Ryan Marino MD , Alexander Sidlak MD , Anthony Scoccimarro MD , Kathryn Flickinger MS, PhD , Anthony Pizon MD
{"title":"Ethanol and the Limitations of the Osmol Gap","authors":"Ryan Marino MD , Alexander Sidlak MD , Anthony Scoccimarro MD , Kathryn Flickinger MS, PhD , Anthony Pizon MD","doi":"10.1016/j.annemergmed.2024.12.022","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Study objective</h3><div>The osmol gap can help detect and manage those with toxic alcohol exposure, and it is altered by all alcohols including ethanol. The optimal correction for ethanol that would allow accurate detection of an alternative alcohol is unclear.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We conducted a prospective cohort study to assess baseline variations in osmol gap, and then to assess the validity of 2 commonly used coefficients (correction factors) for ethanol. Twenty-two healthy volunteers received a body mass–based dose of oral ethanol that targeted an estimated peak blood ethanol concentration >200 mg/dL. We measured laboratory values prior to ethanol administration and at 2, 4, and 6 hours after ingestion. We considered an osmol gap >10 or <–10 abnormal and an osmol gap of >10 after correction as a false positive.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Four of the 22 subjects (18%) had an osmol gap >10 at baseline. Following ethanol ingestion and across 66 timepoints (N=66), there were 14 abnormal osmol gap tests (21%) when corrected with an ethanol coefficient of 4.6, and 31 (47%) abnormal tests when corrected using the Purssell ethanol coefficient of 3.7. The mean difference between the baseline and the post-ethanol corrected osmol gap was lower with the molecular weight correction factor of 4.6 compared with the Purssell correction factor of 3.7 (0.2 versus 11.0; <em>P</em><.001).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Our data show that the osmol gap is occasionally elevated absent ingestion of any alcohol, and using an ethanol correction coefficient of 4.6 produced a better clinical osmol gap input albeit still with some variation.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":8236,"journal":{"name":"Annals of emergency medicine","volume":"86 3","pages":"Pages 257-261"},"PeriodicalIF":5.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of emergency medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0196064424013039","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/25 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Study objective
The osmol gap can help detect and manage those with toxic alcohol exposure, and it is altered by all alcohols including ethanol. The optimal correction for ethanol that would allow accurate detection of an alternative alcohol is unclear.
Methods
We conducted a prospective cohort study to assess baseline variations in osmol gap, and then to assess the validity of 2 commonly used coefficients (correction factors) for ethanol. Twenty-two healthy volunteers received a body mass–based dose of oral ethanol that targeted an estimated peak blood ethanol concentration >200 mg/dL. We measured laboratory values prior to ethanol administration and at 2, 4, and 6 hours after ingestion. We considered an osmol gap >10 or <–10 abnormal and an osmol gap of >10 after correction as a false positive.
Results
Four of the 22 subjects (18%) had an osmol gap >10 at baseline. Following ethanol ingestion and across 66 timepoints (N=66), there were 14 abnormal osmol gap tests (21%) when corrected with an ethanol coefficient of 4.6, and 31 (47%) abnormal tests when corrected using the Purssell ethanol coefficient of 3.7. The mean difference between the baseline and the post-ethanol corrected osmol gap was lower with the molecular weight correction factor of 4.6 compared with the Purssell correction factor of 3.7 (0.2 versus 11.0; P<.001).
Conclusion
Our data show that the osmol gap is occasionally elevated absent ingestion of any alcohol, and using an ethanol correction coefficient of 4.6 produced a better clinical osmol gap input albeit still with some variation.
研究目的:渗透压间隙可以帮助检测和管理有毒酒精暴露者,包括乙醇在内的所有酒精都会改变渗透压间隙。目前尚不清楚乙醇的最佳校正方法是否能够准确检测替代酒精。方法:我们进行了一项前瞻性队列研究,以评估osmol间隙的基线变化,然后评估乙醇的2个常用系数(校正因子)的有效性。22名健康志愿者接受了以体重为基础的口服乙醇剂量,目标是估计的血乙醇浓度峰值为200毫克/分升。我们在给药前和摄入后2、4和6小时测量了实验室值。我们认为校正后的渗透压间隙为10或10为假阳性。结果:22名受试者中有4名(18%)在基线时的渗透压间隙为10。在摄入乙醇后,跨越66个时间点(N=66),用4.6的乙醇系数校正后,有14例(21%)渗透气间隙试验异常,用3.7的珀塞尔乙醇系数校正后有31例(47%)渗透气间隙试验异常。基线与经乙醇校正后的渗透压间隙的平均差异较低,分子量校正因子为4.6,而Purssell校正因子为3.7 (0.2 vs 11.0;结论:我们的数据显示,在没有摄入任何酒精的情况下,渗透压间隙偶尔会升高,使用4.6的乙醇校正系数可以产生更好的临床渗透压间隙输入,尽管仍然存在一些变化。
期刊介绍:
Annals of Emergency Medicine, the official journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians, is an international, peer-reviewed journal dedicated to improving the quality of care by publishing the highest quality science for emergency medicine and related medical specialties. Annals publishes original research, clinical reports, opinion, and educational information related to the practice, teaching, and research of emergency medicine. In addition to general emergency medicine topics, Annals regularly publishes articles on out-of-hospital emergency medical services, pediatric emergency medicine, injury and disease prevention, health policy and ethics, disaster management, toxicology, and related topics.