4.6 Article

The rule regulating pH changes during crystalloid infusion

期刊

INTENSIVE CARE MEDICINE
卷 37, 期 3, 页码 461-468

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00134-010-2095-y

关键词

Acid-base equilibrium; Volume resuscitation; Stewart's approach; Balanced solution; Crystalloids

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To define the rule according to which crystalloid solutions characterized by different strong ion difference (SID) modify the acid-base variables of human plasma. With a previously validated software, we computed the effects of diluting human plasma with crystalloid solutions ([SID] 0-60, 10 mEq/l stepwise). An equation was derived to compute the diluent [SID] required to maintain the baseline pH unchanged, at constant PCO2 and at every dilution fraction. The results were experimentally tested using fresh frozen plasma, re-warmed at 37A degrees C, equilibrated at PCO2 35 and 78 mmHg, at baseline and after the infusion of crystalloid solutions with 0, 12, 24, 36, 48 mEq/l [SID]. The mathematical analysis showed that the diluent [SID] required to maintain unmodified the baseline pH equals the baseline bicarbonate concentration, [HCO (3) (-) ], assuming constant PCO2 throughout the process. The experimental data confirmed the theoretical analysis. In fact, at the baseline [HCO (3) (-) ] of 18.3 +/- A 0.3 mmol/l (PCO2 35 mmHg) the pH was 7.332 +/- A 0.004 and remained 7.333 +/- A 0.003 when the diluting [SID] was 18.5 +/- A 0.0 mEq/l. At baseline [HCO (3) (-) ] of 19.5 +/- A 0.3 mmol/l (PCO2 78 mmHg) the pH was 7.010 +/- A 0.003 and remained 7.004 +/- A 0.003 when the diluting [SID] was 19.1 +/- A 0.1 mEq/l. At both PCO2 values infusion with [SID] lower or greater than baseline [HCO (3) (-) ] led pH to decrease or increase, respectively. The baseline [HCO (3) (-) ] dictates the pH response to crystalloid infusion. If a crystalloid [SID] equals baseline [HCO (3) (-) ], pH remains unchanged at constant PCO2, whereas it increases or decreases if the [SID] is greater or lower, respectively.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据