Has Stewart approach improved our ability to diagnose acid-base disorders in critically ill patients?

The Stewart approach-the application of basic physical-chemical principles of aqueous solutions to blood-is an appealing method for analyzing acid-base disorders. These principles mainly dictate that pH is determined by three independent variables, which change primarily and independently of one other. In blood plasma in vivo these variables are: (1) the PCO2; (2) the strong ion difference (SID)-the difference between the sums of all the strong (i.e., fully dissociated, chemically nonreacting) cations and all the strong anions; and (3) the nonvolatile weak acids (Atot). Accordingly, the pH and the bicarbonate levels (dependent variables) are only altered when one or more of the independent variables change. Moreover, the source of H(+) is the dissociation of water to maintain electroneutrality when the independent variables are modified. The basic principles of the Stewart approach in blood, however, have been challenged in different ways. First, the presumed independent variables are actually interdependent as occurs in situations such as: (1) the Hamburger effect (a chloride shift when CO2 is added to venous blood from the tissues); (2) the loss of Donnan equilibrium (a chloride shift from the interstitium to the intravascular compartment to balance the decrease of Atot secondary to capillary leak; and (3) the compensatory response to a primary disturbance in either independent variable. Second, the concept of water dissociation in response to changes in SID is controversial and lacks experimental evidence. In addition, the Stewart approach is not better than the conventional method for understanding acid-base disorders such as hyperchloremic metabolic acidosis secondary to a chloride-rich-fluid load. Finally, several attempts were performed to demonstrate the clinical superiority of the Stewart approach. These studies, however, have severe methodological drawbacks. In contrast, the largest study on this issue indicated the interchangeability of the Stewart and conventional methods. Although the introduction of the Stewart approach was a new insight into acid-base physiology, the method has not significantly improved our ability to understand, diagnose, and treat acid-base alterations in critically ill patients.

Alterations in urinary strong ion difference in critically ill patients with metabolic acidosis: a prospective observational study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The correct renal response to metabolic acidosis should be a negative shift in the urinary strong ion difference ([SID](urinary) = [Na(+)](urinary) + [K(+)](urinary) - [Cl(-)](urinary)). Our hypothesis was that the failure to decrease the [SID](urinary) is frequently present and leads to a more severe metabolic acidosis. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Prospective observational study conducted in the medical/surgical intensive care unit of a teaching hospital between 1 January 2006 and 30 April 2007. Participants were 98 patients with metabolic acidosis on ICU admission and 10 healthy volunteers. INTERVENTIONS: None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Severity of metabolic acidosis; behaviour of acid-base variables according to positive or negative [SID](urinary). RESULTS: Twelve patients (12%) had negative [SID](urinary) and 86 (88%) had positive [SID](urinary). Compared with patients with positive [SID](urinary), those with negative [SID](urinary) had higher [HCO(3) (-)] (20 ±2 v 18 ±3 mmol/L), base excess ([BE]) (-5 ±2 v -7 ±2 mmol/L), anion gap ([AG]) (21 ±5 v 17 ±4 mmol/L), Δ[AG] - Δ[HCO(3)(-)] (1 ±5 v -3 ±3 mmol/L) and lower [Cl(-)] (105 ±5 v 111 ±3 mmol/L). CONCLUSIONS: Most of the critically ill patients with metabolic acidosis showed inappropriate renal compensation, as evidenced by positive [SID](urinary) and higher plasma [Cl(-)]. These patients had more severe metabolic acidosis. On the other hand, patients with adequate renal response and negative [SID](urinary) had positive Δ[AG] - Δ[HCO(3)(-)]. These findings, usually considered as a diagnosis of associated metabolic alkalosis, might be interpreted as the proper renal response to metabolic acidosis.

Comparison of three different methods of evaluation of metabolic acid-base disorders.

OBJECTIVES: The Stewart approach states that pH is primarily determined by Pco2, strong ion difference (SID), and nonvolatile weak acids. This method might identify severe metabolic disturbances that go undetected by traditional analysis. Our goal was to compare diagnostic and prognostic performances of the Stewart approach with a) the traditional analysis based on bicarbonate (HCO3) and base excess (BE); and b) an approach relying on HCO3, BE, and albumin-corrected anion gap (AGcorrected). DESIGN: Prospective observational study. SETTING: A university-affiliated hospital intensive care unit (ICU). PATIENTS: Nine hundred thirty-five patients admitted to the ICU. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The Stewart approach detected an arterial metabolic alteration in 131 (14%) of patients with normal HCO3- and BE, including 120 (92%) patients with metabolic acidosis. However, 108 (90%) of these patients had an increased AGcorrected. The Stewart approach permitted the additional diagnosis of metabolic acidosis in only 12 (1%) patients with normal HCO3, BE, and AGcorrected. On the other hand, the Stewart approach failed to identify 27 (3%) patients with alterations otherwise observed with the use of HCO3-, BE, and AGcorrected (16 cases of acidosis and 11 of alkalosis). SID and BE, and strong ion gap (SIG) and AGcorrected, were tightly correlated (R2 = .86 and .97, p < .0001 for both) with narrow 95% limits of agreement (8 and 3 mmol/L, respectively). Areas under receiver operating characteristic curves to predict 30-day mortality were 0.83, 0.62, 0.61, 0.60, 0.57, 0.56, and 0.67 for Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score, SIG, AGcorrected, SID, BE, HCO3-, and lactates, respectively (SOFA vs. the rest, p < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: In this large group of critically ill patients, diagnostic performance of the Stewart approach exceeded that of HCO3- and BE. However, when AGcorrected was included in the analysis, the Stewart approach did not offer any diagnostic or prognostic advantages.