Thomas David R, Tariq Syed H, Makhdomm Sohail, Haddad Rami, Moinuddin Asif
Division of Geriatric Medicine, Saint Louis University Health Sciences Center, Saint Louis, Missouri 63104, USA.
J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2003 Sep-Oct;4(5):251-4. doi: 10.1097/01.JAM.0000083444.46985.16.
Dehydration is a difficult clinical diagnosis in older adults because the physical signs of dehydration are often confusing. The clinical consequences of a diagnosis of dehydration are critical, since dehydration implies increased morbidity and mortality and aggressive rehydration can improve clinical outcome. The diagnosis is a sentinel event for nursing homes, and often is made at transfer to a hospital.
To define the accuracy of the clinical diagnosis of dehydration during hospital admission, and to observe persons admitted from long-term care.
A total of 102 consecutive medical admissions in persons older than 65 years with a diagnostic coding for dehydration either on admission or during the course of hospitalization over a 3-month period at a university teaching hospital were reviewed. The diagnosis of dehydration was considered confirmed if the calculated serum osmolarity was greater than 295 milliosmols (mOsmol). Subjects were considered to have intravascular volume depletion if the ratio of blood urea nitrogen (BUN) to serum creatinine was greater than 20 or the serum sodium was greater than 145 milligrams per deciliter. Subjects were considered to have hypovolemia if the serum osmolarity was greater than 295 and the BUN/creatinine ratio was greater than 20.
Among subjects with a clinical diagnosis of dehydration, only 17% had a serum osmolarity >295 mOsm, and only 11% had a serum sodium greater than 145. A BUN/creatinine ratio greater than 20 was present in 68% of the subjects. Clinicians appear to be using the term dehydration synonymously with intravascular volume depletion. Even so, at least a third of the diagnoses of intravascular volume depletion in older adults were incorrect based on laboratory data.
Physicians who diagnose dehydration during hospital admission may be relying more on physical signs than laboratory data. Little change in laboratory markers for hydration status occurs from the time of diagnosis to hospital discharge, suggesting that the clinical diagnosis does not affect fluid management. The data suggest a need for improvement in the differential diagnosis and management of volume changes in older persons.
脱水在老年人中是一项难以进行的临床诊断,因为脱水的体征往往令人困惑。脱水诊断的临床后果至关重要,因为脱水意味着发病率和死亡率增加,而积极补液可改善临床结局。该诊断对于疗养院来说是一个标志性事件,且通常在转院至医院时做出。
确定住院期间脱水临床诊断的准确性,并观察来自长期护理机构的入院患者。
回顾了一所大学教学医院在3个月期间连续收治的102例65岁以上的内科患者,这些患者在入院时或住院期间有脱水的诊断编码。如果计算出的血清渗透压大于295毫摩尔/升(mOsmol),则认为脱水诊断得到证实。如果血尿素氮(BUN)与血清肌酐的比值大于20或血清钠大于145毫克/分升,则认为受试者存在血管内容量减少。如果血清渗透压大于295且BUN/肌酐比值大于20,则认为受试者存在血容量不足。
在临床诊断为脱水的受试者中,只有17%的血清渗透压>295 mOsm,只有11%的血清钠大于145。68%的受试者BUN/肌酐比值大于20。临床医生似乎将脱水一词与血管内容量减少同义使用。即便如此,根据实验室数据,老年人中至少三分之一的血管内容量减少诊断是错误的。
在住院期间诊断脱水的医生可能更多地依赖体征而非实验室数据。从诊断到出院,反映水合状态的实验室指标几乎没有变化,这表明临床诊断不影响液体管理。数据表明,需要改进老年人容量变化的鉴别诊断和管理。