4.5 Article

Three calculations of free cortisol versus measured values in the critically ill

Journal

CLINICAL BIOCHEMISTRY
Volume 48, Issue 16-17, Pages 1053-1058

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2015.07.014

Keywords

Critical illness related corticosteroid insufficiency; Free cortisol; Relative adrenal insufficiency; Equilibrium dialysis; Coolens method; Sodergard equation; Affinity constants; Cortisol-binding globulin

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: To investigate the agreement between the calculated free cortisol levels according to widely applied Coolens and adjusted Sodergard equations with measured levels in the critically ill. Design and methods: A prospective study in a mixed intensive care unit. We consecutively included 103 patients with treatment-insensitive hypotension in whom an adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH) test (250 mu g) was performed. Serum total and free cortisol (equilibrium dialysis), corticosteroid-binding globulin and albumin were assessed. Free cortisol was estimated by the Coolens method (C) and two adjusted Sodergard (S1 and S2) equations. Bland Altman plots were made. Results: The bias for absolute (t = 0,30 and 60 min after ACTH injection) cortisol levels was 38, -24, 41 nmol/L when the C, S1 and S2 equations were used, with 95% limits of agreement between 65-142, -182-135, and -57-139 nmol/L and percentage errors of 66, 85, and 64%, respectively. Bias for delta (peak-baseline) cortisol was 14, -31 and 16 nmol/l, with 95% limits of agreement between -80-108, -157-95, and -74-105 nmol/L, and percentage errors of 107, 114, and 100% for C, S1 and S2 equations, respectively. Conclusions: Calculated free cortisol levels have too high bias and imprecision to allow for acceptable use in the critically ill. (C) 2015 The Canadian Society of Clinical Chemists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available