Back to all available

Electrolyte balance effects of Sterofundin versus normal saline in diabetic ketoacidosis: a randomized controlled trial

anesthesiology-and-pain-management
clinical-trials
hematology
emergency-medicine-and-critical-care
diabetes

Abstract

Background: This study aims to compare the effect of Sterofundin versus Normal Saline fluid on the rate of diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) resolution and post resuscitation electrolyte balance.
Methods: An open-label randomized controlled trial was conducted in intensive care units in Hospital Pakar Universiti Sains Malaysia (HPUSM) over 24 months. Patients with a diagnosis of DKA, aged 18 and above were randomly allocated to received either normal saline or Sterofundin as the standardized resuscitation protocol.
Results: A total of 58 patients were enrolled. There was no significant difference observed in the time to DKA resolution between the Sterofundin and Normal Saline groups. Patients in the Sterofundin group achieved pH 7.3 or more faster than those in the Normal Saline group (adjusted mean difference 1.80 hours; 95% CI: -2.81, 6.41; P = 0.436) and reach a serum bicarbonate of 15 mmol/L or more sooner (adjusted mean difference = 3.77 hours, 95% CI: -0.81, 8.34; P = 0.104). Post intervention electrolyte profiles, renal function test and acid-base status were similar between groups.
Conclusion: There was no significant difference observed between Normal Saline and Sterofundin regarding the rate of DKA resolution and electrolytes profiles in patients following fluid therapy.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.
  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].