{"title":"阴离子间隙作为发病率和死亡率的预测工具。","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":"{\"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}","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}
The anion gap as a predictive tool for morbidity and mortality.
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.
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.