학술논문
Evaluation of the Acid–Base Status in Patients Admitted to the ICU Due to Severe COVID-19: Physicochemical versus Traditional Approaches.
Document Type
Article
Author
Sotiropoulou, Zoi; Antonogiannaki, Elvira Markela; Koukaki, Evangelia; Zaneli, Stavroula; Bakakos, Agamemnon; Vontetsianos, Angelos; Anagnostopoulos, Nektarios; Rovina, Nikoleta; Loverdos, Konstantinos; Tripolitsioti, Paraskevi; Kyriakopoulou, Magdalini; Pontikis, Konstantinos; Bakakos, Petros; Georgopoulos, Dimitrios; Papaioannou, Andriana I.
Source
Subject
*BICARBONATE ions
*ACID-base imbalances
*COVID-19
*BLOOD gases
*METABOLIC disorders
*PROGNOSIS
*
*
*
*
*
Language
ISSN
2075-4426
Abstract
Background: Stewart's approach is known to have better diagnostic accuracy for the identification of metabolic acid–base disturbances compared to traditional methods based either on plasma bicarbonate concentration ([HCO3−]) and anion gap (AG) or on base excess/deficit (BE). This study aimed to identify metabolic acid–base disorders using either Stewart's or traditional approaches in critically ill COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU, to recognize potential hidden acid–base metabolic abnormalities and to assess the prognostic value of these abnormalities for patient outcome. Methods: This was a single-center retrospective study, in which we collected data from patients with severe COVID-19 admitted to the ICU. Electronical files were used to retrieve data for arterial blood gases, serum electrolytes, and proteins and to derive [HCO3−], BE, anion gap (AG), AG adjusted for albumin (AGadj), strong ion difference, strong ion gap (SIG), and SIG corrected for water excess/deficit (SIGcorr). The acid–base status was evaluated in each patient using the BE, [HCO3−], and physicochemical approaches. Results: We included 185 patients. The physicochemical approach detected more individuals with metabolic acid–base abnormalities than the BE and [HCO3−] approaches (p < 0.001), and at least one acid–base disorder was recognized in most patients. According to the physicochemical method, 170/185 patients (91.4%) had at least one disorder, as opposed to the number of patients identified using the BE 90/186 (48%) and HCO3 62/186 (33%) methods. Regarding the derived acid–base status variables, non-survivors had greater AGadj, (p = 0.013) and SIGcorr (p = 0.035) compared to survivors. Conclusions: The identification of hidden acid–base disturbances may provide a detailed understanding of the underlying conditions in patients and of the possible pathophysiological mechanisms implicated. The association of these acid–base abnormalities with mortality provides the opportunity to recognize patients at increased risk of death and support them accordingly. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]