American Journal of Emergency Medicine
Volume 28, Issue 5 , Pages 577-581, June 2010

Reliability of anion gap calculated from data obtained using a blood gas analyzer: is the probability of error predictable?

  • Norio Otani, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Emergency and Critical Care Medicine, St. Luke’s International Hospital, Tokyo 104-8560, Japan
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. Tel.: +81 3 3541 5151; fax: +81 3 5550 7066.
  • ,
  • Sachiko Ohde, EdM

      Affiliations

    • Center for Clinical Epidemiology, St. Luke’s Life Science Institute, Tokyo 104-8560, Japan
  • ,
  • Toshiaki Mochizuki, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Emergency and Critical Care Medicine, St. Luke’s International Hospital, Tokyo 104-8560, Japan
  • ,
  • Shinichi Ishimatsu, MD, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Emergency and Critical Care Medicine, St. Luke’s International Hospital, Tokyo 104-8560, Japan

Received 2 January 2009; received in revised form 3 February 2009; accepted 4 February 2009. published online 23 November 2009.

Abstract 

Background

Anion gap (AG) is a useful index for assessing the clinical condition of critically ill patients especially in intoxication. Recently, AG can be obtained easily using a blood gas analyzer (BGA); however, its reliability requires validation.

Methods

We enrolled patients who simultaneously underwent blood gas analysis and blood test in the central hospital laboratory and patients who visited the emergency department of our hospital from January 1, 2004, to December 31, 2007.

The deviation of AG calculated using the BGA and that calculated by the central hospital laboratory were extracted. From the data obtained using the BGA, the independent risk factor causing a significant error in AG was statistically analyzed.

Results

A total of 2922 patients were enrolled, of which 339 were defined as the significant error group. Male sex, abnormal Hco3, abnormal lactate, abnormal K, abnormal Cl, and abnormal Na were the independent risk factors producing the significant error. The results indicate that regardless of whether the original electrolyte data of the patients are abnormal, when the electrolyte measurement results obtained using the BGA are abnormal, the calculated AG might show a significant error. In addition, the fact that lactate was determined as a risk factor indicates that AG might be more useful in patients who have intoxication than in those under an unstable state in terms of vital signs.

Conclusion

When risk factors are present, the medical condition of a patient should be reevaluated by comparing results without heavily relying on the AG obtained by a BGA.

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

PII: S0735-6757(09)00077-1

doi:10.1016/j.ajem.2009.02.011

American Journal of Emergency Medicine
Volume 28, Issue 5 , Pages 577-581, June 2010