Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (31)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Thomas, A.
Right arrow Articles by Vadgama, P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Thomas, A.
Right arrow Articles by Vadgama, P.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation, Vol 12, Issue 6 1212-1217, Copyright © 1997 by Oxford University Press


ORIGINAL ARTICLES

Comparison of lactate and bicarbonate buffered haemofiltration fluids: use in critically ill patients

A Thomas, J Guy, R Kishen, I Geraghty, B Bowles and P Vadgama
Departments of Intensive Care and Chemical Pathology, Hope Hospital, Salford, UK; Corresponding author address: c/o Department of Anaesthesia, Hope Hospital, Stott Lane, Salford M6 8HD, UK

Objective. To compare acid-base balance, lactate concentration, and haemodynamic and O2 transport variables during haemofiltration with replacement fluid containing 44.5 mmol/l Na+ lactate or 40 mmol/l Na+ HCO3- and 3 mmol/l lactic acid. Design. A prospective, randomized trial. Setting. A multidisciplinary, adult intensive care unit in a university hospital. Patients. Forty acidotic patients who required haemofiltration, were dependent on mechanical ventilation, and had PA catheters in situ. Interventions. During haemofiltration patients received lactate or bicarbonate replacement fluid at a mean rate of 1.71/h (SD 0.3). Arterial blood gases, plasma lactate, and haemodynamic and O2 transport variables were measured before and after 12 and 24 h haemofiltration. Ultrafiltrate was collected for lactate estimation. Measurements and main results. As means (SD). The net gain of lactate was 63 mmol/h (12 mmol) with Na+ lactate and 0 mmol/h (0.3 mmol) with Na+ HCO3-. There was a significant increase in pH and [lactate] in both groups, but [lactate] was higher in patients receiving lactate. Twenty-one patients survived to ICU discharge, these patients were significantly less acidotic after filtration (lactate group: 0 h: pH 7.23 (0.09), [lactate] 2.4 mmol/l (1.7); 12 h: pH 7.34 (0.09), [lactate] 4.7 mmol/l (2.4); 24 h: pH 7.36 (0.07), [lactate] 4.7 mmol (2.7). HCO3 group: 0 h: pH 7.23 (0.09), [lactate] 2.3 (1.3); 12 h: pH 7.32 (0.06), [lactate] 2.9 mmol/l (1.8); 24 h pH 7.35 (0.08), [lactate] 2.8 mmol/l (2.0). Base deficit: survivors: 0 h: 9 mmol/l (4); 12 h: 2 mmol/l (3). Non-survivors: 0 h: 10 mmol/l (3); 12 h: 6 mmol/l (3)). Haemodynamic and O2 transport variables were not significantly affected by treatment group or outcome. Conclusions. The degree of correction of acidosis during the first 24 h of haemofiltration was determined by patients outcome but was not affected by the substitution of bicarbonate- for lactate-containing replacement fluids. Keywords: acidosis; bicarbonate; critical illness; haemofiltration; lactate
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
J Intensive Care MedHome page
P. J. Fall and H. M. Szerlip
Lactic Acidosis: From Sour Milk to Septic Shock
J Intensive Care Med, September 1, 2005; 20(5): 255 - 271.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Nephrol Dial TransplantHome page
D. Zimmerman, P. Cotman, R. Ting, S. Karanicolas, and S. W. Tobe
Continuous veno–venous haemodialysis with a novel bicarbonate dialysis solution: prospective cross-over comparison with a lactate buffered solution
Nephrol. Dial. Transplant., October 1, 1999; 14(10): 2387 - 2391.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]



Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.