4.5 Article

An overlooked aspect on metabolic acidosis at birth: Blood gas analyzers calculate base deficit differently

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0412.2011.01364.x

关键词

Base deficit; blood gases; metabolic acidosis; pH; pregnancy; umbilical cord

资金

  1. Region Skane
  2. Medical Faculty at the Lund University (ALF)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective. Metabolic acidosis (MA) at birth is commonly defined as umbilical cord arterial pH < 7.0 plus base deficit (BD) = 12.0 mmol/L. Base deficit is not a measured entity but is calculated from pH and Pco2 values, with the hemoglobin (Hb) concentration [Hb] included in the calculation algorithm as a fixed or measured value. Various blood gas analyzers use different algorithms, indicating variations in the MA diagnosis. The objective was therefore to calculate the prevalence of MA in blood and extracellular fluid with algorithms from three blood gas analyzer brands relative to the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) algorithm. Design. Comparative study. Setting. University hospital. Sample. Arterial cord blood from 15 354 newborns. Main outcome measure. Prevalence of MA. Methods. Blood was analyzed in a Radiometer ABL 735 analyzer. Base deficit was calculated post hoc with algorithms from CLSI and Corning and Roche blood gas analyzers, and with measured and fixed (9.3 mmol/L) values of [Hb]. Results. The prevalence of BD =12.0 mmol/L in blood was with the CLSI algorithm 1.97%, Radiometer 5.18%, Corning 3.84% and Roche 3.29% (CLSI vs. other; McNemar test, p < 0.000001). Likewise, MA prevalences were 0.58, 0.66, 0.64 and 0.64%, respectively (p= 0.02). Base deficit = 12.0 mmol/L and MA rates were lower in extracellular fluid than in blood (p= 0.002). Algorithms with measured or fixed Hb concentration made no differences to MA rates (p= 0.1). Conclusions. The neonatal metabolic acidosis rate varied significantly with blood gas analyzer brand and fetal fluid compartment for calculation of BD.

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