SAT-642 The Role of Bicarbonate Therapy in Diabetic Ketoacidosis Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of the Literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Disclosure: A. Omayer: None. A. Sharif: None. A. Kc: None. S. Hoque: None. H. BaniHani: None. L. Khaled: None. A. Holeihel: None. U.A. Khawaja: None. Background: Diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) is a life-threatening complication of diabetes mellitus that is often managed with fluid resuscitation, insulin therapy, and correction of electrolyte imbalances. Bicarbonate therapy is commonly used to correct acidosis, but its effectiveness remains debated. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the impact of bicarbonate therapy on clinical outcomes in DKA patients. Methods: Following the PRISMA guidelines, we performed a systematic review of studies assessing the use of bicarbonate therapy in DKA. We searched PubMed, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov for studies published up to August 2024. Studies were included if they involved DKA patients with initial pH ≤7.30 or glucose >250 mg/dL, and compared bicarbonate therapy with standard care. Data on outcomes were extracted, including pH levels, duration of hospital stay, time to resolution of acidosis, potassium levels, and incidence of hypoglycemia. We performed a meta-analysis using RevMan, with a random-effects model for most outcomes and fixed-effects for specific analyses. The risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS), Cochrane's ROB-2 tool and The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Scale for cohort studies, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and case series respectively. Results: Eight studies, including 646 patients, met the inclusion criteria. The included studies were conducted in various countries and represented diverse populations, with sample sizes ranging from 20 to 232 participants. Participants' mean ages spanned from approximately 9.7 years to 45.8 years. The proportion of male participants varied significantly, from 40.6% to 54.3%. Bicarbonate therapy did not significantly improve pH levels (mean difference = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.09], p = 0.7), time to resolution of acidosis (mean difference = 0.09 hours, 95% CI [-2.6, 2.79], p = 0.95), or potassium levels (mean difference = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.29], p = 0.61). Bicarbonate therapy was associated with a marginally longer duration of hospital stay (mean difference = 13.63 hours, 95% CI [0.23, 27.03], p = 0.05), although the overall effect size was small. No significant difference was observed in the incidence of hypoglycemia (odds ratio = 2.62, 95% CI [0.59, 11.63], p = 0.20). High heterogeneity was observed across most outcomes, mainly due to variability in study protocols and patient populations. Conclusion: Bicarbonate therapy in DKA does not appear to provide significant clinical benefits in pH correction, resolution of acidosis, or potassium balance and may lead to a slightly prolonged hospital stay. Given the high heterogeneity of included studies, further well-designed trials are needed to establish more precise guidelines on bicarbonate use in DKA management. Presentation: Saturday, July 12, 2025
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 | 0.016 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.046 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".