4.6 Review

Metabolic acidosis of CKD: Diagnosis, clinical characteristics, and treatment

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF KIDNEY DISEASES
卷 45, 期 6, 页码 978-993

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2005.03.003

关键词

metabolic acidosis; chronic kidney disease (CKD); renal failure; glomerular filtration rate (GFR)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Metabolic acidosis is noted in the majority of patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) when glomerular filtration rate (GFR) decreases to less than 20% to 25% of normal, although as many as 20% of individuals can have acid-base parameters close to or within the normal range. Acidosis generally is mild to moderate in degree, with plasma bicarbonate concentrations ranging from 12 to 22 mEq/L (mmol/L), and it is rare to see values less than 12 mEq/L (mmol/L) in the absence of an increased acid load. Degree of acidosis approximately correlates with severity of renal failure and usually is more severe at a lower GFR. The metabolic acidosis can be of the high-anion-gap variety, although anion gap can be normal or only moderately increased even with stage 4 to 5 CKD. Several adverse consequences have been associated with metabolic acidosis, including muscle wasting, bone disease, impaired growth, abnormalities in growth hormone and thyroid hormone secretion, impaired insulin sensitivity, progression of renal failure, and exacerbation of O-2-microglobulin accumulation. Administration of base aimed at normalization of plasma bicarbonate concentration might be associated with certain complications, such as volume overload, exacerbation of hypertension, and facilitation of vascular calcifications. Whether normalization of plasma bicarbonate concentrations in all patients is desirable therefore requires additional study. In the present review, we describe clinical and laboratory characteristics of metabolic acidosis, discuss potential adverse effects, and address benefits and complications of therapy. (c) 2005 by the National Kidney Foundation, Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据