Bosch Nicholas A, Vail Emily A, Law Anica C, Homer-Bouthiette Collin, Walkey Allan J, Moitra Vivek K
Section of Pulmonary, Allergy, Sleep, and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, Boston University Chobanian & Avedisian School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts.
Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2024 Mar;21(3):456-463. doi: 10.1513/AnnalsATS.202308-750OC.
Potassium repletion is common in critically ill patients. However, practice patterns and outcomes related to different intensive care unit (ICU) potassium repletion strategies are unclear. ) Describe potassium repletion practices in critically ill adults; ) compare the effectiveness of potassium repletion strategies; and ) compare effectiveness and safety of specific potassium repletion thresholds on patient outcomes. This was a retrospective analysis of the PINC AI Healthcare Database (2016-2022), including all critically ill adults admitted to an ICU on Hospital Day 1 and with a serum potassium concentration measured on Hospital Day 2. We determined the frequency of potassium repletion (any formulation) at each measured serum potassium concentration in each ICU, then classified ICUs as having threshold-based (a large increase in potassium repletion rates at a specific serum potassium concentration) or probabilistic (linear relationship between serum concentration and the repletion probability) patterns of repletion. Between patients in threshold-based and probabilistic repletion ICUs, we compared outcomes (primary outcome: potassium repletion frequency). We reported unadjusted percentages per exposure group and the adjusted odds ratios (from hierarchical regression models) for each outcome. Among patients in threshold-based ICUs with the most common repletion thresholds (3.5 mEq/L and 4.0 mEq/L), we conducted regression discontinuity analyses to examine the effectiveness of potassium repletion at each potassium threshold. We included 190,490 patients in 88 ICUs; 35.0% received at least one dose of potassium on the same calendar day. Rates of potassium repletion were similar between 22 threshold-based strategy ICUs (33.5%) and 22 probabilistic strategy ICUs (36.4%). There was no difference in the adjusted risk of potassium repletion between patients admitted to threshold-based strategy ICUs versus probabilistic strategy ICUs (adjusted odds ratio, 1.09; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76-1.57). In regression discontinuity analysis, crossing the 3.5 mEq/L threshold from high to low potassium levels resulted in a 39.1% (95% CI, 23.7-42.4) absolute increase in potassium repletion but no change in other outcomes. Similarly, crossing the 4.0 mEq/L threshold resulted in a 36.4% (95% CI, 22.4-42.2) absolute increase in potassium repletion but no change in other outcomes. Potassium repletion is common in critically ill patients and occurs over a narrow range of "normal" potassium levels (3.5-4.0 mEq/L); use of a threshold-based repletion strategy to guide potassium repletion in ICU patients is not associated with clinically meaningful differences in outcomes.
钾补充在重症患者中很常见。然而,与不同重症监护病房(ICU)钾补充策略相关的实践模式和结果尚不清楚。(1)描述成年重症患者的钾补充实践;(2)比较钾补充策略的有效性;(3)比较特定钾补充阈值对患者结局的有效性和安全性。这是一项对PINC AI医疗数据库(2016 - 2022年)的回顾性分析,纳入了所有在住院第1天入住ICU且在住院第2天测量血清钾浓度的成年重症患者。我们确定了每个ICU中每次测量血清钾浓度时钾补充(任何制剂)的频率,然后将ICU分类为具有基于阈值(在特定血清钾浓度时钾补充率大幅增加)或概率性(血清浓度与补充概率之间呈线性关系)补充模式。在基于阈值补充和概率性补充ICU的患者之间,我们比较了结局(主要结局:钾补充频率)。我们报告了每个暴露组的未调整百分比以及每个结局的调整比值比(来自分层回归模型)。在具有最常见补充阈值(3.5 mEq/L和4.0 mEq/L)的基于阈值的ICU患者中,我们进行了回归间断分析,以检查每个钾阈值时钾补充的有效性。我们纳入了88个ICU中的190,490名患者;35.0%的患者在同一天接受了至少一剂钾。22个基于阈值策略的ICU(33.5%)和22个概率性策略的ICU(36.4%)的钾补充率相似。入住基于阈值策略ICU的患者与入住概率性策略ICU的患者在钾补充的调整风险上没有差异(调整比值比,1.09;95%置信区间[CI],0.76 - 1.57)。在回归间断分析中,从高钾水平跨越3.5 mEq/L阈值到低钾水平导致钾补充绝对增加39.1%(95% CI,23.7 - 42.4),但其他结局无变化。同样,跨越4.0 mEq/L阈值导致钾补充绝对增加36.4%(95% CI,22.4 - 42.2),但其他结局无变化。钾补充在重症患者中很常见,且发生在较窄的“正常”钾水平范围(3.5 - 4.0 mEq/L)内;在ICU患者中使用基于阈值的补充策略来指导钾补充与结局的临床意义差异无关。