4.6 Article

More on Renal Salt Wasting Without Cerebral Disease: Response to Saline Infusion

出版社

AMER SOC NEPHROLOGY
DOI: 10.2215/CJN.02740608

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and objectives: The existence and prevalence of cerebral salt wasting (CSW) or the preferred term, renal salt wasting (RSW), and its differentiation from syndrome of inappropriate antidiuretic hormone (SIADH) have been controversial. This controversy sterns from overlapping clinical and laboratory findings and an inability to assess the volume status of these patients. The authors report another case of RSW without clinical cerebral disease and contrast it to SIADH. Design, setting, participants, & measurements: Three patients with hyponatremia, hypouricemia, increased fractional excretion (FE) of urate, urine sodium >20 mmol/L, and concentrated urines were infused with isotonic saline after collection of baseline data. Results: One patient with RSW had pneumonia without cerebral disease and showed increased plasma aldosterone and FEphosphate, and two patients with SIADH had increased blood volume, low plasma renin and aldosterone, and normal FEphosphate. The patient with RSW responded to isotonic saline by excretion of dilute urines, prompt correction of hyponatremia, and normal water loading test after volume repletion. Hypouricemia and increased FEurate persisted after correction of hyponatremia. Two patients with SIADH failed to dilute their urines and remained hyponatremic during 48 and 110 h of saline infusion. Conclusions: The authors demonstrate appropriate stimulation of ADH in RSW. Differences in plasma renin and aldosterone levels and FEphosphate can differentiate RSW from SIADH, as will persistent hypouricemia and increased FEurate after correction of hyponatremia in RSW. FEphosphate was the only contrasting variable at baseline. The authors suggest an approach to treat the hyponatremic patient meeting criteria for SIADH and RSW and changing CSW to the more appropriate term, RSW.

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