Metabolic acidosis and sodium bicarbonate therapy in critically ill patients: A multinational survey of international and Chinese practitioners.

Objective: To evaluate critical care professionals' perceptions of the burden of metabolic acidosis (MA) in the intensive care unit (ICU), and assess agreement on indications, modalities, risks, and benefits of sodium bicarbonate therapy. Design: A multinational, web-based survey administered at different times to Chinese and international ICU practitioners. Main outcome measures: The survey comprised 20 items across four domains: 1) perceived epidemiology and research relevance of MA; 2) rationale, indications, and treatment modalities; 3) potential benefits of sodium bicarbonate; and 4) potential adverse effects of sodium bicarbonate. Responses were recorded on a 5-point Likert scale and classified as Results: A total of 1279 responses from 20 countries were analysed. MA was widely recognised as common, clinically relevant, a frequent cause of ICU admission, and an area requiring further research. Most clinicians supported targeted therapy beyond treating underlying causes, though uncertainty remained regarding sodium bicarbonate. Chinese respondents favoured early correction and continuous infusion, while international opinions varied on timing and approach. Perceived benefits, such as reduced vasopressor use and respiratory workload, were supported by Chinese clinicians, whereas international ones remained uncertain. Opinions on adverse effects also diverged. Chinese physicians highlighted risks of hypernatraemia, severe alkalosis, and hypokalemia, while international respondents viewed sodium bicarbonate as safe regarding the risk of fluid overload or pulmonary oedema. Conclusions: This international survey shows broad agreement that MA is a clinically important and understudied condition in the ICU but reveals substantial variability and uncertainty in clinicians' perceptions of sodium bicarbonate therapy, with notable differences between Chinese and international respondents. These findings underscore key knowledge gaps and the need for well-designed clinical trials.