Diagnostic accuracy of calculated serum osmolarity to predict dehydration in older people: adding value to pathology lab reports

Objectives: To assess which osmolarity equation best predicts directly measured serum/plasma osmolality and whether its use could add value to routine blood test results through screening for dehydration in older people. Design: Diagnostic accuracy study Participants: Older people (≥65 years) in 5 cohorts: Dietary Strategies for Healthy Ageing in Europe (NU-AGE, living in the community), Dehydration Recognition In our Elders (DRIE, living in residential care), Fortes (admitted to acute medical care), Sjöstrand (emergency room) or Pfortmueller cohorts (hospitalised with liver cirrhosis). Reference standard for hydration status: Directly measured serum/plasma osmolality: current dehydration (serum osmolality >300mOsm/kg), impending/current dehydration (≥295mOsm/kg). Index tests: 39 osmolarity equations calculated using serum indices from the same blood draw as directly measured osmolality. Results: Across five cohorts 595 older people were included, of whom 19% were dehydrated (directly measured osmolality >300mOsm/kg). Of 39 osmolarity equations, five showed reasonable agreement with directly measured osmolality and three had good predictive accuracy in subgroups with diabetes and poor renal function. Two equations were characterized by narrower limits of agreement, low levels of differential bias and good diagnostic accuracy in ROC plots (areas under the curve >0.8). The best equation was osmolarity =1.86 × (Na+ + K+) + 1.15 × glucose + urea + 14 (all measured in mmol/L). It appeared useful in people aged ≥65 years with and without diabetes, poor renal function, dehydration, in men and women, with a range of ages, health, cognitive and functional status. Conclusions: Some commonly used osmolarity equations work poorly, and should not be used. Given costs and prevalence of dehydration in older people we suggest use of the best formula by pathology laboratories using a cutpoint of 295mOsm/L (sensitivity 85%, specificity 59%), to report dehydration risk opportunistically when serum glucose, urea and electrolytes are measured for other reasons in older adults

Water-loss dehydration and aging

This review defines water-loss and salt-loss dehydration. For older people serum osmolality appears the most appropriate gold standard for diagnosis of water-loss dehydration, but clear signs of early dehydration have not been developed. In older adults, lower muscle mass, reduced kidney function, physical and cognitive disabilities, blunted thirst, and polypharmacy all increase dehydration risk. Cross-sectional studies suggest a water-loss dehydration prevalence of 20-30% in this population. Water-loss dehydration is associated with higher mortality, morbidity and disability in older people, but evidence is still needed that this relationship is causal. There are a variety of ways we may be able to help older people reduce their risk of dehydration by recognising that they are not drinking enough, and being helped to drink more. Strategies to increase fluid intake in residential care homes include identifying and overcoming individual and institutional barriers to drinking, such as being worried about not reaching the toilet in time, physical inability to make or to reach drinks, and reduced social drinking and drinking pleasure. Research needs are discussed, some of which will be addressed by the FP7-funded NU-AGE (New dietary strategies addressing the specific needs of elderly population for a healthy ageing in Europe) trial

The development of a multidisciplinary fall risk evaluation tool for demented nursing home patients in the Netherlands

BACKGROUND: Demented nursing home patients are at high risk for falls. Falls and associated injuries can have a considerable influence on the autonomy and quality of life of patients. The prevention of falls among demented patients is therefore an important issue. In order to intervene in an efficient way in this group of patients, it is important to systematically evaluate the fall risk profile of each individual patient so that for each patient tailor-made preventive measures can be taken. Therefore, the objective of the present study is to develop a feasible and evidence based multidisciplinary fall risk evaluation tool to be used for tailoring preventive interventions to the needs of individual demented patients. METHODS: To develop this multidisciplinary fall risk evaluation tool we have chosen to combine scientific evidence on the one hand and experts' opinions on the other hand. Firstly, relevant risk factors for falling in elderly persons were gathered from the literature. Secondly, a group of Dutch experts in the field of falls and fall prevention in the elderly were consulted to judge the suitability of these risk factors for use in a multidisciplinary fall risk evaluation tool for demented nursing home patients. Thirdly, in order to generate a compact list of the most relevant risk factors for falling in demented elderly, all risk factors had to fulfill a set of criteria indicating their relevance for this specific target population. Lastly the final list of risk factors resulting from the above mentioned procedure was presented to the expert group. The members were also asked to give their opinion about the practical use of the tool. RESULTS: The multidisciplinary fall risk evaluation tool we developed includes the following items: previous falls, use of medication, locomotor functions, and (correct) choice and use of assistive and protective devices. The tool is developed for the multidisciplinary teams of the nursing homes. CONCLUSION: This evidence and practice based multidisciplinary fall risk evaluation tool targets the preventive interventions aimed to prevent falls and their negative consequences in demented nursing home patients

Water-loss (intracellular) dehydration assessed using urinary tests, how well do they work? Diagnostic accuracy in older people

Background: Water-loss dehydration (hypertonic, hyperosmotic or intra-cellular dehydration) is due to insufficient fluid intake and distinct from hypovolemia due to excess fluid losses. It is associated with poor health outcomes such as disability and mortality in older people. Urine specific gravity (USG), color and urine osmolality have been widely advocated for screening for dehydration in older adults. Objective: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of urinary measures to screen for water-loss dehydration in older people.Design: This was a diagnostic accuracy study of people aged ≥65years taking part in the Dehydration Recognition In our Elders (DRIE, living in long-term care) or Dietary Strategies for Healthy Ageing in Europe (NU-AGE, living in the community) studies. The reference standard was serum osmolality, index tests included USG, urine color, osmolality, cloudiness, additional dipstick measures, ability to provide a urine sample, and volume of a random urine sample. Minimum useful diagnostic accuracy was set at sensitivity and specificity ≥70% or receiver operating characteristics plot area under the curve ≥0.70. Results: DRIE participants (67% women, mean age 86 years, n=162) had more limited cognitive and functional abilities than NU-AGE participants (64% women, mean age 70 years, n=151). 19% of DRIE and 22% of NU-AGE participants were dehydrated (serum osmolality >300mOsm/kg). Neither USG nor any other potential urinary tests were usefully diagnostic for water-loss dehydration. Conclusions: Although USG, urine color and urinary osmolality have been widely advocated for screening for dehydration in older adults, we show in the largest study to date that their diagnostic accuracy is too low to be useful and these measures should not be used to indicate hydration status in older people (either alone or as part of a wider tranche of tests). There is a need to develop simple, inexpensive and non-invasive tools for the assessment of dehydration in older people

Clinical Practice Guideline for the Evaluation of Fever and Infection in Older Adult Residents of Long-Term Care Facilities: 2008 Update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/65801/1/j.1532-5415.2009.02175.x.pd