4.3 Article

Biochemical Effects of Phosphate-Containing Replacement Fluid for Continuous Venovenous Hemofiltration

Journal

BLOOD PURIFICATION
Volume 34, Issue 3-4, Pages 306-312

Publisher

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000345343

Keywords

Accusol; Acute kidney injury; Continuous renal replacement therapy; Hyperphosphatemia; Hypocalcemia; Hypophosphatemia; Metabolic acidosis; Phosphate-containing solution; Phoxilium

Funding

  1. Singapore Health Manpower Development Programme (HMDP)
  2. Ministry of Health (MOH) Singapore
  3. National University Health System (NUHS), Singapore
  4. Austin Hospital, Melbourne, Australia

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aims: To examine biochemical effects of phosphate-containing replacement fluid (Phoxilium (R)) for continuous venovenous hemofiltration (CVVH). Methods: Retrospective comparison of respective serum biochemistry with sequential use of Accusol (TM) and Phoxilium, each over 48 h of CVVH. Results: We studied 15 critically ill patients. Accusol was switched to Phoxilium after 5 (4-8) days of CVVH. Respective serum biochemistry after 36-42 h of Accusol versus Phoxilium were: phosphate 1.02 (0.82-1.15) versus 1.44 (1.23-1.78) mmol/l, ionized calcium 1.28 (1.22-1.32) versus 1.12 (1.06-1.21) mmol/l, bicarbonate 24 (23-25) versus 20 (19-22) mmol/l, base excess 0 (-2 to 1) versus -4 (-6 to -3) mmol/l (p < 0.001). Cumulative phosphate intakes during respective periods were 69.6 (56.6-76.6) versus 67.2 (46.6-79.0) mmol (p = 0.45). Plasma strong ion differences were narrower with Phoxilium (p < 0.05), with similar strong ion gaps. No additional intravenous phosphate was given during Phoxilium use. Seven patients had serum phosphate >1.44 mmol/l. Conclusions: Phoxilium versus Accusol use during CVVH effectively prevented hypophosphatemia but contributed to mild hyperphosphatemia, and is associated with relative hypocalcemia and metabolic acidosis. Copyright (C) 2012 S. Karger AG, Basel

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available