Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorHo, K.
dc.contributor.authorLan, N.
dc.contributor.authorWilliams, Teresa
dc.contributor.authorHarahsheh, Y.
dc.contributor.authorChapman, A.
dc.contributor.authorDobb, G.
dc.contributor.authorMagder, S.
dc.date.accessioned2017-01-30T12:11:49Z
dc.date.available2017-01-30T12:11:49Z
dc.date.created2016-08-30T19:30:18Z
dc.date.issued2016
dc.identifier.citationHo, K. and Lan, N. and Williams, T. and Harahsheh, Y. and Chapman, A. and Dobb, G. and Magder, S. 2016. A comparison of prognostic significance of strong ion gap (SIG) with other acid-base markers in the critically ill: a cohort study. Journal of Intensive Care. 4 (43): pp. 1-11.
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/19081
dc.identifier.doi10.1186/s40560-016-0166-z
dc.description.abstract

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 (MPM0 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 MPM0 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 MPM0 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.

dc.titleA comparison of prognostic significance of strong ion gap (SIG) with other acid-base markers in the critically ill: a cohort study
dc.typeJournal Article
dcterms.source.volume4
dcterms.source.startPage43
dcterms.source.endPage43
dcterms.source.titleJ Intensive Care
curtin.note

This open access article is distributed under the Creative Commons license https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

curtin.departmentSchool of Nursing and Midwifery
curtin.accessStatusOpen access


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record