4.6 Article

Wasp sting-induced acute kidney injury

Journal

CLINICAL KIDNEY JOURNAL
Volume 9, Issue 2, Pages 201-204

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/ckj/sfw004

Keywords

acute kidney injury; hemodialysis; rhabdomyolysis; steroids; wasp stings

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Wasp stings are a common form of envenomation in tropical countries, especially in farmers. The aim of this study was to document the clinical presentation, treatment and outcomes of patients with acute kidney injury (AKI) due to multiple wasp stings in a tertiary care hospital. Methods: We conducted a retrospective observational study of patients with multiple wasp stings and AKI at the Department of Nephrology between July 2011 and August 2015. The clinical features, laboratory data, treatment details and outcomes were noted. Results: A total of 11 patients were included. All were from rural areas. All of them were males with age ranging from 21 to 70 years, mean age 45 +/- 23 years. Six had oliguria and two had hypotension. All 11 patients had evidence of rhabdomyolysis and three also had hemolysis. Ten patients required hemodialysis with a mean number of hemodialysis sessions of 8.7 +/- 2.8. Renal biopsy carried out on four patients, showed acute interstitial nephritis (AIN) in one patient, acute tubular necrosis (ATN) in two patients, and one patient had both AIN and ATN. The two patients with AIN were given steroids, while all other patients were managed with supportive measures. One patient died within 48 h of presentation due to shock. At a mean follow-up of 24 months, one had progressed to chronic kidney disease and the remaining nine had normal renal function. Conclusions: Wasp sting is an occupational hazard. AKI was most commonly due to rhabdomyolysis. Early renal biopsy is indicated in those patients who do not respond to supportive measures. Timely dialysis and steroid in the case of AIN improves renal survival.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available