4.5 Review

Bicarbonate in diabetic ketoacidosis - a systematic review

期刊

ANNALS OF INTENSIVE CARE
卷 1, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1186/2110-5820-1-23

关键词

-

资金

  1. Singapore Health Manpower Development Programme (HMDP) award - Ministry of Health (MOH) Singapore
  2. Singapore Health Manpower Development Programme (HMDP) award - National University Health System (NUHS) Singapore

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: This study was designed to examine the efficacy and risk of bicarbonate administration in the emergent treatment of severe acidemia in diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA). Methods: PUBMED database was used to identify potentially relevant articles in the pediatric and adult DKA populations. DKA intervention studies on bicarbonate administration versus no bicarbonate in the emergent therapy, acid-base studies, studies on risk association with cerebral edema, and related case reports, were selected for review. Two reviewers independently conducted data extraction and assessed the citation relevance for inclusion. Results: From 508 potentially relevant articles, 44 were included in the systematic review, including three adult randomized controlled trials (RCT) on bicarbonate administration versus no bicarbonate in DKA. We observed a marked heterogeneity in pH threshold, concentration, amount, and timing for bicarbonate administration in various studies. Two RCTs demonstrated transient improvement in metabolic acidosis with bicarbonate treatment within the initial 2 hours. There was no evidence of improved glycemic control or clinical efficacy. There was retrospective evidence of increased risk for cerebral edema and prolonged hospitalization in children who received bicarbonate, and weak evidence of transient paradoxical worsening of ketosis, and increased need for potassium supplementation. No studies involved patients with an initial pH < 6.85. Conclusions: The evidence to date does not justify the administration of bicarbonate for the emergent treatment of DKA, especially in the pediatric population, in view of possible clinical harm and lack of sustained benefits.

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

4.5
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