa+ + cK+)—(cCl- + cHCO3-) | [ |
| SIDm3 | mEq/L | (cNa+ + cK+)—cCl- | [ |
| SIDm4 | mEq/L | (cNa+ + cK+)–(cCl- + cL-Lactate) | [ |
| SIDm5 | mEq/L | (cNa+ + cK+ + cCa2+)–(cCl- + cL-Lactate) | [ |
| Atot(Alb) | mEq/L | Alb[g/L] * 0.76 | [ |
| Atot(Prt) | mEq/L | TP[g/L] * 0.36 | [ |
| pKa | mEq/L | 7.06 | [ |
| SIG(Alb) | mEq/L | Atot(Alb) /(1+10(pKa-pH))—AG | [ |
| SIG(Prt) | mEq/L | Atot(Prt) /(1+10(pKa-pH))—AG | [ |
| Albumin charge | mEq/L | 0.141 * cAlbumin * (pH– 5.42) | [ |
| Globulin charge | mEq/L | 0.04 * (cProtein total–c Albumin) * (pH– 5.58) | [ |
| Phosphate charge | mEq/L | cPi (b) * (0.309 * pH– 0.469) | [ |
| XA | mEq/L | cNa+(b)+ cK+(b) + cCa2+(b) + cMg2+(b) − cCl-(b)- cHCO3- − (Albumin charge) − (Globulin charge) − (Phosphate charge) | [ |
S = solubility of carbon dioxide, pK1 = negative logarithm of the dissociation constant of carbonic acid, cHCO3- = actual bicarbonate concentration, AG = Anion gap, SIDm = measured strong ion difference, Atot = Acid total, pKa = negative logarithm of dissociation constant of plasma nonvolatile weak acids, SIG = strong ion gap, XA = unmeasured anions
Fig 1Evaluated parameters of urine and blood and their distribution in the 7 clusters.
Centered and scaled medians (filled boxes) with the 50 percent interquartile range (whiskers).
Main results of different approaches to evaluate acid base equilibrium in the generated clusters.
| Results of parameters | Cluster | Reference values | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | |||
| pH | Ø | ↓ | ↓ | ↓ | Ø | ↑ | 8.17–8.35 | ||
| NABE | Ø | ↓↓ | ↓ | ↓↓ | ↑ | Ø | 106–210 | ||
| BAR | ↓ | ↓↓ | ↓ | ↓↓ | ↑ | ↑ | 2.3–3.6 | ||
| Interpretation of urine results | tends to acidosis | strong acidosis | acidosis | strong acidosis | alkalosis | alkalosis | |||
| pH | Ø | Ø | Ø | Ø | Ø | Ø | 7.38–7.40 | ||
| HCO3- (st) | ↓ | Ø | ↓ | ↓ | Ø | Ø | 27.0–28.8 | ||
| SBE | ↓ | Ø | ↓ | ↓ | Ø | ↓ | 4.3–6.5 | ||
| AG | Ø | ↓ | ↓ | ↑ | Ø | ↓↓ | 13.5–15.3 | ||
| Interpretation of traditional blood gas approach | acidosis | Ø | acidosis | acidosis, increased unidentified anions | Ø | (acidosis) increased unidentified cations | |||
| SIDm5 | ↓ | ↓ | ↓ | Ø | Ø | ↓↓ | 42.6–45.5 | ||
| Atot(Alb) | Ø | ↓ | Ø | ↓ | ↑ | ↑↑ | 21.4–25.5 | ||
| Atot(Prt) | Ø | Ø | Ø | Ø | ↑↑ | Ø | 24.5–27.2 | ||
| SIG(Alb) | Ø | Ø | ↑ | ↓↓ | Ø | ↑↑ | 0.5–3.4 | ||
| SIG(Prt) | ↓ | ↑ | ↑ | ↓↓ | ↑ | ↑↑ | 2.4–4.7 | ||
| XA | Ø | Ø | Ø | ↑↑ | Ø | ↓↓ | 7.4–8.8 | ||
| Interpretation of strong ion approach | SID-acidosis | SID-acidosis | SID-acidosis | increased unidentified anions | Atot -acidosis | SID-acidosis, | |||
| increased unidentified cations | |||||||||
| NEFA | ↑ | Ø | ↑ | ↑ | ↑ | (↓) | ↑↑↑ | < 0.62 | |
| BHBA | Ø | Ø | Ø | Ø | ↑↑ | (↓) | (↑) | < 1200 | |
| Cholesterol | (↓) | Ø | (↓) | Ø | (↓) | (↑) | Ø | > 1.5 | |
| Albumin | Ø | Ø | ↓ | (↑) | ↓ | (↑) | (↑) | 30–39 | |
| γ-globulins | (↓) | Ø | (↑) | Ø | Ø | ↑ | Ø | 16.4–30.4 | |
| Interpretation of other metabolism | reduced feed intake | normal | reduced feed intake | (normal) | keto-acidosis | extended feed intake | extended fat mobilization | ||
NABE = net acid base excretion, BAR = base acid ratio, HCO3- (st) = standard bicarbonate concentration, SBE = standard base excess, AG = Anion gap, SIDm = measured strong ion difference, Atot = Acid total based on albumin (Alb) or total protein (Prt), SIG = strong ion gap, XA = unmeasured anions, NEFA = nonesterified fatty acid concentration, BHBA = β-hydroxybutyrate concentration,
a = reference values were calculated based on cluster 2 (25% and 75% interquartile ranges),
b = common reference values that were set in literature [39],
Ø = median is within reference values,
↑ / ↓ = median is above / below reference value,
(↑) / (↓) means only relatively increase / decrease, but within the fixed reference values
Assignment of examined cows to the clusters and their clinical characterization (median values or percentages).
| Cluster | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No. of cows | 19 | 37 | 27 | 44 | 5 | 10 | 3 |
| No. of lactating cows | - | 6 | - | 1 | 1 | 8 | - |
| - | 16.2 | - | 2.3 | 20 | 80 | - | |
| No. of farms | 4 | 11 | 11 | 12 | 4 | 3 | 1 |
| Days in milk | 3 | 5 | 6 | 4 | 8 | 54 | 1 |
| Median age of cows (months) | 40.8 | 41.4 | 54.2 | 43.9 | 56.0 | 62.3 | 62.4 |
| Body condition score | 3.5 | 3.25 | 3.25 | 3.25 | 3.25 | 2.5 | 4.5 |
| Rectal temperature (°C) | 38.7 | 38.6 | 38.9 | 38.7 | 39.1 | 38.3 | 38.7 |
| Category of rumen fill | |||||||
| 1 (%) | 52.1 | 29.7 | 48.1 | 40.9 | 80 | 20 | 100 |
| 2 (%) | 47.9 | 54.1 | 48.1 | 52.3 | 20 | 50 | 0 |
| 3 (%) | 0 | 16.2 | 3.7 | 6.8 | 0 | 30 | 0 |