Abstract
Introduction
Hypernatremia is a commonly associated electrolyte disturbance in sepsis and septic shock patients in the ICU. The objective of this study was to identify the prognostic value of hypernatremia in sepsis and septic shock
Material and Methods
A prospective study conducted on sepsis and septic shock patients diagnosed prior to admission in the ICU in King Hamad University Hospital, Bahrain from January 1st 2017 to February 28th 2019. Data including age, sex, comorbidities, source of sepsis, sodium levels on days one, three, and seven. Data was correlated with the outcome (survival/death and the length of ICU stay).
Results
Patients included were 168, 110 survived, and 58 died. Hypernatraemia at day seven was associated with significantly higher mortality (P= 0.03). Hypernatraemia at Day1was associated with a significantly prolonged stay in the ICU (p= 0.039).Multivariate analysis to identify the independent predictors of mortality revealed that immunosuppression and hypernatraemia at Day7 proved to be independent predictors of mortality (P= 0.026 and 0.039 respectively).
Conclusion
Hypernatremia can be an independent predictor of poor outcome in septic and septic shock patients in the ICU.
Keywords: sepsis, hypernatremia, biomarkers
Introduction
Sepsis and septic shock are among the most prevalent causes of intensive care unit (ICU) admissions. They account for around 10-50% of the mortality rate, which remains high despite extensive research, the Surviving Sepsis Campaign, and national core measures [1, 2, 3, 4, 5].
Sepsis is defined as “Organ dysfunction that threatens the patient’s life caused by the impaired host response to infection” [6]. However, septic shock is defined as hypotension and serum lactate level greater than two mmol/L, as well as not responding to adequate fluid resuscitation requiring the use of vasopressors to maintain the mean blood pressure of 65 mm Hg or higher [7]. Sepsis and septic shock are considered medical emergencies that require early identification and immediate management [8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16].
Acute hypernatremia is considered one of the features of homeostasis disturbances, which is common in septic patients with an incidence reaching up to 47% [17]
Finding biomarkers which predict the outcome of sepsis is challenging [18,19]. Since electrolyte imbalance, specifically hypernatremia, is one of the commonest problems associated with sepsis and septic shock patients [20, 21]. It is, therefore, of current interest to study the evolution of sepsis in patients who have been shown to have hypernatremia.
The aim of the present study is to identify the prevalence and prognostic impact of hypernatremia on sepsis and septic shock patients
Materials and Methods
A prospective observational study, conducted on sepsis and septic shock patients that were admitted in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) of King Hamad University Hospital, Kingdom of Bahrain over 25 months, starting from January 1st, 2017 till February 28th, 2019.
The diagnosis of sepsis and septic shock was made prior to the ICU admission.
Sepsis and septic shock were defined according to the Sepsis 3 definition using the Quick Sofa score of 2 or more [6, 7], and hypernatremia was defined as [Na+]> 145 mmol/L.
The excluded patients were those aged < 18 years, those planned for “end of life care”, and patients with a previous diagnosis of hyperaldosteronism, Cushing syndrome, or diabetes insipidus.
Data collection methods, instruments used, and measurements
Data collected included demographic data (age, sex), comorbidities, source of sepsis, sodium levels on days one, three, and seven.
The source of sepsis was confirmed via a routine sepsis workup that included radiological evidence, culture and sensitivity of blood, sputum, and urine, abdominal fluid drain culture, tissue culture, and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) analysis and cultures for suspected cases.
Various variables including demographic data, comorbidities, source of sepsis, and sodium levels on days 1, 3, and 7 were assessed against the outcome parameters, that were the length of ICU stay and mortality.
To test the predictability of sodium levels, patients were divided into patients with hypernatraemia (Na level > 145 mmol/l), eunatraemia (Na level = 135-145 mmol/l) or hyponatraemia (Na level < 135 mmol/l) on days 1,3, and 7 post-admission to the ICU
Data management and analysis plan
The data was analyzed using SPSS version 22 and Microsoft Excel 2016.
The level of significance was set at 0.05
Results
Of 224 patients admitted to the ICU with sepsis and septic shock, 168 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Demographic data, comorbidities, and sources of sepsis were analysed (Table 1).
Table 1.
Relationships between Outcome and Demographic data, Comorbidities, and Sources of Sepsis (n= 168)
| Outcome | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total (n= 168) | Survival (n= 110) | Death (n= 58) | p | |
| Gender | ||||
| Male | 92 (54.8%) | 60 (54.5%) | 32 (55.2%) | 0.938 |
| Female | 76 (45.2%) | 50 (45.5%) | 26 (44.8%) | |
| Age (years) | ||||
| Median (Min. – Max.) | 69 (26 – 104) | 67 (26 – 97) | 74 (34 – 104) | 0.001* |
| Mean ± SD. | 68.5 ± 13.3 | 72.7 ± 10.9 | 66.3 ± 14 | |
| Comorbidities | ||||
| Diabetes mellitus | 116 (69%) | 71 (64.5%) | 45 (77.6%) | 0.082 |
| Chronic kidney disease | 53 (31.5%) | 29 (26.4%) | 24 (41.4%) | 0.046* |
| High blood pressure | 131 (78%) | 81 (73.6%) | 50(86.2%) | 0.062 |
| Ischemic heart disease | 63 (37.5%) | 33 (30%) | 30 (51.7%) | 0.046* |
| Immunosuppressed | 44 (73.8%) | 20 (20) | 24 (41.4%) | 0.002* |
| Source of sepsis | ||||
| Unknown | 7 (4.2%) | 3 (5.2%) | 4(3.6%) | 0.694 |
| Abdomen | 19 (11.3%) | 12 (10.9%) | 7 (12.1%) | 0.821 |
| Lungs | 84 (50%) | 52 (47.3%) | 32 (55.2%) | 0.330 |
| Urinary Tract | 45 (26.8%) | 29 (26.4%) | 16 (27.6%) | 0.865 |
| Central nervous system | 2 (1.2%) | 1 (0.9%) | 1 (1.7%) | 1.000 |
| Soft Tissue/Ulcer | 24 (14.3%) | 16 (14.5%) | 8 (13.8%) | 0.895 |
| Orthopedic | 1 (0.6%) | 1 (0.9%) | 0 (0%) | 1.000 |
| Blood stream infection | 3 (1.8%) | 2 (3.4%) | 1 (0.9%) | 0.274 |
t: Student t-test; U: Mann Whitney test; p: p-value for the association between Outcome and diferent parameters; *: Statistically significant at p ≤ 0.05
One hundred and ten patients survived, and fifty-eight died. Regarding comorbidities, chronic kidney disease (CKD), ischemic heart disease (IHD), and immunosuppressed patients had significantly higher mortality. (P = 0.046, 0.046, and 0.002) respectively. (Table 1)
CKD and diabetes mellitus (DM) were associated with a significantly longer length of stay. (P= 0.003, 0.011) respectively (Table 2).
Table 2.
Relationships between the length of ICU stay and Demographic data, Comorbidities, and Source of Sepsis (n=168)
| length of ICU stays | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Median (Min. – Max.) | Mean ± SD. | p | |
| Gender | |||
| Male | 10 (1 – 120) | 17 ± 20.5 | 0.892 |
| Female | 9.5 (1 – 210) | 21.8 ± 32.3 | |
| Comorbidities | |||
| Diabetes mellitus | 12 (1 – 210) | 21.8 ± 29.5 | 0.011* |
| Chronic kidney disease | 14 (1 – 124) | 25.2 ± 26.1 | 0.003* |
| High blood pressure | 10 (1 – 210) | 20.8 ± 28.9 | 0.229 |
| Ischemic heart disease | 10 (1 – 210) | 20.1 ± 30.5 | 0.999 |
| Immunosuppressed | 10.5 (2 – 120) | 21.5 ± 25.7 | 0.406 |
| Source of sepsis | |||
| Unknown | 21 (5 – 120) | 42.7 ± 44.2 | 0.046* |
| Abdomen | 19 (3 – 57) | 22.9 ± 19.3 | 0.101 |
| Lungs | 11.5 (1 – 210) | 24 ± 34.1 | 0.292 |
| Urinary Tract | 9 (1 – 120) | 16 ± 22.5 | 0.277 |
| Central nervous system | 20 (15 – 25) | 20 ± 7.1 | 0.371 |
| Soft Tissue/Ulcer | 12.5 (2 – 68) | 16.6 ± 15.8 | 0.652 |
| Orthopedic | 5# | - | |
| Bloodstream infection | 8 (2 – 21) | 10.3 ± 9.7 | 0.606 |
p: p-value for the association between length of ICU stay and different parameters; *: Statistically significant at p ≤ 0.05; #: Excluded from the association due to a small number of case (n = 1)
Sodium levels were recorded and assessed against the outcome parameters. Hypernatremia at Day1 and Day3 did not show any positive correlation with outcome. However, hypernatraemia at day seven was associated with significantly higher mortality (P = 0.388, 0.709, and 0.030, respectively). (Table 3) However, hypernatraemia at Day1 was associated with a significantly prolonged stay in the ICU (p= 0.039). (Table 4)
Table 3.
Relation between Outcome and Sodium levels on Days 1, Days 3, and Days 7 (n= 168)
| Outcome | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total (n= 168) | Survival (n= 110) | Death (n= 58) | p | |
| Serum Na (day1) | ||||
| Low (<135) | 67 (39.9%) | 42 (38.2%) | 25 (43.1%) | |
| Normal (135 – 145) | 91 (54.2%) | 64 (58.2%) | 27 (46.6%) | |
| High (>145) | 10 (6%) | 4 (3.6%) | 6 (10.3%) | |
| Median (Min. – Max.) | 136 (109–152) | 136 (114–151) | 135 (109–152) | 0.388 |
| Mean ± SD. | 135.6± 6.6 | 135.6± 5.9 | 134.8± 7.9 | |
| Serum Na (day3) | ||||
| Low (<135) | 39(26.4%) | 25 (25%) | 14 (29.2%) | |
| Normal (135 – 145) | 95(64.2%) | 69 (69%) | 26 (54.2%) | |
| High (>145) | 14(9.5%) | 6 (6%) | 8 (16.7%) | |
| Median (Min. – Max.) | 138 (113–155) | 138 (118–155) | 137 (113–152) | 0.709 |
| Mean ± SD. | 137.9 ± 5.8 | 137.8 ± 5 | 137.8 ± 7.3 | |
| Serum Na (day7) | ||||
| Low (<135) | 22 (19.5%) | 16 (22.2%) | 6 (14.6%) | |
| Normal (135 – 145) | 70 (61.9%) | 47 (65.3%) | 23 (56.1%) | |
| High (>145) | 21 (18.6%) | 9 (12.5%) | 12 (29.3%) | |
| Median (Min. – Max.) | 139 (120–154) | 138 (120–154) | 141 (130–152) | 0.030* |
| Mean ± SD. | 139.3 ± 6.2 | 138.3 ± 6 | 141.2 ± 6.3 | |
t: Student t-test; U: Mann Whitney test; p: p-value for the association between Outcome and diferent parameters; *: Statistically significant at p ≤ 0.05
Table (4).
Relation between the Length of ICU stay and Sodium levels on Days 1, Days 3, and Days 7 (n=168)
| length of ICU stays | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Median (Min. – Max.) | Mean ± SD. | p | |
| Serum Na (day1) | |||
| Low (<135) | 12 (1 – 210) | 20 ± 32.5 | |
| Normal (135 – 145) | 8 (1 – 112) | 16.8 ± 20.6 | 0.039* |
| High (>145) | 29.5 (5 – 88) | 34.4 ± 27.8 | |
| Serum Na (day3) | |||
| Low (<135) | 12 (3 – 120) | 17.8 ± 20.6 | |
| Normal (135 – 145) | 12 (1 – 210) | 23.2 ± 30.6 | 0.815 |
| High (>145) | 11.5 (3 – 80) | 20.6 ± 20.5 | |
| Serum Na (day7) | |||
| Low (<135) | 16 (8 – 88) | 21.4 ± 18.8 | |
| Normal (135 – 145) | 17.5 (1 – 210) | 27.1 ± 33.2 | 0.373 |
| High (>145) | 21 (3 – 80) | 32 ± 24.6 | |
p: p-value for the association between length of ICU stay and different parameters; *: Statistically significant at p ≤ 0.05; #: Excluded from the association due to a small number of case (n = 1)
Multivariate analysis to identify the independent predictors of mortality (Table 2) revealed that immunosuppression and hypernatraemia at Day7 proved to be independent predictors of mortality (P= 0.026 and 0.039 respectively) (Table 5).
Table 5.
Univariate and multivariate analysis for independent predictors of mortality
| p | Univariate OR (95%C.I) | p | #Multivariate OR (95%C.I) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 0.004* | 1.040(1.013 – 1.068) | 0.114 | 1.034(0.992 – 1.078) |
| Gender | 0.938 | 1.026(0.541 – 1.944) | ||
| Source of sepsis | ||||
| Unknown | 0.637 | 1.445(0.312 – 6.689) | ||
| Abdomen | 0.822 | 1.121(0.416 – 3.022) | ||
| Lungs | 0.331 | 1.373(0.725 – 2.600) | ||
| Urinary Tract | 0.865 | 1.064(0.520 – 2.175) | ||
| Central nervous system | 0.649 | 1.912(0.117 – 31.142) | ||
| Soft Tissue/Ulcer | 0.895 | 0.940(0.376 – 2.348) | ||
| Orthopaedic | 1.000 | - | ||
| Bloodstream infection | 0.271 | 3.893(0.345 – 43.866) | ||
| Comorbidities | ||||
| Diabetes mellitus | 0.085 | 1.901(0.916 – 3.947) | ||
| Chronic kidney disease | 0.048* | 1.972(1.006 – 3.865) | 0.562 | 1.32(0.521 – 3.326) |
| High blood pressure | 0.066 | 2.238(0.948 – 5.280) | ||
| Ischemic heart disease | 0.006* | 2.500(1.296 – 4.822) | 0.204 | 1.77(0.732 – 4.303) |
| Immunosuppressed | 0.001* | 3.176(1.558 – 6.478) | 0.026* | 2.99(1.141 – 7.848) |
| Serum Na (day1) | 0.489 | 0.983(0.937 – 1.031) | ||
| Serum Na (day3) | 0.630 | 1.015(0.956 – 1.077) | ||
| Serum Na (day7) | 0.020* | 1.082(1.013 – 1.157) | 0.039* | 1.08(1.004 – 1.154) |
Discussion
The results of the study showed that hypernatremia on the Day7 was associated with high mortality in septic patients. Moreover, hypernatremia on the Day1 was associated with prolonged length of ICU stay of septic patients.
The definition of hypernatremia used in this study was a serum sodium concentration > 145 mmol/L [22,23]. This serum sodium level was considered as the upper limit of normal and was used to test the correlation between even the mildest degrees of hypernatremia in septic patients and the outcome represented by both ICU mortality and length of stay in the ICU.
Previous studies have reported higher morbidity and mortality in the general ICU population with hypernatremia. They defined hypernatremia as serum sodium > 149 mmol/l [23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30].
In the current study, the decision was taken to test the effect of both initial and developed hypernatremia in ICU septic patients. To do this, sodium levels on the Day1, Day3, and Day7 were collected and examined. The correlation between the duration of hypernatremia in septic ICU patients and the outcome was not calculated. Both O’Donoghue et al. (2009) and Michael D. Waite et al. (2013) failed to find an association between the duration of hypernatremia and mortality [24, 31].
A study by Van De Louw et al. (2014) showed that 31% of them developed hypernatremia by the fifth-day post-ICU admission [37]. However, another study showed that 47.1% of the patients developed hypernatremia during their stay in an ICU [38] compared to 18.7% by the Day 7 in the present study. The mechanism of the development of hypernatremia can be due to dehydration associated with fever, hyperglycaemia, diarrhoea, nasogastric drainage, in addition to the loss of the patients’ ability to maintain their water intake while being sedated and mechanically ventilated [31].
Besides, other mechanisms of hypernatremia can be the volume of 0.9% saline infused during the first 48 hours of admission [31], renal impairment together with renal water loss [17,32], and the administration of loop diuretics [34,35].
In our studied group, none of the patients received any diuretics. However, 31.5% were known to have chronic kidney disease (CKD). Additionally, all patients received the same initial resuscitation as recommended by the surviving sepsis campaign guidelines using crystalloids, 0.9% saline or lactated Ringer’s solution [4]. The volume of any further fluid was directed by various techniques, which included the passive leg raising test, pulse contour cardiac output (PiCCO), and echocardiography. Moreover, continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) was commenced early in all patients who had or developed acute kidney injury (AKI) in the ICU. Previous studies have shown that the use of renal replacement therapy, either continuous or intermittent, will reduce the incidence of hypernatremia [43,44].
Accordingly, the previously mentioned management strategies adopted in our study group may explain the lower incidence of hypernatremia (18.7%).
In accord with previous observational studies on hypernatremia and sepsis, this prospective study shows significantly higher mortality rates and prolonged ICU stay in patients with hypernatremia [37, 38].
Although our study was conducted prospectively on a large number of patients, there were several limitations. Firstly, the correlation between the degree and duration of hypernatremia with the outcome was not tested. Secondly, only the effect of hypernatremia on Day 1, Day 3 and Day 7, was studied. The correlation of hypernatremia with sodium levels measured daily for at least the first ten days of admission may have given more precise results.
Conclusion
Hypernatremia can be an independent predictor of poor outcome in septic and septic shock patients in the ICU.
Acknowledgements
No grants, contracts, or any other form of financial support were received for this study.
Footnotes
Conflict of interest
None to declare.
References
- 1.Mohan A, Shrestha P, Guleria R. Development of a mortality prediction formula due to sepsis/ severe sepsis in a medical intensive care unit. Lung India; 2015;32(4):313–9. doi: 10.4103/0970-2113.159533. et al. 2015 Jul-Aug. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Andre S.F, Susana M.V, Uzay K. Mortality prediction of septic shock patients using probabilistic fuzzy systems. Applied Soft Computing. 2016;42:194. et al. May. –. [Google Scholar]
- 3.Rhee C, Dantes R, Epstein L. Incidence and trends of sepsis in US hospitals using clinical vs claims data, 2009–2014. JAMA. 2017;318(13):1241–1249. doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.13836. et al. Oct 3; [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Coopersmith CM, De Backer D, Deutschman CS. Surviving sepsis campaign: research priorities for sepsis and septic shock. Crit Care Med. 2018;46(8):1334–1356. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000003225. et al. Aug; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Micek ST, Roubinian N, Heuring T. Before-after study of a standardized hospital order set for the management of septic shock. Crit Care Med. 2006;34(11):2707–13. doi: 10.1097/01.CCM.0000241151.25426.D7. et al. Nov; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Singer M, Deutschman CS, Seymour CW. The third international consensus definitions for sepsis and septic shock (sepsis-3) 2016;315(8):801–10. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.0287. et al. Feb 23; [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Shankar-Hari M, Phillips GS, Levy ML. Developing a New Definition and Assessing New Clinical Criteria for Septic Shock: For the Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3) JAMA. 2016;315(8):775–87. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.0289. et al. Feb 23; [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Levy MM, Rhodes A, Phillips GS. Surviving Sepsis Campaign: Association between performance metrics and outcomes in a 7.5-year study. Crit Care Med. 2015;43(1):3–12. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000000723. et al. Jan; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Damiani E, Donati A, Serafini G. Effect of performance improvement programs on compliance with sepsis bundles and mortality: A systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. PLoS One. 2015;10(5):e0125827. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0125827. et al. May 6; [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Rhodes A, Phillips G, Beale R. The Surviving Sepsis Campaign bundles and outcome: Results from the International Multicentre Prevalence Study on Sepsis (the IMPreSS study) Intensive Care Med. 2015;41(9):1620–8. doi: 10.1007/s00134-015-3906-y. et al. Sep; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Seymour CW, Gesten F, Prescot H. Time to treatment and mortality during mandated emergency care for sepsis. N Engl J Med. 2017;376(23):2235–2244. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1703058. et al. Jun 8; [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Liu VX, Morehouse JW, Marelich GP. Multicenter implementation of a treatment bundle for patients with sepsis and intermediate lactate values. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2016;193(11):1264–70. doi: 10.1164/rccm.201507-1489OC. et al. Jun 1; [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Leisman DE, Doerfler ME, Ward MF. Survival benefit and cost savings from compliance with a simplified 3-hour sepsis bundle in a series of prospective, multisite, observational cohorts. Crit Care Med. 2017;45(3):395–406. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000002184. et al. Mar; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Ferrer R, Martin-Loeches I, Phillips G. Empiric antibiotic treatment reduces mortality in severe sepsis and septic shock from the first hour: Results from a guideline-based performance improvement program. Crit Care Med. 2014;42(8):1749–55. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000000330. et al. Aug; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Kumar A. Systematic bias in meta-analyses of time to antimicrobial in sepsis studies. Crit Care Med. 2016;44(4):e234–5. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000001512. Apr; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Rhodes A, Evans LE, Alhazzani W. Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock: 2016. Crit Care Med. 2017;45(3):486–552. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000002255. et al. Mar. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Ni-HB. Hu XX, Huang XF. Risk Factors and Outcomes in Patients with Hypernatremia and Sepsis. Am J Med Sci. 2016;351(6):601–5. doi: 10.1016/j.amjms.2016.01.027. et al. Jun; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Charles PE, Gibot S. Predicting outcome in patients with sepsis: new biomarkers for old expectations. Critical Care. 2014;18(1):108. doi: 10.1186/cc13723. Feb 12; [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Kumar A, Roberts D, Wood KE. Duration of hypotension before initiation of effective antimicrobial therapy is the critical determinant of survival in human septic shock. Crit Care Med. 2006;34(6):1589–96. doi: 10.1097/01.CCM.0000217961.75225.E9. et al. Jun; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Lee JW. Fluid and electrolyte disturbances in critically ill patients. Electrolyte Blood Press. 2010;8(2):72–81. doi: 10.5049/EBP.2010.8.2.72. Dec; [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Muhsin SA, Mount DB. Diagnosis and treatment of hypernatremia. Best Pract Res Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2016;30(2):189–203. doi: 10.1016/j.beem.2016.02.014. Mar; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Adrogue HJ, Madias NE. Hypernatremia. N Engl J Med. 2000;342(20):1493–9. doi: 10.1056/NEJM200005183422006. May 18; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.O’Donoghue SD, Dulhunty JM, Bandeshe HK. Acquired hypernatraemia is an independent predictor of mortality in critically ill patients. Anaesthesia. 2009;64(5):514–20. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.2008.05857.x. et al. May; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Darmon M, Timsit JF, Francais A. Association between hypernatraemia acquired in the ICU and mortality: a cohort study. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2010;25(8):2510–5. doi: 10.1093/ndt/gfq067. et al. Aug; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Hoorn EJ, Betjes MG, Weigel J. Hypernatraemia in critically ill patients: too little water and too much salt. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2008;23(5):1562–8. doi: 10.1093/ndt/gfm831. et al. May; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Lindner G, Kneidinger N, Holzinger U. Tonicity balance in patients with hypernatremia acquired in the intensive care unit. Am J Kidney Dis. 2009;54(4):674–9. doi: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2009.04.015. et al. Oct; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Polderman KH, Schreuder WO, Strack van Schijndel RJ. Hypernatremia in the intensive care unit: an indicator of quality of care? Crit Care Med. 1999;27(6):1105–8. doi: 10.1097/00003246-199906000-00029. et al. Jun; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Lindner G, Funk GC, Schwarz C. Hypernatremia in the critically ill is an independent risk factor for mortality. Am J Kidney Dis. 2007;50(6):952–7. doi: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2007.08.016. et al. Dec; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Lindner G, Funk GC, Lassnigg A. Intensive care-acquired hypernatremia after major cardiothoracic surgery is associated with increased mortality. Intensive Care Med. 2010;36(10):1718–23. doi: 10.1007/s00134-010-1968-4. et al. Oct; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Waite MD, Fuhrman SA, Badawi O. Intensive care unit–acquired hypernatremia is an independent predictor of increased mortality and length of stay. J Crit Care. 2013;28(4):405–12. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2012.11.013. et al. Aug; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Van De Louw A, Shafer C, Schaefer E. Early intensive care unit-acquired hypernatremia in severe sepsis patients receiving 0.9% saline fluid resuscitation. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2014;58(8):1007–14. doi: 10.1111/aas.12368. Sep; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Bodonyi-Kovacs G, Lecker SH. Electrolyte-free water clearance: a key to the diagnosis of hypernatremia in resolving acute renal failure. Clin Exp Nephrol. 2008;12(1):74–8. doi: 10.1007/s10157-007-0021-6. Feb; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Lindner G, Schwarz C, Funk GC. Osmotic diuresis due to urea as the cause of hypernatraemia in critically ill patients. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2012;27(3):962–7. doi: 10.1093/ndt/gfr428. Mar; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Ho KM, Power BM. Benefits and risks of furosemide in acute kidney injury. Anaesthesia. 2010;65(3):283–93. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.2009.06228.x. Mar; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Lindner G, Kneidinger N, Holzinger U. Tonicity balance in patients with hypernatremia acquired in the intensive care unit. Am J Kidney Dis. 2009;54(4):674–9. doi: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2009.04.015. et al. Oct; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Pazmino PA, Pazmino BP. Treatment of acute hypernatremia with hemodialysis. Am J Nephrol. 1993;13(4):260–5. doi: 10.1159/000168630. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Park HS, Hong YA, Kim HG. Usefulness of continuous renal replacement therapy for correcting hypernatremia in a patient with severe congestive heart failure. Hemodial Int. 2012;16(4):559–63. doi: 10.1111/j.1542-4758.2011.00650.x. et al. Oct; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]