Supplementary Material for: Accuracy of Acid-Base Diagnoses Using the Central Venous Blood Gas in the Medical Intensive Care Unit

<b><i>Background:</i></b> Acid-base disturbances are frequent in critically ill patients. Arterial blood gas (ABG) is the gold standard in the diagnosis of these disturbances, but it is invasive with potential hazards. For patients with a central venous catheter, venous blood gas (VBG) sampling may be an alternative, less-invasive diagnostic tool. However, the accuracy of a central VBG-based acid-base disorder diagnosis compared to an ABG is unknown. The primary objective of this study was to assess the accuracy of a central VBG-based acid-base disorder diagnosis compared to the “gold standard” ABG in critically ill patients. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> This was a study of adult patients in a medical intensive care unit that had simultaneously drawn ABG and central VBG samples. Expert acid-base diagnosticians, all nephrologists, diagnosed the acid-base disorder(s) in each blood gas sample. The central VBG diagnostic accuracy was assessed with percent agreement, sensitivity, and specificity compared to the ABG-based diagnosis. <b><i>Results:</i></b> The study involved 23 participants. Overall, the central VBG had 100% sensitivity for metabolic acidosis, metabolic alkalosis, and respiratory acidosis, and lower sensitivity (71%) for respiratory alkalosis, and high percent agreement, ranging from 75 to 94%. VBG-based diagnoses in vasopressor-dependent patients (<i>n</i> = 13, 56.5%) performed similarly to the entire sample. <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> In critically ill adult patients, central VBG may be used to detect and diagnose acid-base disturbances with reasonable diagnostic accuracy, even in shock states, compared to the ABG. This study supports the use of central VBG for diagnosis of acid-base disturbances in critically ill patients

Are we being drowned in hydration advice? Thirsty for more?

Hydration pertains simplistically to body water volume. Functionally, however, hydration is one aspect of fluid regulation that is far more complex, as it involves the homeostatic regulation of total body fluid volume, composition and distribution. Deliberate or pathological alteration of these regulated factors can be disabling or fatal, whereas they are impacted by exercise and by all environmental stressors (e.g. heat, immersion, gravity) both acutely and chronically. For example, dehydration during exercising and environmental heat stress reduces water volume more than electrolyte content, causing hyperosmotic hypohydration. If exercise continues for many hours with access to food and water, composition returns to normal but extracellular volume increases well above baseline (if exercising upright and at low altitude). Repeating bouts of exercise or heat stress does likewise. Dehydration due to physical activity or environmental heat is a routine fluid-regulatory stress. How to gauge such dehydration and — more importantly—what to do about it, are contested heavily within sports medicine and nutrition. Drinking to limit changes in body mass is commonly advocated (to maintain ≤2% reduction), rather than relying on behavioural cues (mainly thirst) because the latter has been deemed too insensitive. This review, as part of the series on moving in extreme environments, critiques the validity, problems and merits of externally versus autonomously controlled fluid-regulatory behaviours, both acutely and chronically. Our contention is that externally advocated hydration policies (especially based on change in body mass with exercise in healthy individuals) have limited merit and are extrapolated and imposed too widely upon society, at the expense of autonomy. More research is warranted to examine whether ad libitum versus avid drinking is beneficial, detrimental or neither in: acute settings; adapting for obligatory dehydration (e.g. elite endurance competition in the heat), and; development of chronic diseases that are associated with an extreme lack of environmental stress