Serum glucose and phosphorus concentrations during continuous renal replacement therapy using commercial replacement solutions with or without phosphorus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Continuous venovenous hemofiltration (CVVH) is a common practice in the intensive care unit often associated with electrolyte derangements. Recently, our institution added a phosphate dialysis solution, Phoxillum®, to our formulary as an option for CVVH fluid in addition to the bicarbonate-based Prismasol® products available. We sought to evaluate the impact of Phoxillum in patients who required CVVH when compared to Prismasol with regard to phosphate and glucose management. METHODS: This was a single-center, retrospective, observational cohort analysis approved by Partners Health Care System Institutional Review Board that included patients who received a minimum of 24 hours of either Prismasol 4/2.5 or Phoxillum for CVVH from February 2017 to November 2017. Phosphate and glucose levels were monitored daily while on CVVH. Prevalence of hypoglycemia (glucose <70 mg/dL), hyperglycemia (glucose >180 mg/dL), hypophosphatemia (phosphate <2.5 mg/dL), and hyperphosphatemia (phosphate >4.3 mg/dL) were collected in terms of days of occurrence while on CVVH. Oral and intravenous phosphate repletion requirements were collected for all patients. FINDINGS: Hypophosphatemia occurred more frequently while patients were receiving Prismasol as compared to Phoxillum (130 [24.9%] vs. 13 [6.2%], rate ratio [RR] 0.20 [95% confidence interval-CI = 0.10-0.42, P < 0.0001]), and consequently there was a numerically lower need for intravenous phosphorous repletion in the Phoxillum group (RR = 0.58, 95% CI [0.26, 1.30], P = 0.19]. There was a numerically higher incidence of hyperphosphatemia while patients were on Phoxillum therapy as compared to Prismasol (78 [37%] vs. 145 [27.7%], RR 1.25 [95% CI = 0.84, 1.86, P = 0.27]). There was no difference between the Phoxillum and Prismasol groups in terms of hypoglycemia or hyperglycemia. There was no notable difference in the cost found between the two therapies. DISCUSSION: The findings suggest that the use of Phoxillum for CVVH may be associated with decreased incidence of hypophosphatemia and a potentially decreased need for phosphate repletion in patients who require CVVH.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".