Jason D Woodfine1,2, Carl van Walraven3,4,5,6. 1. Department of Medicine, The Ottawa Hospital, ASB1-003, 1053 Carling Avenue, Ottawa, Ontario, K1Y 4E9, Canada. 2. Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada. 3. Department of Medicine, The Ottawa Hospital, ASB1-003, 1053 Carling Avenue, Ottawa, Ontario, K1Y 4E9, Canada. carlv@ohri.ca. 4. Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada. carlv@ohri.ca. 5. Department of Epidemiology & Community Medicine, The University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada. carlv@ohri.ca. 6. Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences @ uOttawa, Ottawa, Canada. carlv@ohri.ca.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hyponatremia is the most common electrolyte disturbance amongst hospitalized patients. An overly rapid rate of correction of chronic hyponatremia is believed to increase the risk of poor clinical outcomes including osmotic demyelination syndrome (ODS). There is disagreement in the literature regarding the definition of hyponatremic overcorrection. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of all English language studies to identify those that calculated sodium correction rate and classified patients' overcorrection status. We then identified all patients who presented to our hospital's emergency department between 2003 and 2015 with a corrected serum sodium ≤ 116 mmol/L. All methods from the systematic review for sodium correction rate calculation and overcorrection status were applied to this cohort. RESULTS: We identified 24 studies citing 9 distinct sodium correction rate methods and 14 criteria for overcorrection. Six hundred twenty-four patients presenting with severe hyponatremia (median initial value 113 mMol) were identified. Depending on the method used, the median sodium correction rates in our cohort ranged from 0.271 to 1.13 mmol/L per hour. The proportion of patients classified with overcorrection with the different criteria varied almost 11-fold, ranging from 8.5 to 89.9%. CONCLUSION: Published methods disagree regarding the calculation of sodium correction rates and the definition of hyponatremic overcorrection. This leads to wide variations in sodium correction rates and the prevalence of overcorrection in patient cohorts. Definitions based on ODS risk are needed.
BACKGROUND:Hyponatremia is the most common electrolyte disturbance amongst hospitalized patients. An overly rapid rate of correction of chronic hyponatremia is believed to increase the risk of poor clinical outcomes including osmotic demyelination syndrome (ODS). There is disagreement in the literature regarding the definition of hyponatremic overcorrection. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of all English language studies to identify those that calculated sodium correction rate and classified patients' overcorrection status. We then identified all patients who presented to our hospital's emergency department between 2003 and 2015 with a corrected serum sodium ≤ 116 mmol/L. All methods from the systematic review for sodium correction rate calculation and overcorrection status were applied to this cohort. RESULTS: We identified 24 studies citing 9 distinct sodium correction rate methods and 14 criteria for overcorrection. Six hundred twenty-four patients presenting with severe hyponatremia (median initial value 113 mMol) were identified. Depending on the method used, the median sodium correction rates in our cohort ranged from 0.271 to 1.13 mmol/L per hour. The proportion of patients classified with overcorrection with the different criteria varied almost 11-fold, ranging from 8.5 to 89.9%. CONCLUSION: Published methods disagree regarding the calculation of sodium correction rates and the definition of hyponatremic overcorrection. This leads to wide variations in sodium correction rates and the prevalence of overcorrection in patient cohorts. Definitions based on ODS risk are needed.
Authors: Goce Spasovski; Raymond Vanholder; Bruno Allolio; Djillali Annane; Steve Ball; Daniel Bichet; Guy Decaux; Wiebke Fenske; Ewout J Hoorn; Carole Ichai; Michael Joannidis; Alain Soupart; Robert Zietse; Maria Haller; Sabine van der Veer; Wim Van Biesen; Evi Nagler Journal: Eur J Endocrinol Date: 2014-02-25 Impact factor: 6.664
Authors: Adam Romanovsky; Luciano C P Azevedo; Glenda Meeberg; Rayna Zibdawi; David Bigam; Sean M Bagshaw Journal: Ren Fail Date: 2014-10-27 Impact factor: 2.606
Authors: Jalal K Ghali; Michael J Koren; James R Taylor; Esther Brooks-Asplund; Kaisheng Fan; Walker A Long; Neila Smith Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2006-03-07 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Joseph G Verbalis; Arthur Greenberg; Volker Burst; Jean-Philippe Haymann; Gudmundur Johannsson; Alessandro Peri; Esteban Poch; Joseph A Chiodo; Jiten Dave Journal: Am J Med Date: 2015-11-14 Impact factor: 4.965
Authors: Michele Umbrello; Elena S Mantovani; Paolo Formenti; Claudia Casiraghi; Davide Ottolina; Martina Taverna; Angelo Pezzi; Giovanni Mistraletti; Gaetano Iapichino Journal: Ann Intensive Care Date: 2016-01-04 Impact factor: 6.925
Authors: Volker Burst; Franziska Grundmann; Torsten Kubacki; Arthur Greenberg; Despina Rudolf; Abdulla Salahudeen; Joseph Verbalis; Christian Grohé Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2017-03-02 Impact factor: 3.603