Log in | Register

The repeatability of Stewart’s parameters and anion gap in a cohort of critically ill adult patients

Jihad Mallat| Stéphanie Barrailler| Malcolm Lemyze| Younes Benzidi| Florent Pepy| Gaëlle Gasan| Laurent Tronchon| Didier Thevenin
Original
Volume 38, Issue 12 / December , 2012

Pages 2026 - 2031

Abstract

Purpose

To examine the repeatability of Stewart’s parameters and anion gap in a cohort of critically ill patients and to determine the smallest detectable changes in individual patients.

Methods

A total of 161 patients were included prospectively. They underwent two subsequent blood samplings within 10 min of each other and samples were analyzed using the same central laboratory analyzer. Measured and calculated parameters from the two samples were compared. The repeatability was expressed as the smallest detectable difference (SDD), coefficient of variation (CV) and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).

Results

The mean differences ± SD (mEq/L) for the repeated measurements were 0.1 ± 0.76, 0.12 ± 0.68, −0.02 ± 1.02, and −0.08 ± 1.05 for the apparent strong ion difference (SIDapp), effective strong ion difference (SIDeff), strong ion gap (SIG), and albumin-corrected anion gap (AGcorr), respectively. The SDDs (mEq/L) for SIDapp, SIDeff, SIG, and AGcorr, were ±1.49, ±1.33, ±2, and ±2.06, respectively. The CVs (%) for these variables were 1.4, 1.45, 13.3, and 4.15, respectively. The ICCs for all these variables were high, largely above 0.75.

Conclusions

The repeatability of all these calculated variables was good. In repeated measurements, a change in value of these parameters exceeding 1.96√2 CV (%), the least significant change (LSC) or the SDD should be regarded as significant. Use of SDD is preferable to CV and LSC (%) because of its independence from the levels of variables and its expression in absolute units. Expressed as SDD, a SIG change value, e.g., of at least ±2 mEq/L should be significant.

Keywords

References

  1. Gunnerson KJ, Kellum JA (2003) Aid-base and electrolyte analysis in critically ill patients: are we ready for the new millennium? Curr Opin Crit Care 9:468–473
    • View reference on PubMed
    • View reference on publisher's website
  2. Oh MS, Carroll HJ (1977) The anion gap. N Engl J Med 297:814–817
    • View reference on PubMed
    • View reference on publisher's website
  3. Stewart PA (1983) Modern quantitative acid-base chemistry. Can J Physiol Pharmacol 61:1444–1461
    • View reference on PubMed
    • View reference on publisher's website
  4. Figge J, Rossing TH, Fencl V (1991) The role of serum proteins in acid-base equilibria. J Lab Clin Med 117:453–467
    • View reference on PubMed
  5. Figge J, Mydosh T, Fencl V (1992) Serum proteins and acid-base equilibria: a follow-up. J Lab Clin Med 120:713–719
    • View reference on PubMed
  6. Moviat M, Van Haren F, van der Hoeven H (2003) Conventional or physicochemical approach in intensive care unit patients with metabolic acidosis. Crit Care 7:R41–R45
    • View reference on PubMed
    • View reference on publisher's website
  7. Boniatti MM, Cardoso PR, Castilho RK, Vieira SR (2009) Acid-base disorders evaluation in critically ill patients: we can improve our diagnostic ability. Intensive Care Med 35:1377–1382
  8. Nguyen BV, Vincent JL, Hamm JB, Abalain JH, Carre JL, Nowak E, Ahmed MO, Arvieux CC, Gueret G (2009) The reproducibility of Stewart parameters for acid-base diagnosis using two central laboratory analyzers. Anesth Analg 109:1517–1523
    • View reference on PubMed
    • View reference on publisher's website
  9. White GH, Farrance I (2004) Uncertainty of measurement in quantitative medical testing: a laboratory implementation guide. Clin Biochem Rev 25:S1–24
    • View reference on PubMed
  10. Kellum JA, Kramer DJ, Pinsky MR (1995) Strong ion gap: a methodology for exploring unexplained anions. J Crit Care 10:51–55
    • View reference on PubMed
    • View reference on publisher's website
  11. Figge J, Jabor A, Kazda A, Fencl V (1998) Anion gap and hypoalbuminemia. Crit Care Med 26:1807–1810
    • View reference on PubMed
    • View reference on publisher's website
  12. Bland JM, Altman DG (1986) Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1:307–310
    • View reference on PubMed
    • View reference on publisher's website
  13. Shrout PE, Fleiss JL (1979) Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull 86:420–428
    • View reference on PubMed
    • View reference on publisher's website
  14. Lodder MC, Lems WF, Ader HJ, Marthinsen AE, van Coeverden SC, Lips P, Netelenbos JC, Dijkmans BA, Roos JC (2004) Reproducibility of bone mineral density measurement in daily practice. Ann Rheum Dis 63:285–289
    • View reference on PubMed
    • View reference on publisher's website
  15. Glüer CC (1999) Monitoring skeletal changes by radiological techniques. J Bone Miner Res 14:1952–1962
    • View reference on PubMed
    • View reference on publisher's website
  16. Morimatsu H, Rocktäschel J, Bellomo R, Uchino S, Goldsmith D, Gutteridge G (2003) Comparison of point-of-care versus central laboratory measurement of electrolyte concentrations on calculations of the anion gap and the strong ion difference. Anesthesiology 98:1077–1084
    • View reference on PubMed
    • View reference on publisher's website
  17. British Standard Institution (1979) Precision of test methods 1: guide for the determination of repeatability and reproducibility for a standard test method, BS 5497-1. British Standard Institution, London
  18. Bland JM, Altman DG (1990) A note on the use of the intraclass correlation coefficient in the evaluation of agreement between two methods of measurement. Comput Biol Med 20:337–340
    • View reference on PubMed
    • View reference on publisher's website

Sign In

Connect with ICM

Top 5 Articles Editors Picks Supplement