AzTrials
AzTrials

ShockNCT02652364

Strong Ion Gap as Prognostic Indicator for Adult Patients Admitted With Shock to the Intensive Care Units

An observational study of Shock, run by Singapore General Hospital at 1 site in Singapore.

Completed

Finished. The study has ended and is not enrolling. Results may be posted on the official record.

Official record
Search all trials

Trial summary

This study evaluates if strong ion gap on admission or 24 hours after admission to critical care unit can predict 28 day outcome in patients admitted with shock due to any cause Read more about this study

Who is it for?
Ages 21 to 99 years
Conditions the study is for
Shock
How many people
112 participants
Where
1 siteSingapore
Study dates
Oct 2015to Oct 2017
Phase
Observational
Are there results?
None posted in the registry

Key requirements

Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.

  • Ages 21 to 99 years
  • All sexes
  • No healthy volunteers
  • Adult, Older adult

Study population: Patient with any form of shock on admission to ICU defined by those who require vasopressors or inotropes to maintain MAP > 65mmHg on admission

Who may be able to join

  • Patient with any form of shock on admission to ICU

Who cannot join

  • CKD stage 3 and above (GFR> 60)
  • Chronic liver failure( Child's B grade and above)
  • Patients who were already recruited for this study
  • Patients expected to die within next 48 hrs upon admission

Trial locations and contacts

1 site in 1 country.

Singapore1 site
  • Singapore General Hospital

    Singapore, 169608

Other trials in Singapore

About this study

This study evaluates if strong ion gap on admission or 24 hours after admission to critical care unit can predict 28 day outcome in patients admitted with shock due to any cause

Read the detailed description

Metabolic acidosis is frequently found in patients with shock. Traditional methods of evaluating acid-base status can underestimate and even miss complex acid-base disorders particularly in the setting of hypoalbuminemia, hypo/hypernatraemia and hypo/hyperchloraemia .An alternative approach to acid-base balance, based on chemical and physical principles, and was proposed by Peter Stewart more than 30 years ago. Later in 1992 Figge and Fencl modified the strong ion difference, which corresponds with the net charge balance of all strong ions present in a given solution (the ''Fencl-Stewart'' approach). The strong ion gap (SIG) which corresponds with the difference between the apparent strong ion difference and the effective strong ion difference was proposed by Kellum. Compared to the Fencl- Stewart approach SIG has more accuracy and bedside practicality.

As the SIG is calculated from all known charged components of blood, it is considered the gold standard for the quantification of unmeasured anions. In contrast, the traditional anion gap calculation only factors in sodium, potassium, chloride and bicarbonate. In healthy humans, the SIG equals zero. In critically ill patients, a high SIG, defined as >2mEq/L, indicates the accumulation of unmeasured anions in blood as a cause of acidosis. The unmeasured anions include lactate, ketoacids, uraemic acids and toxins like ethylene glycol and methanol. Studies found that a higher SIG on admission to intensive care unit is associated with poorer outcomes, and has a role in prediction of outcome in septic patients. However this finding is not consistent.

In addition it was found that there is a significant difference in the threshold for SIG value associated with higher mortality. The abnormal SIG value in American studies are described around 5 mEq/l . However studies from Europe and Australia reported higher values in the range of 8-13 mEq/l. It is speculated that this difference is due to exogenous sources of unmeasured ions from gelatin based intravenous fluids used for resuscitation. Interestingly studies using gelatine- based fluids also failed to show a correlation between SIG and mortality. SIG values have not been published in critically ill Asian adult patients admitted to the Intensive Care Units (ICU) as yet. We aim to find the SIG for these patients in the hope that it will be useful for predicting outcome. Our hypothesis is that SIG is an independent predictor of outcomes in adult patient with shock.

We propose to conduct this prospective observational study in the surgical and medical ICUs of 2 hospitals in Singapore. (Singapore General Hospital and Changi General Hospital) We aim to enrol 112 of you admitted to the ICU with shock of any etiology. Shock is defined as persistence of arterial hypotension despite adequate volume resuscitation. Hypotension is defined as systolic pressure <90mmHg, Mean arterial pressure (MAP)<70 mmHg or drop in SBP >40 mmHg from baseline. 30ml/kg of fluid is considered as the threshold for adequate volume resuscitation.

The methodology of this observational study was approved by Sing health Institutional review Board, Singapore. We will include you if you have persistent hypotension despite adequate fluid resuscitation as defined above or if you require vasopressors or inotropes to maintain MAP above 65mmHg on admission.

We will exclude the conditions with acid base disturbance which are not amenable to using standard supportive care such as pre-existing chronic kidney disease stage 3 and above ( defined as estimated GFR<60 ml/min/1.73m2 ) and chronic liver failure.

Blood samples will be taken from indwelling intra-arterial catheters on admission and 24 hours after admission. Blood samples will be analyzed in the respective hospital laboratory for Arterial Blood Gas(ABG) analysis, electrolytes albumin and lactate levels in order to calculate the SIG.

All of you included in the study will be managed by the same group of critical care physician in accordance with pre-existing protocols in both ICUs to ensure that there will not be any major discrepancies among patients in terms of organ support and therapy. Haemodynamic support will be applied to reverse the hypotension and to correct peripheral perfusion abnormalities after optimal resuscitation. IV noradrenaline is the vasopressor of first choice followed by vasopressin and adrenaline.

Data collection-

Fluid resuscitation before ICU admission, SOFA and APACHE II score 24 hours after the admission, requirement for vasopressors, mechanical ventilation renal replacement therapy(RRT) ,duration of ICU stay, number of ventilator days, duration of vasopressor support, number of vasopressors used and the duration of RRT, 28 day outcome will be collected.

Calculation of SIG-

SIG will be calculated according to the following formulae;

  1. SIG= SIDapp - SIDeff (SIDapp -Strong ion difference apparent; SIDeff - Strong ion difference effective)
  2. SIDapp = ( Na++K++Ca2++Mg2+) - (Cl-+Lactate-) ( all concentrations in mEq/l)
  3. SIDeff = 2.46 x 10-8 x Pco2/ 10-pH + [albumin] x ( 0.123xpH - 0.631) +[PO43-] x (0.309xpH -0.469) (PCO2 is measured in mm Hg, albumin in g/L, and phosphate in mmol/L)
Conditions
Shock
Medical subject headings
Shock

What is being measured

The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.

  1. mortality

    Measured: 28 days

Secondary outcomes (1)
  1. Duration of ICU stay

    number of days patient spent in ICU

    Measured: 28 days

Timeline

From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.

  1. First posted11 Jan 2016 (estimated)
  2. Study startOct 2015
  3. Primary completionOct 2017
  4. Study completionOct 2017

Resources

More details

For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.

Study design
Study type
Observational
Observational model
Case only
Time perspective
Prospective
Enrolment
112 participants (actual)
IDs, dates and publications
ClinicalTrials.gov ID
NCT02652364
Sponsor's protocol ID
2015/2423
Status last verified
Mar 2020
First submitted
7 Jan 2016
Last updated
19 Mar 2020
Results posted
No
Data monitoring committee
No

Publications

  • Mecher C, Rackow EC, Astiz ME, Weil MH. Unaccounted for anion in metabolic acidosis during severe sepsis in humans. Crit Care Med. 1991 May;19(5):705-11. doi: 10.1097/00003246-199105000-00018.

    PubMed 2026034
  • Figge J, Mydosh T, Fencl V. Serum proteins and acid-base equilibria: a follow-up. J Lab Clin Med. 1992 Nov;120(5):713-9.

    PubMed 1431499
  • Figge J, Jabor A, Kazda A, Fencl V. Anion gap and hypoalbuminemia. Crit Care Med. 1998 Nov;26(11):1807-10. doi: 10.1097/00003246-199811000-00019.

    PubMed 9824071
  • Stewart PA. Modern quantitative acid-base chemistry. Can J Physiol Pharmacol. 1983 Dec;61(12):1444-61. doi: 10.1139/y83-207.

    PubMed 6423247
  • Kellum JA, Kramer DJ, Pinsky MR. Strong ion gap: a methodology for exploring unexplained anions. J Crit Care. 1995 Jun;10(2):51-5. doi: 10.1016/0883-9441(95)90016-0.

    PubMed 7647842
  • Gunnerson KJ. Clinical review: the meaning of acid-base abnormalities in the intensive care unit part I - epidemiology. Crit Care. 2005 Oct 5;9(5):508-16. doi: 10.1186/cc3796. Epub 2005 Aug 10.

    PubMed 16277740
  • Kellum JA. Closing the gap on unmeasured anions. Crit Care. 2003 Jun;7(3):219-20. doi: 10.1186/cc2189. Epub 2003 May 8.

    PubMed 12793870
  • Rutherford EJ, Morris JA Jr, Reed GW, Hall KS. Base deficit stratifies mortality and determines therapy. J Trauma. 1992 Sep;33(3):417-23. doi: 10.1097/00005373-199209000-00014.

    PubMed 1404512
  • Smith I, Kumar P, Molloy S, Rhodes A, Newman PJ, Grounds RM, Bennett ED. Base excess and lactate as prognostic indicators for patients admitted to intensive care. Intensive Care Med. 2001 Jan;27(1):74-83. doi: 10.1007/s001340051352.

    PubMed 11280677
  • Balasubramanyan N, Havens PL, Hoffman GM. Unmeasured anions identified by the Fencl-Stewart method predict mortality better than base excess, anion gap, and lactate in patients in the pediatric intensive care unit. Crit Care Med. 1999 Aug;27(8):1577-81. doi: 10.1097/00003246-199908000-00030.

    PubMed 10470767
  • Kaplan LJ, Kellum JA. Initial pH, base deficit, lactate, anion gap, strong ion difference, and strong ion gap predict outcome from major vascular injury. Crit Care Med. 2004 May;32(5):1120-4. doi: 10.1097/01.ccm.0000125517.28517.74.

    PubMed 15190960
  • Funk GC, Doberer D, Sterz F, Richling N, Kneidinger N, Lindner G, Schneeweiss B, Eisenburger P. The strong ion gap and outcome after cardiac arrest in patients treated with therapeutic hypothermia: a retrospective study. Intensive Care Med. 2009 Feb;35(2):232-9. doi: 10.1007/s00134-008-1315-1. Epub 2008 Oct 14.

    PubMed 18853143
  • Noritomi DT, Soriano FG, Kellum JA, Cappi SB, Biselli PJ, Liborio AB, Park M. Metabolic acidosis in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock: a longitudinal quantitative study. Crit Care Med. 2009 Oct;37(10):2733-9. doi: 10.1097/ccm.0b013e3181a59165.

    PubMed 19885998
  • Cusack RJ, Rhodes A, Lochhead P, Jordan B, Perry S, Ball JA, Grounds RM, Bennett ED. The strong ion gap does not have prognostic value in critically ill patients in a mixed medical/surgical adult ICU. Intensive Care Med. 2002 Jul;28(7):864-9. doi: 10.1007/s00134-002-1318-2. Epub 2002 Jun 14.

    PubMed 12122523
  • Rocktaeschel J, Morimatsu H, Uchino S, Bellomo R. Unmeasured anions in critically ill patients: can they predict mortality? Crit Care Med. 2003 Aug;31(8):2131-6. doi: 10.1097/01.CCM.0000079819.27515.8E.

    PubMed 12973170

Questions about this trial

What is this clinical trial studying?

An observational study of Shock, run by Singapore General Hospital at 1 site in Singapore.

The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.

Who may be eligible to take part?

The sponsor lists 1 inclusion and 4 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.

Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?

The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 19 Mar 2020. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.

Where is the study taking place?

The record lists 1 site in Singapore. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.

What are the possible benefits and risks?

They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.

Are results available for this study?

The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.

How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?

The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.

What does the primary outcome measure?

mortality (time frame: 28 days). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.

Where can I read the original study information?

On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT02652364, which also lists 17 linked publications.

Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?

No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.

How often is this information updated?

AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 19 Mar 2020.

Free account

Log in to keep searching

You’ve used your 3 free searches. AzTrials is free: log in or create a free account to keep searching clinical trials and save the ones you want to follow.

Create a free accountLog in