Scholarlink

Background <p>The optimal choice between calcium gluconate (CaGN) and calcium chloride (CaCl₂) for hypocalcaemia correction during paediatric critical illness and resuscitation remains debated. This literature review aimed to compare the efficacy and safety profiles of both preparations to determine an evidence-based clinical preference.</p> Methods <p>A comprehensive review of in vitro, in vivo, and clinical trials involving critically ill patients was conducted, focusing on the pharmacokinetics, therapeutic efficacy (measured by the rise in ionised calcium, iCa<sup>2</sup>⁺), and comparative adverse event profiles, particularly the risk of extravasation injury.</p> Results <p>Both CaGN and CaCl₂ effectively correct hypocalcaemia when equivalent elemental calcium doses are administered. CaCl₂ holds a significant dosing advantage in volume-restricted or extreme emergent scenarios due to its higher concentration of elemental calcium (27.2&#xa0;mg/mL vs. 9.0&#xa0;mg/mL for 10% solutions). Whilst the hepatic metabolism requirement for CaGN has been widely refuted, limited paediatric data suggest CaCl₂ may yield a greater response in mean arterial pressure (MAP) in critically ill children. Crucially, the safety profile favours CaGN; a substantial body of evidence indicates that the risk and severity of tissue necrosis following extravasation are markedly higher with CaCl₂.</p> Conclusion <p>The selection of a calcium preparation must be conditional and context-dependent. We recommend reserving CaCl₂ for central venous administration in volume-restricted or extreme emergent settings, whilst CaGN is the preferred choice for peripheral line administration or routine maintenance due to its superior safety profile.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Which calcium preparation should we use in paediatric resuscitation? A comprehensive review of basic physiology, pharmacokinetics, and clinical evidence

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年3月7日

查看全文
  • Constantinos Kanaris,
  • Swathy Subhash,
  • Anna Camporesi

摘要

Background

The optimal choice between calcium gluconate (CaGN) and calcium chloride (CaCl₂) for hypocalcaemia correction during paediatric critical illness and resuscitation remains debated. This literature review aimed to compare the efficacy and safety profiles of both preparations to determine an evidence-based clinical preference.

Methods

A comprehensive review of in vitro, in vivo, and clinical trials involving critically ill patients was conducted, focusing on the pharmacokinetics, therapeutic efficacy (measured by the rise in ionised calcium, iCa2⁺), and comparative adverse event profiles, particularly the risk of extravasation injury.

Results

Both CaGN and CaCl₂ effectively correct hypocalcaemia when equivalent elemental calcium doses are administered. CaCl₂ holds a significant dosing advantage in volume-restricted or extreme emergent scenarios due to its higher concentration of elemental calcium (27.2 mg/mL vs. 9.0 mg/mL for 10% solutions). Whilst the hepatic metabolism requirement for CaGN has been widely refuted, limited paediatric data suggest CaCl₂ may yield a greater response in mean arterial pressure (MAP) in critically ill children. Crucially, the safety profile favours CaGN; a substantial body of evidence indicates that the risk and severity of tissue necrosis following extravasation are markedly higher with CaCl₂.

Conclusion

The selection of a calcium preparation must be conditional and context-dependent. We recommend reserving CaCl₂ for central venous administration in volume-restricted or extreme emergent settings, whilst CaGN is the preferred choice for peripheral line administration or routine maintenance due to its superior safety profile.