Cargando…

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

BACKGROUND: This cohort study compared the prognostic significance of strong ion gap (SIG) with other acid-base markers in the critically ill. METHODS: The relationships between SIG, lactate, anion gap (AG), anion gap albumin-corrected (AG-corrected), base excess or strong ion difference-effective (...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ho, Kwok M., Lan, Norris S. H., Williams, Teresa A., Harahsheh, Yusra, Chapman, Andrew R., Dobb, Geoffrey J., Magder, Sheldon
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4928272/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27366324
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40560-016-0166-z
_version_ 1782440406489759744
author Ho, Kwok M.
Lan, Norris S. H.
Williams, Teresa A.
Harahsheh, Yusra
Chapman, Andrew R.
Dobb, Geoffrey J.
Magder, Sheldon
author_facet Ho, Kwok M.
Lan, Norris S. H.
Williams, Teresa A.
Harahsheh, Yusra
Chapman, Andrew R.
Dobb, Geoffrey J.
Magder, Sheldon
author_sort Ho, Kwok M.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: This cohort study compared the prognostic significance of strong ion gap (SIG) with other acid-base markers in the critically ill. METHODS: The relationships between SIG, lactate, anion gap (AG), anion gap albumin-corrected (AG-corrected), base excess or strong ion difference-effective (SIDe), all obtained within the first hour of intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and the hospital mortality of 6878 patients were analysed. The prognostic significance of each acid-base marker, both alone and in combination with the Admission Mortality Prediction Model (MPM(0) III) predicted mortality, were assessed by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC). RESULTS: Of the 6878 patients included in the study, 924 patients (13.4 %) died after ICU admission. Except for plasma chloride concentrations, all acid-base markers were significantly different between the survivors and non-survivors. SIG (with lactate: AUROC 0.631, confidence interval [CI] 0.611–0.652; without lactate: AUROC 0.521, 95 % CI 0.500–0.542) only had a modest ability to predict hospital mortality, and this was no better than using lactate concentration alone (AUROC 0.701, 95 % 0.682–0.721). Adding AG-corrected or SIG to a combination of lactate and MPM(0) III predicted risks also did not substantially improve the latter’s ability to differentiate between survivors and non-survivors. Arterial lactate concentrations explained about 11 % of the variability in the observed mortality, and it was more important than SIG (0.6 %) and SIDe (0.9 %) in predicting hospital mortality after adjusting for MPM(0) III predicted risks. Lactate remained as the strongest predictor for mortality in a sensitivity multivariate analysis, allowing for non-linearity of all acid-base markers. CONCLUSIONS: The prognostic significance of SIG was modest and inferior to arterial lactate concentration for the critically ill. Lactate concentration should always be considered regardless whether physiological, base excess or physical-chemical approach is used to interpret acid-base disturbances in critically ill patients.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4928272
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-49282722016-07-01 A comparison of prognostic significance of strong ion gap (SIG) with other acid-base markers in the critically ill: a cohort study Ho, Kwok M. Lan, Norris S. H. Williams, Teresa A. Harahsheh, Yusra Chapman, Andrew R. Dobb, Geoffrey J. Magder, Sheldon J Intensive Care Research BACKGROUND: This cohort study compared the prognostic significance of strong ion gap (SIG) with other acid-base markers in the critically ill. METHODS: The relationships between SIG, lactate, anion gap (AG), anion gap albumin-corrected (AG-corrected), base excess or strong ion difference-effective (SIDe), all obtained within the first hour of intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and the hospital mortality of 6878 patients were analysed. The prognostic significance of each acid-base marker, both alone and in combination with the Admission Mortality Prediction Model (MPM(0) III) predicted mortality, were assessed by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC). RESULTS: Of the 6878 patients included in the study, 924 patients (13.4 %) died after ICU admission. Except for plasma chloride concentrations, all acid-base markers were significantly different between the survivors and non-survivors. SIG (with lactate: AUROC 0.631, confidence interval [CI] 0.611–0.652; without lactate: AUROC 0.521, 95 % CI 0.500–0.542) only had a modest ability to predict hospital mortality, and this was no better than using lactate concentration alone (AUROC 0.701, 95 % 0.682–0.721). Adding AG-corrected or SIG to a combination of lactate and MPM(0) III predicted risks also did not substantially improve the latter’s ability to differentiate between survivors and non-survivors. Arterial lactate concentrations explained about 11 % of the variability in the observed mortality, and it was more important than SIG (0.6 %) and SIDe (0.9 %) in predicting hospital mortality after adjusting for MPM(0) III predicted risks. Lactate remained as the strongest predictor for mortality in a sensitivity multivariate analysis, allowing for non-linearity of all acid-base markers. CONCLUSIONS: The prognostic significance of SIG was modest and inferior to arterial lactate concentration for the critically ill. Lactate concentration should always be considered regardless whether physiological, base excess or physical-chemical approach is used to interpret acid-base disturbances in critically ill patients. BioMed Central 2016-06-29 /pmc/articles/PMC4928272/ /pubmed/27366324 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40560-016-0166-z Text en © The Author(s). 2016 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research
Ho, Kwok M.
Lan, Norris S. H.
Williams, Teresa A.
Harahsheh, Yusra
Chapman, Andrew R.
Dobb, Geoffrey J.
Magder, Sheldon
A comparison of prognostic significance of strong ion gap (SIG) with other acid-base markers in the critically ill: a cohort study
title A comparison of prognostic significance of strong ion gap (SIG) with other acid-base markers in the critically ill: a cohort study
title_full A comparison of prognostic significance of strong ion gap (SIG) with other acid-base markers in the critically ill: a cohort study
title_fullStr A comparison of prognostic significance of strong ion gap (SIG) with other acid-base markers in the critically ill: a cohort study
title_full_unstemmed A comparison of prognostic significance of strong ion gap (SIG) with other acid-base markers in the critically ill: a cohort study
title_short A comparison of prognostic significance of strong ion gap (SIG) with other acid-base markers in the critically ill: a cohort study
title_sort comparison of prognostic significance of strong ion gap (sig) with other acid-base markers in the critically ill: a cohort study
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4928272/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27366324
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40560-016-0166-z
work_keys_str_mv AT hokwokm acomparisonofprognosticsignificanceofstrongiongapsigwithotheracidbasemarkersinthecriticallyillacohortstudy
AT lannorrissh acomparisonofprognosticsignificanceofstrongiongapsigwithotheracidbasemarkersinthecriticallyillacohortstudy
AT williamsteresaa acomparisonofprognosticsignificanceofstrongiongapsigwithotheracidbasemarkersinthecriticallyillacohortstudy
AT harahshehyusra acomparisonofprognosticsignificanceofstrongiongapsigwithotheracidbasemarkersinthecriticallyillacohortstudy
AT chapmanandrewr acomparisonofprognosticsignificanceofstrongiongapsigwithotheracidbasemarkersinthecriticallyillacohortstudy
AT dobbgeoffreyj acomparisonofprognosticsignificanceofstrongiongapsigwithotheracidbasemarkersinthecriticallyillacohortstudy
AT magdersheldon acomparisonofprognosticsignificanceofstrongiongapsigwithotheracidbasemarkersinthecriticallyillacohortstudy
AT hokwokm comparisonofprognosticsignificanceofstrongiongapsigwithotheracidbasemarkersinthecriticallyillacohortstudy
AT lannorrissh comparisonofprognosticsignificanceofstrongiongapsigwithotheracidbasemarkersinthecriticallyillacohortstudy
AT williamsteresaa comparisonofprognosticsignificanceofstrongiongapsigwithotheracidbasemarkersinthecriticallyillacohortstudy
AT harahshehyusra comparisonofprognosticsignificanceofstrongiongapsigwithotheracidbasemarkersinthecriticallyillacohortstudy
AT chapmanandrewr comparisonofprognosticsignificanceofstrongiongapsigwithotheracidbasemarkersinthecriticallyillacohortstudy
AT dobbgeoffreyj comparisonofprognosticsignificanceofstrongiongapsigwithotheracidbasemarkersinthecriticallyillacohortstudy
AT magdersheldon comparisonofprognosticsignificanceofstrongiongapsigwithotheracidbasemarkersinthecriticallyillacohortstudy