The following arterial blood gas results are from a 72-year-old male admitted for investigation of nausea, vomiting and severe abdominal pain. He has a history of type 2 diabetes and atrial fibrillation.
Parameter |
Patient Value |
Adult Normal Range |
FiO2 |
0.6 |
|
pH |
6.98* |
7.35 – 7.45 |
pO2 |
92 mmHg (12.3 kPa) |
|
pCO2 |
31.0 mmHg (4.1 kPa) * |
35.0 – 45.0 (4.6 – 6.0) |
SpO2 |
99% |
|
Bicarbonate |
7.0 mmol/L* |
22.0 – 26.0 |
Base Excess |
-22.0 mmol/L* |
-2.0 – +2.0 |
Lactate |
14.5 mmol/L* |
0.5 – 1.6 |
Sodium |
146 mmol/L* |
135 – 145 |
Potassium |
5.3 mmol/L* |
3.5 – 5.0 |
Chloride |
103 mmol/L |
95 – 105 |
Glucose |
7.7 mmol/L* |
3.5 – 6.0 |
Creatinine |
711 μmol/L* |
60 – 110 |
Haemoglobin |
108 g/L* |
135 – 180 |
a) Comment on the abnormalities on this arterial blood gas. (15% marks)
b) List five likely causes for the acid-base disturbance. (15% marks)
Not available.
When invited to "comment on the abnormalities", one is always tempted to write "damn, those are some hideous abnormalities". As "comment" does not appear in the GLOSSARY OF TERMS at the beginning of the question paper, one must interpret this direction themselves. What they probably meant was "describe". "Describe the abnormalities on this arterial blood gas".
Let's go through this ABG in some detail.
So, for a measly 15% of the marks, in 1.5 minutes of writing, what could you possibly comment here?
a) The abnormalities on this gas are:
b) Five causes for this picture are easy to find. Most likely any reasonable answer would have been accepted. From AF being given as background history, one would absolutely have to include ischaemic gut due to embolic phenomena in their differentials (in fact it would have to be the first differential). From the Type 2 diabetes and renal failure, metformin toxicity would need to be included. Thus:
Ketoacidosis with dehydration could also go in there, but the glucose just looks too normal.