The anion gap as a predictive tool for morbidity and mortality.

IF 5.5 2区 医学 Q1 MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY
David N Alter, Li Zha
{"title":"The anion gap as a predictive tool for morbidity and mortality.","authors":"David N Alter, Li Zha","doi":"10.1080/10408363.2025.2526346","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Since the early 1970s, the anion gap has been a fundamental component of acid-base disorder diagnosis and workup. In the past decade, a vastly expanded and ever-increasing literature base has explored its utilization as a morbidity and mortality predictive parameter in various clinical conditions. This discussion will review its history/derivation and reference interval associated issues followed by a literature review of current studies focusing on its relatively recent use as a clinical predictive marker. An English language PUBMED search was performed to include all listings up through 12/31/2022 using the free text search term \"ANION GAP.\" In addition, clinical texts were identified and used as a metric of current standard of care utilization. All references were then sorted into predictive-related and non-predictive-related categories. The predictive references were thus classified by clinical cohort: critical patient, general population, glycemia, intoxication, lactic acidosis, myeloma, renal function, and seizure. A total of 2,068 references were identified and reviewed, of which 95 used the anion gap as a predictive marker and 15 significant for the reference interval discussion. Across all clinical cohorts, except lactic acidosis, an elevated anion gap was found to be significant in predicting morbidity and/or mortality. The published reference intervals of the anion gap were highly variable: the upper reference limit ranged from 10 mmol/L to 19 mmol/L, and the width of the reference intervals (upper minus lower reference limit) ranged from 2 mmol/L to 11 mmol/L. The flaws of the anion gap based on our review are outweighed by its benefits in terms of it being a significant predictive marker of morbidity and mortality. Significant variations in equations and reference limits in the literature raised the question of whether a \"normal range\" is necessary for utilizing this calculated construct for clinical management.</p>","PeriodicalId":10760,"journal":{"name":"Critical reviews in clinical laboratory sciences","volume":" ","pages":"1-17"},"PeriodicalIF":5.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical reviews in clinical laboratory sciences","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10408363.2025.2526346","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Since the early 1970s, the anion gap has been a fundamental component of acid-base disorder diagnosis and workup. In the past decade, a vastly expanded and ever-increasing literature base has explored its utilization as a morbidity and mortality predictive parameter in various clinical conditions. This discussion will review its history/derivation and reference interval associated issues followed by a literature review of current studies focusing on its relatively recent use as a clinical predictive marker. An English language PUBMED search was performed to include all listings up through 12/31/2022 using the free text search term "ANION GAP." In addition, clinical texts were identified and used as a metric of current standard of care utilization. All references were then sorted into predictive-related and non-predictive-related categories. The predictive references were thus classified by clinical cohort: critical patient, general population, glycemia, intoxication, lactic acidosis, myeloma, renal function, and seizure. A total of 2,068 references were identified and reviewed, of which 95 used the anion gap as a predictive marker and 15 significant for the reference interval discussion. Across all clinical cohorts, except lactic acidosis, an elevated anion gap was found to be significant in predicting morbidity and/or mortality. The published reference intervals of the anion gap were highly variable: the upper reference limit ranged from 10 mmol/L to 19 mmol/L, and the width of the reference intervals (upper minus lower reference limit) ranged from 2 mmol/L to 11 mmol/L. The flaws of the anion gap based on our review are outweighed by its benefits in terms of it being a significant predictive marker of morbidity and mortality. Significant variations in equations and reference limits in the literature raised the question of whether a "normal range" is necessary for utilizing this calculated construct for clinical management.

阴离子间隙作为发病率和死亡率的预测工具。
自20世纪70年代初以来,阴离子间隙一直是酸碱失调诊断和检查的基本组成部分。在过去的十年中,大量扩展和不断增加的文献基础探讨了其在各种临床条件下作为发病率和死亡率预测参数的应用。本讨论将回顾其历史/来源和参考区间相关问题,然后回顾当前研究的文献,重点关注其作为临床预测标志物的相对较新的应用。使用免费文本搜索词“ANION GAP”,对截至2022年12月31日的所有清单进行了英文PUBMED搜索。此外,临床文本被确定并用作当前护理利用标准的度量标准。然后将所有引用分类为与预测相关和与非预测相关的类别。预测参考依据临床队列分类:危重患者、普通人群、血糖、中毒、乳酸性酸中毒、骨髓瘤、肾功能和癫痫发作。共鉴定和审查了2068篇文献,其中95篇使用阴离子间隙作为预测标记,15篇用于参考区间讨论。在所有临床队列中,除乳酸性酸中毒外,发现阴离子间隙升高在预测发病率和/或死亡率方面具有重要意义。已公布的阴离子间隙参考区间变化很大:参考区间上限为10 mmol/L ~ 19 mmol/L,参考区间宽度(参考上限减去参考下限)为2 mmol/L ~ 11 mmol/L。根据我们的综述,阴离子间隙的缺陷被其作为发病率和死亡率的重要预测标志的好处所抵消。文献中方程和参考限的显著变化提出了一个问题,即在临床管理中使用这种计算结构是否需要一个“正常范围”。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
20.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
25
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Critical Reviews in Clinical Laboratory Sciences publishes comprehensive and high quality review articles in all areas of clinical laboratory science, including clinical biochemistry, hematology, microbiology, pathology, transfusion medicine, genetics, immunology and molecular diagnostics. The reviews critically evaluate the status of current issues in the selected areas, with a focus on clinical laboratory diagnostics and latest advances. The adjective “critical” implies a balanced synthesis of results and conclusions that are frequently contradictory and controversial.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信