Nephron

Original Paper

Discrepancy between Lithium and Free Water Clearance in Patients with Bartter’s Syndrome

Boer W.H. · Hené R.J. · Koomans H.A. · Dorhout Mees E.J.

Author affiliations

Department of Nephrology and Hypertension, University Hospital, Utrecht, The Netherlands

Related Articles for ""

Nephron 1994;67:82–87

Log in to MyKarger to check if you already have access to this content.


Buy

  • FullText & PDF
  • Unlimited re-access via MyKarger
  • Unrestricted printing, no saving restrictions for personal use
read more

CHF 38.00 *
EUR 35.00 *
USD 39.00 *

Select

KAB

Buy a Karger Article Bundle (KAB) and profit from a discount!


If you would like to redeem your KAB credit, please log in.


Save over 20% compared to the individual article price.

Learn more

Rent/Cloud

  • Rent for 48h to view
  • Buy Cloud Access for unlimited viewing via different devices
  • Synchronizing in the ReadCube Cloud
  • Printing and saving restrictions apply

Rental: USD 8.50
Cloud: USD 20.00

Select

Subscribe

  • Access to all articles of the subscribed year(s) guaranteed for 5 years
  • Unlimited re-access via Subscriber Login or MyKarger
  • Unrestricted printing, no saving restrictions for personal use
read more

Subcription rates


Select
* The final prices may differ from the prices shown due to specifics of VAT rules.

Article / Publication Details

First-Page Preview
Abstract of Original Paper

Accepted: June 24, 1993
Published online: December 17, 2008
Issue release date: 1994

Number of Print Pages: 6
Number of Figures: 0
Number of Tables: 0

ISSN: 1660-8151 (Print)
eISSN: 2235-3186 (Online)

For additional information: https://www.karger.com/NEF

Abstract

Lithium and free water clearance (CLi and CH2O) were measured simultaneously in 5 patients with Bartter’s syndrome (BS), and the results were compared with values obtained in a large group of healthy control subjects. In line with the literature, fractional diluting segment reabsorption estimated from CH2O appeared to be subnormal in BS (82.4 ± 4.7 versus 89.4 ± 4.4% in controls, p < 0.01). Fractional delivery to this segment, expressed as the maximum urine flow during water diuresis (Vmax/glomerular filtration rate, GFR), also appeared to be reduced (11.3 ± 1.6 versus 13.8 + 2.5%, p < 0.05), suggesting compensatory increased proximal reabsorption. In disagreement with the latter, CLi/GFR, alleged to be a measure of fractional sodium and water output from the proximal tubules, was increased (36.2 ± 1.8 versus 30.7 ± 5.1% in controls, p < 0.01), suggesting that suppressed proximal reabsorption could be the primary reabsorption defect in BS. During chronic converting enzyme inhibition with enalapril, given to treat hypokalemia (3 patients), the concordance between the two methods was restored because CLi/GFR fell by approximately 50%, whereas VMax/GFR did not change; the alleged diluting segment rabsorption defect remained present. These contradictory results lead to the conclusion that one of the two methods reflected the pattern of tubular sodium handling in BS incorrectly. However, the present study does not unequivocally indicate which method yielded erroneous results in this condition.

© 1994 S. Karger AG, Basel




Related Articles:


Article / Publication Details

First-Page Preview
Abstract of Original Paper

Accepted: June 24, 1993
Published online: December 17, 2008
Issue release date: 1994

Number of Print Pages: 6
Number of Figures: 0
Number of Tables: 0

ISSN: 1660-8151 (Print)
eISSN: 2235-3186 (Online)

For additional information: https://www.karger.com/NEF


Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer

Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
TOP