4.7 Article

Defining hypercalciuria in nephrolithiasis

Journal

KIDNEY INTERNATIONAL
Volume 80, Issue 7, Pages 777-782

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/ki.2011.227

Keywords

absorptive hypercalciuria; hypercalciuria; nephrolithiasis

Funding

  1. NIDDK NIH HHS [R01 DK081423] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The classic definition of hypercalciuria, an upper normal limit of 200 mg/day, is based on a constant diet restricted in calcium, sodium, and animal protein; however, random diet data challenge this. Here our retrospective study determined the validity of the classic definition of hypercalciuria by comparing data from 39 publications analyzing urinary calcium excretion on a constant restricted diet and testing whether hypercalciuria could be defined when extraneous dietary influences were controlled. These papers encompassed 300 non-stone-forming patients, 208 patients with absorptive hypercalciuria type I (presumed due to high intestinal calcium absorption), and 234 stone formers without absorptive hypercalciuria; all evaluated on a constant restricted diet. In non-stone formers, the mean urinary calcium was well below 200 mg/day, and the mean for all patients was 127 +/- 46 mg/day with an upper limit of 219 mg/day. In absorptive hypercalciuria type I, the mean urinary calcium significantly exceeded 200mg/day in all studies with a combined mean of 259 +/- 55 mg/day. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis showed the optimal cutoff point for urinary calcium excretion was 172 mg/day on a restricted diet, a value that approximates the traditional limit of 200 mg/day. Thus, on a restricted diet, a clear demarcation was seen between urinary calcium excretion of kidney stone formers with absorptive hypercalciuria type I and normal individuals. When dietary variables are controlled, the classic definition of hypercalciuria of nephrolithiasis appears valid.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available