Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
BMJ 2007;334:473-476 (3 March), doi:10.1136/bmj.39098.744560.47
W Stuart A Smellie, consultant1, A Heald, locum consultant2
1 Clinical Laboratory, General Hospital, Bishop Auckland DL14 6AD, 2 Department of Medicine, General Hospital
Correspondence to: W S A Smellie info{at}smellie.com
Disorders of salt and water balance are extremely common in primary care. In many cases the cause is apparent and the result is not life threatening, but doctors should be aware of warning signs that may point to serious progressive disorders so that these can be diagnosed and managed early
Although disorders of salt and water balance are extremely common in primary care, their causes are usually apparent, and the primary clinical question that arises is whether any change of dosage or drugs is required (typically diuretics in heart failure).
Serious and rapidly progressing sodium and water balance problems are rarer, and the practitioner often needs to decide when to initiate further investigation.
On examination the patient did not have fever and his blood pressure was 146/88 mm Hg. He had slight ankle oedema, which had been noted previously, and was in sinus rhythm, rate 86 beats/min. His chest contained a few diffuse rhonchi but no focal signs. Heart sounds were normal. Electrolytes were reported as serum sodium 124 mmol/l, potassium 4.3 mmol/l, urea 6.2 mmol/l, and creatinine 111 µmol/l. He reported no change in regularity of taking his tablets, and repeat testing was arranged for one week later. This returned a sodium of 123 mmol/l. The doctor telephoned the laboratory to discuss the results.
The measured osmolality of the serum sample submitted was 256 mmol/kg water (reference range 280-301 mmol/kg in people over 60 years old), and the doctor was asked to submit a urine specimen from the patient for osmolality, which was found to be 560 mmol/kg. Urinary sodium concentration was 36 mmol/l, and random plasma glucose concentration was 6.1 mmol/l. These results were interpreted as inappropriate concentration of urine and a urinary sodium concentration that was inappropriately high in a patient with hyponatraemia and hypo-osmolar serum. After discussion with the local endocrinologist, a synacthen test was done to exclude adrenocortical deficiency. This showed adequate adrenocortical reserve: baseline cortisol 465 nmol/l rising to 780 nmol/l after 250 µg of intramuscular tetracosactrin (normal response is a rise >200 nmol/l to >550 nmol/l after 30 minutes). The doctor was advised to start giving the patient 1 litre fluid restriction pending an urgent specialist opinion.
On subsequent investigation, a plain chest x ray showed no abnormality, although thoracic computed tomography showed hilar lymphadenopathy. Subsequently, bronchoscopy showed a small hilar bronchial tumour, which was diagnosed histologically as small cell lung cancer. Fluid restriction was continued, pending assessment for chemotherapy, and his sodium concentration rose to 128 mmol/l 10 days later.
On examination she was not acutely unwell and not clinically dehydrated. Her blood pressure was 124/78 mm Hg lying and 112/70 mm Hg standing, and pulse 84 beats per minute in sinus rhythm. Urine glucose by test strip showed ++ glucose, and serumelectrolyte results were reported as sodium 151 mmol/l, potassium 3.8 mmol/l, urea 8.3 mmol/l, creatinine 105 µmol/l. A random plasma glucose concentration was 7.7 mmol/l.
Her serum electrolyte results three months earlier were sodium 142 mmol/l, potassium 4.1 mmol/l, urea 4.3 mmol/l, creatinine 96 µmol/l, and her serum calcium corrected for albumin had been 2.26 mmol/l (reference range 2.20-2.62 mmol/l).
She was advised to drink plenty of fluids and to return in three days for review, during which time her doctor contacted the local laboratory to discuss her results. When she was seen again, her symptoms were still present; her repeat blood results were similar; and a urine sample, recommended by the laboratory, returned an osmolality of 210 mmol/kg. Her measured serum osmolality was 308 mmol/kg (reference range 275-295 mmol/kg).
Urine output over 24 hours was 4.6 litres. She was referred urgently to an endocrinologist, who gave her a test dose of intranasal desmopressin, which greatly reduced urine output, and urinary osmolality rose to 570 mmol/kg water. She started taking regular desmopressin while having further investigations. Anterior pituitary function testing showed no impairment of corticotrophin, gonadotrophin, or growth hormone release, and serum prolactin was within the reference range. However, her thyroid function tests showed secondary hypothyroidism with thyroid stimulating hormone of 3.1 mIU/l (reference range 0.4-5 mIU/l) and free thyroxine (FT4) of 9 pmol/l (reference range 11-23 pmol/l), and she started thyroid replacement treatment.
Subsequent magnetic resonance imaging of the brain showed that she had a craniopharyngioma, which was successfully decompressed surgically. She later had external beam radiotherapy to the residual tumour.
In most cases the cause is apparent from the clinical setting of diuretic use or secondary hyperaldosteronism in cardiac, liver, or renal disease. The difficulties are knowing when to investigate further and how to distinguish the rarer, less obvious, causes.
Analytical imprecision and biological variation mean that differences of up to 5 mmol/l in measurement of serum sodium may be due to chance. Laboratory errors can occur, so a repeat sample is prudent to confirm an unexpected result. Changes of 5 mmol or more should alert practitioners to a potentially progressive process.
Chronic mild hyponatraemia in a patient with heart failure is common and is related to a combination (among others) of natriuresis, diuretics, and secondary hyperaldosteronism. Diagnosing renal salt and water handling disorders in patients who are taking drugs that influence salt and water handling, notably diuretics, can be difficult; where possible, a cautious reduction in these drugs can remove some of their renal effects that may hinder the interpretation of results. The confirmed fall of 7-8 mmol/l over a two month period in case 1 suggests that an additional process is involved. In their normal functioning state, the kidneys will pass dilute urine and retain sodium to correct the hyponatraemia. Comparing serum and urine osmolality and sodium excretion therefore offers a simple and rapid way of identifying patients who are concentrating urine inappropriately. The urine osmolality is typically but not necessarily less than that of the hypo-osmolar serum,5 and a urinary sodium concentration of >30 mmol/l has been cited as inappropriately high in the presence of hyponatraemia,6 although quoted thresholds vary and the urine osmolality may provide useful additional information to discriminate between defective renal concentration and states in which renal salt is lost.
The syndromes described as resulting from inappropriate secretion of antidiuretic hormone and chronic dilutional hyponatraemia have causes that include ectopic production, increased pituitary secretion, increased sensitivity to antidiuretic hormone, and resetting of the body osmostat in chronic disease states. The last of these usually leads to stable mild hyponatraemia.
For clinical purposes the principal differentiation is between states that are chronic and relatively stable and those producing progressively severe and rapidly worsening hyponatraemia. Severe hyponatraemia can occur with any of a large number of drugs (hence the importance of a drug history) or as a result of secretion from tumours, classically small cell lung carcinoma but also several others. It may also occur with head injury and non-malignant lung disease.5 Other chronic illness states can produce hyponatraemia through a similar mechanism,7 although this is usually mild and relatively slow to change.5
Failure of the kidney to preserve sodium (urinary sodium concentrations are typically less than 10 mmol/l in hyponatraemia), combined with appropriately dilute urine, should prompt consideration of renal salt losing states, including intrinsic renal disease and endocrine causes (hypoadrenalism). Because secretion of antidiuretic hormone over-rides the body osmostat to maintain circulating volume,8 hypoadrenalism must be excluded before any fluid restriction is considered.
Pseudohyponatraemia (redistributional hyponatraemia) may be seen in a variety of situations unrelated to salt and water homoeostasis: hyperglycaemia, hyperproteinaemia, and chylomicronaemia.3 In these conditions serum osmolality is normal (hyperproteinaemia with chylomicronaemia) or raised (chylomicronaemia).
Hypernatraemia
Hypernatraemia is rarer in primary care, and in most cases the cause will be apparent from the clinical setting, typically gastrointestinal losses from vomiting or diarrhoea, or poor fluid intake. In case 2 the magnitude of the rise over three months acted as the indicator of a potentially progressive process.
Other than urine glucose concentrations, which may have been positive because of a low renal glucose threshold, the results in case 2 excluded poor diabetes control as a cause for her polyuria, and the finding of inappropriately dilute urine in a patient whose serum is hyperosmolar (and would under normal circumstances have been concentrating her urine in order to retain water) indicate diabetes insipidus, requiring urgent referral.
Hypernatraemia with hyperosmolar serum and inappropriately dilute urine is diagnostic of diabetes insipidus. This may be caused by defective production of antidiuretic hormone from the hypothalamus, or, more rarely, release from the posterior pituitary gland, or from loss of renal response to circulating ADH (nephrogenic diabetes insipidus). Additional investigations can exclude several of the secondary causes of nephrogenic diabetes insipidus: hypercalcaemia, hypokalaemia, and drugs (notably lithium). Further characterisation of the cause of the diabetes insipidus may include dynamic testing (water deprivation test under carefully supervised conditions); a challenge with desmopressin; and imaging to identify space-occupying hypothalamic lesions, classically craniopharyngioma, or the rarer granulomatous diseases such as Wegner's granulomatosis or neurosarcoidosis. In most cases the thirst response will attempt to correct the hyperosmolar state, and with the exception of patients such as elderly or bedbound people, who may have limited access to fluids through immobility or institutionalisation (reviewed by Milionis et al5), large confirmed rises in serum sodium concentration should prompt suspicion of diabetes insipidus.
Urine osmolality must be interpreted in light of serum osmolality. Quoted "reference ranges" for urine osmolality (typically 50-1200 mmol/kg) simply reflect the range of the concentrating capacity of the kidney, which depends on body hydration status.
Pseudohypernatraemia is unusual, but it may be seen in hypoproteinaemic states when sodium has been measured by routine laboratory methods.9
|
|
The clinical situations in which hyponatraemia and hypernatraemia can occur are too varied for any action level to represent any more that a general guide. Interpretation of changes is based on the statistical likelihood of two or more consecutive results representing true and not random changes. A difference of 2.8 standard deviations, or approximately 5 mmol/l between two consecutive readings, is 95% likely to be significant.11 A difference of approximately 0.7 SD offers a 50% chance of a result not being obtained by chance. For sodium this means that differences of up to 2 mmol/l are as likely to be random findings as true change, whereas those of 5 mmol/l or more are unlikely to have been obtained by chance.
The evidence on investigating for rarer causes and for pseudohypernatraemia or pseudohyponatraemia comes from observational studies. The guidance would seem to be justified on the basis of the potential clinical severity of several of the causes in pseudohypernatraemia and avoiding unnecessary investigation, missed diagnoses, and inappropriate treatment in pseudohyponatraemia.
We thank Susan Richardson for typing this manuscript; the clinical practice section of the Association of Clinical Biochemists (in particular D B Freedman, P Gosling, A Waise, and WG Simpson); I S Young, R Gama (Association of Clinical Pathologists), and N Campbell (Royal College of General Practitioners), who kindly reviewed the original work; and C van Heyningen, who co-authored the original guidance.
Competing interests: None declared.
![]()
CiteULike
Complore
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Reddit
Technorati What's this?
Read all Rapid Responses
What can you learn from this BMJ paper? Read Leanne Tite's Paper+