4.7 Article

Acute fluid shifts influence the assessment of serum vitamin D status in critically ill patients

期刊

CRITICAL CARE
卷 14, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/cc9341

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: Recent reports have highlighted the prevalence of vitamin D deficiency and suggested an association with excess mortality in critically ill patients. Serum vitamin D concentrations in these studies were measured following resuscitation. It is unclear whether aggressive fluid resuscitation independently influences serum vitamin D. Methods: Nineteen patients undergoing cardiopulmonary bypass were studied. Serum 25(OH)D-3, 1 alpha,25(OH)(2)D-3, parathyroid hormone, C-reactive protein (CRP), and ionised calcium were measured at five defined timepoints: T1 - baseline, T2 - 5 minutes after onset of cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) (time of maximal fluid effect), T3 - on return to the intensive care unit, T4 - 24 hrs after surgery and T5 - 5 days after surgery. Linear mixed models were used to compare measures at T2-T5 with baseline measures. Results: Acute fluid loading resulted in a 35% reduction in 25(OH)D-3 (59 +/- 16 to 38 +/- 14 nmol/L, P < 0.0001) and a 45% reduction in 1 alpha,25(OH)(2)D-3 (99 +/- 40 to 54 +/- 22 pmol/L P < 0.0001) and i(Ca) (P < 0.01), with elevation in parathyroid hormone (P < 0.0001). Serum 25(OH)D-3 returned to baseline only at T5 while 1 alpha,25(OH)(2)D-3 demonstrated an overshoot above baseline at T5 (P < 0.0001). There was a delayed rise in CRP at T4 and T5; this was not associated with a reduction in vitamin D levels at these time points. Conclusions: Hemodilution significantly lowers serum 25(OH)D-3 and 1 alpha,25(OH)(2)D-3, which may take up to 24 hours to resolve. Moreover, delayed overshoot of 1 alpha,25(OH)(2)D-3 needs consideration. We urge caution in interpreting serum vitamin D in critically ill patients in the context of major resuscitation, and would advocate repeating the measurement once the effects of the resuscitation have abated.

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

4.7
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