Suppr超能文献

危重症患者两种血浆碳酸氢盐检测方法之间的一致性

Agreement between two plasma bicarbonate assays in critically ill patients.

作者信息

Story D A, Poustie S

机构信息

Department of Anaesthesia, Austin and Repatriation Medical Centre, Heidelberg, Victoria.

出版信息

Anaesth Intensive Care. 2000 Aug;28(4):399-402. doi: 10.1177/0310057X0002800407.

Abstract

Previous studies have suggested that measurement of plasma bicarbonate concentration using the Henderson-Hasselbalch equation may be unreliable, particularly in critically ill patients. We examined the agreement between two plasma bicarbonate concentration assays in critically ill patients. Data were collected from records of routine daily blood samples. Paired samples were taken at the same time from arterial lines. A Bland-Altman analysis was used to compare two bicarbonate assays in clinical use. The first used the Henderson-Hasselbalch equation for blood-gas machine calculations. The second used a spectrophotometric enzymatic technique. Comparing the enzymatic method to the calculated method (enzymatic minus calculated) the bias was -1.6 mmol/l (95% CI: -1.2 to -2.0 mmol/l). The limits of agreement were -5.85 mmol/l to 2.65 mmol/l. This study found poor agreement between the two bicarbonate assays. This poor agreement is clinically important but the causes are unclear. We suggest further investigation of the reliability of bicarbonate assays.

摘要

以往的研究表明,使用亨德森-哈塞尔巴尔赫方程测量血浆碳酸氢盐浓度可能不可靠,尤其是在危重症患者中。我们研究了危重症患者两种血浆碳酸氢盐浓度检测方法之间的一致性。数据收集自日常常规血样记录。同时从动脉导管采集配对样本。采用布兰德-奥特曼分析比较两种临床使用的碳酸氢盐检测方法。第一种方法使用亨德森-哈塞尔巴尔赫方程进行血气分析仪计算。第二种方法使用分光光度酶法。将酶法与计算法(酶法减去计算法)比较,偏差为-1.6 mmol/L(95%可信区间:-1.2至-2.0 mmol/L)。一致性界限为-5.85 mmol/L至2.65 mmol/L。本研究发现两种碳酸氢盐检测方法之间的一致性较差。这种较差的一致性在临床上很重要,但原因尚不清楚。我们建议进一步研究碳酸氢盐检测方法的可靠性。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验