Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Search in posts
Search in pages
Filter by Categories
Author Reply
Book Review
Brief Communication
Case Report
Case Series
Clinical Case Report
Clinicopathological Conference
Commentary
Corrigendum
Editorial
Editorial – World Kidney Day 2016
Editorial Commentary
Erratum
Foreward
Guidelines
Image in Nephrology
Images in Nephrology
Letter to Editor
Letter to the Editor
Letters to Editor
Literature Review
Notice of Retraction
Obituary
Original Article
Perspective
Research Letter
Retraction Notice
Review
Review Article
Short Review
Special Article
Special Feature
Special Feature - World Kidney Day
Systematic Review
Technical Note
Varia
Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Search in posts
Search in pages
Filter by Categories
Author Reply
Book Review
Brief Communication
Case Report
Case Series
Clinical Case Report
Clinicopathological Conference
Commentary
Corrigendum
Editorial
Editorial – World Kidney Day 2016
Editorial Commentary
Erratum
Foreward
Guidelines
Image in Nephrology
Images in Nephrology
Letter to Editor
Letter to the Editor
Letters to Editor
Literature Review
Notice of Retraction
Obituary
Original Article
Perspective
Research Letter
Retraction Notice
Review
Review Article
Short Review
Special Article
Special Feature
Special Feature - World Kidney Day
Systematic Review
Technical Note
Varia
View/Download PDF

Translate this page into:

Editorial Commentary
21 (
3
); 152-153
doi:
10.4103/0971-4065.83027

Urinary indices in nephrotic syndrome

Department of Nephrology, Osmania General Hospital, Osmania Medical College, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, India
Address for correspondence: Dr. Manisha Sahay, 6-3-852/A, Ameerpet, Hyderabad - 500 016, Andhra Pradesh, India. E-mail: drmanishasahay@gmail.com
Licence

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Disclaimer:
This article was originally published by Medknow Publications and was migrated to Scientific Scholar after the change of Publisher.

Nephrotic patients with edema may have variable volume status i.e. hypo, hyper or normovolemia. Volume-expanded patients may benefit with diuretics while volume-contracted patients need volume expansion.[1] Clinically it is not possible to differentiate severely edematous nephrotic syndrome (NS) patients with intravascular volume expansion (VE) from those with intravascular contraction (VC).[2] Hence urine indices may have some role in elucidating the volume status. Since severe hypoalbuminemia is commoner in children, these indices may be more important in the management of NS in the pediatric population.

Pathogenesis of Edema

It is important to be aware of the pathogenesis of edema in NS in order to understand the principle behind measurement of urinary indices. The historical theory of nephrotic edema generation postulates that stimulation of the renin-aldosterone axis (RAAS) in response to hypovolaemia mediates sodium retention through the following sequence of events: Low serum albumin with decreased plasma oncotic pressure results in an imbalance of Starling forces in capillaries leading to interstitial leakage of fluid, low oncotic pressure, hypovolaemia and stimulation of the RAAS system.[3] This is termed as the underfill hypothesis.

However, many workers do not support the underfill theory, and focus on the conceptually opposite idea, the so-called “overfill” hypothesis of primary sodium retention in at least some patients.[4] The classic studies by Chandra et al.,[5] demonstrated that proteinuria per se results directly in sodium retention. They showed that hypoalbuminemia and hypovolemia are not essential for sodium retention.

The site of increased sodium absorption in the kidney remains controversial. In the study by Ichikawa et al.,[6] the collecting duct was found to be the main site for sodium reabsorption with increased sodium transport via epithelial sodium channel ENaC and sodium potassium adenosine triphosphatase [Na-K-ATPase].[7] Valentin et al. showed that cyclic guanosine monophosphate cGMP phosphodiesterase activity in the medullary collecting ducts is increased, leading to resistance to atrial natriuretic peptide actions thus causing sodium retention.[8] In contrast, some studies have supported the proximal tubule as the site of increased sodium reabsorption in NS with albumin directly stimulating NHE3 (sodium hydrogen exchanger 3).[9] Thus the relative importance of the role of the proximal tubule and collecting duct in sodium absorption is controversial.

Urine Indices in Nephrotic Syndrome

Even though the site of sodium reabsorption remains controversial, it is abundantly clear that edema in nephrotic patients may be associated with either low or increased intravascular volume and identification of volume status is important for therapy. In patients with intravascular volume depletion IV albumin may be needed while in edema associated with renal sodium retention diuretics are indicated.

Urine indices may be useful for determining the volume status associated with nephrotic edema. The common urine indices used for determining volume status are the following:

  • Fractional excretion of sodium (FeNa)= (SCr × UNa) / (SNa × UCr)×100 where SCr is serum creatinine (mg/dl), UNa is urinary sodium (meq/l), SNa is serum sodium (meq/l)and UCr is urine creatinine (mg/dl). FeNa is low < 0.2 ± 0.2 % in the VC group in contrast to the VE group.[10]

  • Urine Potassium index (UK+/UK++UNa+). UK+ is urine potassium in spot urine sample (meq/l) while UNa+ is urine sodium (meq/l). In VC states due to associated secondary hyperaldosteronism urine potassium excretion is high. In contrast, patients with VE have low urine K excretion. Thus in VC states urine K index is >0.6 (or 60% if expressed as %) while in VE states urine K index is < 0.6.[11] A fresh second voided morning spot urine sample is recommended for albumin, sodium, potassium and creatinine estimation. A simultaneous serum sample should be collected to measure sodium, potassium, albumin and creatinine values. Patients should be on normal salt and water intake. Diuretics, angiotensin enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers may interfere with urine indices and hence should not be used before the urine indices have been tested or diuretics should be discontinued for at least 8 h.

Other Indicators of Volume Status

VC patients may have postural hypotension; their serum albumin is generally <2 g/dl. In addition, VC patients have significantly higher blood urea nitrogen (BUN) and BUN/creatinine ratio compared with VE patients. Mean hemoglobin/hematocrit, urine osmolality, and urine-to-serum osmolality ratio (UOsm/SOsm), may be higher in the VC group compared with the VE group. VC patients have higher renin, aldosterone, and anti-diuretic hormone (ADH) concentration in comparison to the VE group. These tests are, however, expensive and not available at all centers. Hence, urine indices can be useful surrogate markers for volume status.

Limitations of Urine Indices

Use of diuretics or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) may interfere with the use of urinary indices. Salt intake may influence the urinary indices hence the patients should be on normal salt diet during evaluation. The urine indices do not differentiate between minimal change disease and the non-minimal change variety of NS. Also, the urine indices cannot differentiate between the steroid responders and non-responders as has been highlighted in this issue of the journal.

Conclusion

Measurement of urine indices is a simple bedside tool, and can be used for volume assessment in nephrotic patients. Low sodium excretion coupled with high urinary potassium indicates hypovolemia. Such patients should not receive oral or intravenous diuretics, before correction of their intravascular volume with either crystalloids or colloids. Patients with edema and no clinical or laboratory features of hypovolemia (normal levels of blood urea, FeNa not <0.2% and urinary K+/ K+ + Na+ <60%) can safely be treated with potent diuretics.

Source of Support: Nil

Conflict of Interest: None declared.

References

  1. , , , , . Urinary indices during relapse of childhood nephrotic syndrome. Indian J Nephol. 2011;21:163-7.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. , , . A critique of the overfill hypothesis of sodium and water retention in the nephrotic syndrome. Kidney Int. 1998;53:1111-7.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. , . Concerning the causation of edema in chronicparenchymatous nephritis: Methods for its alteration. Am J Med Sci. 1917;154:638-47.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. , , , , , , . Colloid osmotic pressure in young analbuminemic rats. Am J Physiol. 1989;257:F23-8.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. , , , . Renal function in rats with unilateral proteinuria produced by renal perfusion with aminonucleoside. Pediatr Res. 1981;15:340-4.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. , , , , , , . Role for intrarenal mechanisms in the impaired salt excretion of experimental nephrotic syndrome. J Clin Invest. 1983;71:91-103.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. , , , , , . Collecting duct is a site of sodium retention in PAN nephrosis: Arationale for amiloride therapy. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2001;12:598-601.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. , , , , , , . Phosphodiesterase inhibitors correct resistance to natriureticpeptides in rats with Heymann Nephritis. J Am Soc Nephrol. 1996;7:582-93.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. , , , , , , . Albumin regulates the Na_/H_exchanger 3 in OKP cells. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2003;14:3008-16.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. , , , , . Treatment of severe edema in children with nephrotic syndrome with diuretics alone: A prospective study. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2009;4:907-13.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. , , , , . Distal nephron sodium-potassium exchange in children with nephrotic syndrome. Clin Nephrol. 2003;59:259-66.
    [Google Scholar]
Show Sections