当前位置: 首页 > 期刊 > 《美国生理学杂志》 > 2005年第1期 > 正文
编号:11295043
Derivation of a new formula for calculating urinary electrolyte-free water clearance based on the Edelman equation
http://www.100md.com 《美国生理学杂志》
     Division of Nephrology, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, California

    ABSTRACT

    In evaluating the renal mechanisms responsible for the generation of the dysnatremias, an analysis of free water clearance (FWC) and electrolyte-free water clearance (EFWC) is often utilized to characterize the rate of urinary free water excretion in these disorders. Previous analyses of FWC and EFWC have failed to consider the relationship among plasma water Na+ concentration ([Na+]pw), total exchangeable Na+ (Nae), total exchangeable K+ (Ke), and total body water (TBW); (Edelman IS, Leibman J, O'Meara MP, and Birkenfeld LW. J Clin Invest 37: 1236–1256, 1958). In their derivations, the classic FWC and EFWC formulas fail to consider the quantitative and physiological significance of the slope and y-intercept in this equation. Consequently, previous EFWC formulas incorrectly assume that urine is isonatric when [Na+ + K+]urine = [Na+]p or [Na+ + K+]urine = [Na+]p + [K+]p (where [Na+]p and [K+]p represent plasma Na+ and K+ concentrations, respectively). Moreover, previous formulas cannot be utilized in the setting of hyperglycemia. In this article, we have derived a new formula termed modified electrolyte-free water clearance (MEFWC) for determining the electrolyte-free water clearance, taking into consideration the empirical relationship between the [Na+]pw and Nae, Ke, and TBW: MEFWC = V [1 – 1.03[Na+ + K+]urine/([Na+]p + 23.8)]. MEFWC, unlike previous formulas, is derived based on the requirement of the Edelman equation that urine is isonatric only when [Na+ + K+]urine = (Nae + Ke)/TBW = 0.97[Na+]p + 23.1. Furthermore, since we have shown that the y-intercept in the Edelman equation varies directly with the plasma glucose concentration, in patients with hyperglycemia, MEFWC = V [1 – 1.03[Na+ + K+]urine/{[Na+]p + 23.8 + (1.6/100)([glucose]p – 120)}]. The MEFWC formula will be especially useful in assessing the renal contribution to the generation of the dysnatremias.

    sodium; potassium; free water clearance; electrolyte-free water clearance

    CLASSIC FORMULAS UTILIZED TO CALCULATE THE URINARY FREE WATER CLEARANCE

    IN PREVIOUS ANALYSES OF THE mechanisms responsible for changes in the plasma Na+ concentration ([Na+]p), the concepts of free water clearance (FWC) and electrolyte-free water clearance (EFWC) were utilized to characterize and predict the effect of an abnormal rate of urinary free water excretion on the [Na+]p (4, 8, 17, 19, 21). FWC was originally defined quantitatively as V (1 – Uosm/Posm), where V = urinary flow rate, Uosm = urinary osmolality, and Posm = plasma osmolality (21). FWC is an analysis based on a comparison of urine to plasma osmolality to determine whether the kidney is excreting dilute urine and to quantify the rate of urinary free water excretion. In 1981, Goldberg (4) emphasized that although urea is a component of the measured plasma and urine osmolality, since it has a high permeability across cell membranes, urea does not alter the [Na+]p by modulating the distribution of water between body fluid compartments. Accordingly, Goldberg suggested that a new formula be used termed EFWC, where V(1 – [Na+ + K+]urine /[Na+]p) (4). To account for the effect of K+ on the [Na+]p, Shoker (19) and subsequently Mallie et al. (8) suggested that EFWC be calculated as V{1 – [Na+ + K+]urine/([Na+]p + [K+]p)}. Furthermore, since glucose can alter the [Na+]p by inducing the shift of water between body fluid compartments (5), Shoker (19) revised the calculation of EFWC to include effective osmoles other than Na+ and K+ as follows: V{1 – (2 [Na+ + K+]urine + [other effective osmoles])/(2 ([Na+]p + [K+]p) + [other effective osmoles])} (19). These formulas are summarized in Table 1.

    View this table:

    EMPIRICAL AND THEORETICAL REASONS FOR ACCEPTING THE EDELMAN EQUATION AS THE BASIS FOR MODIFYING THE CLASSIC EFWC FORMULAS

    It has been suggested that the EFWC analysis is superior to the calculation of FWC to document the role of the kidney in generating the dysnatremias, since the EFWC takes into consideration the fact that urea is an ineffective osmole (4, 8, 17, 19). However, neither the FWC nor EFWC formula considers the empirical relationship between the plasma water Na+ concentration ([Na+]pw) and Nae, Ke, and total body water (TBW) originally demonstrated by Edelman et al. (3): [Na+]pw = 1.11(Nae + Ke)/TBW – 25.6 (EQ. 1), where Nae and Ke are total exchangeable Na+ and K+, respectively. Specifically, these previous analyses fail to consider the quantitative and physiological significance of the slope and y-intercept in the Edelman equation in their derivations.

    Recently, we have shown quantitatively the necessity for the slope and y-intercept in the Edelman equation and their physiological and clinical significance (6, 9–14). Our analysis demonstrated that the empirically determined slope of 1.11 can be theoretically predicted by considering the combined effect of the osmotic coefficient of Na+ salts at physiological concentrations and Gibbs-Donnan equilibrium (12, 13). Our analysis indicated that ionic interactions between Na+ and its associated anions (as reflected by the osmotic coefficient of Na+ salts) have a modulating effect on the [Na+]pw. Moreover, our results demonstrated that Gibbs-Donnan equilibrium has an incremental effect on the [Na+]pw. Since the presence of negatively charged, impermeant proteins in the plasma space alters the distribution of Na+ and its associated anions between the plasma and interstitial fluid to preserve electroneutrality, the Gibbs-Donnan effect raises the [Na+]pw at any given quantity of (Nae + Ke)/TBW. Furthermore, we also demonstrated that there are several determinants of the y-intercept in the Edelman equation which independently alter the [Na+]pw: the osmotically inactive exchangeable Na+ and K+, the plasma water [K+], and the osmotically active non-Na+ and non-K+ osmoles (9, 11–13). The components of the y-intercept reflect the fact that not all exchangeable Na+ and K+ are osmotically active and that non-Na+ osmoles are also involved in the distribution of water between the body fluid compartments. Therefore, the components of the y-intercept reflect the role of osmotic equilibrium in the modulation of the [Na+]pw.

    The role of osmotic equilibrium in the modulation of the [Na+]p is best exemplified by the effect of hyperglycemia on the [Na+]p. It is well known that there is an expected decrease of 1.6 meq/l in the [Na+]p for each 100 mg/dl increment in the plasma glucose concentration ([glucose]p) resulting from the osmotic shift of water between the intracellular fluid compartment and the extracellular fluid compartment (5). Indeed, we have demonstrated that the y-intercept is not constant in hyperglycemia-induced hyponatremia and will vary directly with the [glucose]p (6, 11–13). Our analysis also indicated that the following formula can be used to predict the effect of changes in Nae, Ke, and TBW as well as the dilutional effect of hyperglycemia on the [Na+]p attributable to the osmotic shift of water where [Na+]p = 1.03(Nae + Ke)/TBW – 23.8 – (1.6/100)([glucose]p – 120) (11–13). Thus any analysis of the pathophysiology of the dysnatremias in the setting of hyperglycemia must take into consideration the effect of [glucose]p on the magnitude of the y-intercept.

    DEFINITION OF AN ISONATRIC SOLUTION DICTATED BY THE EDELMAN EQUATION

    A solution is defined as isonatric when its addition or loss from the plasma will not result in an alteration in the [Na+]p. Quantitatively, it is commonly assumed that a solution is isonatric when its [Na+ + K+] = [Na+]p (4, 17). Moreover, according to this definition, it was implicitly assumed that the [Na+]p = (Nae + Ke)/TBW. The latter equation is a simplified version of EQ. 1, where the slope and y-intercept of the Edelman equation were erroneously assigned values of one and zero, respectively. However, given the empirical and theoretical basis for the non-zero values of the slope and y-intercept in the Edelman equation (3, 11–13), the definition of an isonatric solution requires modification. Importantly, it can be demonstrated that the Edelman equation dictates that a solution is isonatric if its [Na+ + K+] = (Nae + Ke)/TBW. The addition or loss from the plasma of a solution with this property does not result in an alteration in the [Na+]p. Mathematically, the fact that a solution is isonatric when its [Na+ + K+] = (Nae + Ke)/TBW can be demonstrated as follows:

    (1)

    Multiplying both sides of EQ. 1 by 0.93 (1, 2) to convert [Na+]pw to [Na+]p

    Since 0.93 x [Na+]pw = [Na+]p (1, 2)

    (2)

    If [Na+]p1 = [Na+]p2, then

    (3)

    Since

    (4)

    Assuming that there is no input and only urinary loss

    (5)

    Substituting EQ. 5 for (Nae2 + Ke2 )/TBW2 in EQ. 3

    Rearranging

    Rearranging

    Therefore

    Solving for [Na+ + K+]urine

    Thus a solution is isonatric when its [Na+ + K+] = (Nae + Ke)/TBW. Since (Nae + Ke)/TBW = ([Na+]p + 23.8)/1.03 according to EQ. 6, urine is isonatric when its [Na+ + K+] = ([Na+]p + 23.8)/1.03 = 0.97[Na+]p + 23.1 (Fig. 1). In contrast, previous EFWC formulas incorrectly assume that urine is isonatric when [Na+ + K+]urine = [Na+]p (4, 17) or [Na+ + K+]urine = [Na+]p + [K+]p (8, 19).

    DERIVATION OF A NEW FORMULA FOR CALCULATING EFWC: THE MODIFIED EFWC EQUATION

    By failing to incorporate the complete Edelman equation in their derivations, previous formulas suffer from the limitation that the Edelman equation dictates that urine be considered isonatric (incapable of changing the [Na+]p) only when [Na+ + K+]urine = (Nae + Ke)/TBW. In contrast, current formulas implicitly assume that urine is isonatric when [Na+ + K+]urine = [Na+]p or [Na+ + K+]urine = [Na+]p + [K+]p. We now demonstrate the mathematical derivation of the modified EFWC (MEFWC) equation that is consistent with the implications of the Edelman equation.

    (2)

    Rearranging

    (6)

    Urine can be viewed conceptually as having two components: one component containing a concentration of Na+ + K+ that is isonatric, and a second component that does not contain Na+ and K+ salts and is termed electrolyte-free water. The isonatric urine component by definition will not change the [Na+]p if excreted or absorbed, whereas the electrolyte-free water component will change the [Na+]p if excreted or absorbed. According to EQ. 2, the isonatric component must have a [Na+ + K+] = (Nae + Ke)/TBW. Specifically, when [Na+ + K+]urine = (Nae + Ke)/TBW, the excretion of urine will not change [Na+]p from its current value.

    These two urine components can be represented algebraically as

    (7)

    where V = urine flow rate, E = [Na+ + K+], IEC = isonatric electrolyte clearance, and MEFWC = modified electrolyte-free water clearance.

    Furthermore

    (8)

    Since according to EQ. 6 (Nae + Ke)/TBW = ([Na+]p + 23.8)/1.03; EQ. 8 can be rewritten as

    (9)

    Rearranging EQ. 7

    (10)

    Since according to EQ. 9

    EQ. 10 can be rewritten as

    (11)

    Rearranging

    (12)

    Taking into consideration the quantitative and physiological significance of the slope and y-intercept in EQ. 1, we have therefore derived a new formula for determining EFWC:

    This new formula incorporates the known empirical relationship between the [Na+]pw and Nae, Ke, and TBW in its derivation. By accounting for the non-zero values of the slope and y-intercept in the Edelman equation, this formula takes into consideration the effects of the osmotic coefficient of Na+ salts at physiological concentrations and Gibbs-Donnan and osmotic equilibrium on the [Na+]pw. Unlike previous formulas, MEFWC incorporates in its derivation the fact that plasma is 93% water (1, 2). In addition, MEFWC is mathematically derived based on the Edelman equation and therefore predicts correctly that urine is isonatric only when [Na+ + K+]urine = (Nae + Ke)/TBW. Moreover, MEFWC accounts for the ineffectiveness of urea in altering the distribution of water between the cells and the extracellular fluid by incorporating the electrolyte clearance (rather than osmolar clearance) in its derivation. Finally, in a euglycemic patient, MEFWC has three determinants which can vary: V, [Na+ + K+]urine, and [Na+]p. MEFWC increases linearly as V increases, and curvilinearly as [Na+]p increases. In contrast, MEFWC varies inversely with the [Na+ + K+]urine (Fig. 2).

    CLINICAL UTILITY OF THE MEFWC FORMULA

    Based on the empirical relationship between the [Na+]pw and Nae, Ke, and TBW empirically demonstrated by Edelman et al. (3) (EQ. 1), we now proceed to quantitatively compare the clinical validity of the MEFWC formula and previous free-water clearance formulas. According to EQ. 1, as long as the [Na+ + K+]urine = (Nae + Ke)/TBW = 0.97[Na+]p + 23.1, the [Na+]p remains unaltered. Since there is no change in the [Na+]p, the urinary EFWC must be equal to zero. Therefore, one can easily assess the clinical validity of the various free-water clearance formulas by calculating the urinary free-water clearance in a hypothetical patient with a [Na+ + K+]urine = (Nae + Ke)/TBW = 0.97[Na+]p + 23.1.

    Using the various free-water clearance formulas (Table 1), we will now calculate the urinary free-water clearance in our patient: [Na+ + K+]urine= 130 mmol/l, urine flow rate = 1.5 l/day, urine osmolality = 540 mosmol/kgH2O, [Na+]p = 110 mmol/l, [K+]p = 4.0 mmol/l, and plasma osmolality = 256 mosmol/kgH2O:

    As required by EQ. 1, when [Na+ + K+]urine = 0.97[Na+]p + 23.1 as in this patient example, the [Na+]p remains constant. Only the MEFWC formula that mathematically incorporates this equality in its derivation predicts the expected result that the urinary free water clearance is zero. In contrast, free water clearance as calculated by FWC (21), EFWC1 (4, 17), and EFWC2 formulas (8, 19) predict incorrectly a non-zero value for urinary free water clearance.

    Similarly, according to EQ. 6, in a patient with a [Na+]p of 140 mmol/l and [K+]p of 4 mmol/l, if urinary [Na+ + K+] is 159 mmol/l (i.e. [Na+ + K+]urine = 0.97[Na+]p + 23.1), the [Na+]p will remain constant and the urinary free water clearance must be zero. As shown in Table 2, the urinary free water clearance as calculated by the MEFWC formula is zero, whereas a non-zero value is incorrectly derived using the previous free-water clearance formulas. In contrast, if urinary [Na+ + K+] is 140 mmol/l (i.e. [Na+ + K+]urine = [Na+]p), or if urinary [Na+ + K+] is 144 mmol/l (i.e. [Na+ + K+]urine = [Na+]p + [K+]p), the loss of such a solution from the plasma must result in a change in the [Na+]p. Since there is an alteration in the [Na+]p, the urinary free water clearance cannot be zero as predicted by the MEFWC formula, whereas a zero value is inaccurately predicted by the previous free-water clearance formulas (Table 2). Therefore, if the [Na+]p is 140 mmol/l, a solution that is isonatric to the [Na+]p must have a [Na+ + K+] equal to 159 mmol/l. In contrast, if a solution's [Na+ + K+] is equal to the [Na+]p (140 mmol/l) or [Na+]p + [K+]p (144 mmol/l), its addition or loss from the plasma will lead to a change in the [Na+]p. Such a solution would be hyposmotic as there are other effective non-Na+ and non-K+ osmoles in the plasma (i.e., glucose, Ca+2, Mg+2). Thus an alteration in the [Na+]p will ensue due to the osmotic shift of water between body fluid compartments. Interestingly, it has been demonstrated that a NaCl solution with a [Na+] of 160 mmol/l has an equivalent osmotic pressure to that of normal plasma with an osmolality of 298 mosmol/kgH2O (7).

    View this table:

    Finally, the inaccuracies of the EFWC1 and EFWC2 formulas are more exaggerated in clinical conditions characterized by a high urinary flow rate. As demonstrated in Fig. 3, in a patient with a [Na+]p = 110 mmol/l, [K+]p = 3 mmol/l, and [Na+ + K+]urine = 100 mmol/l, calculations of EFWC based on the EFWC1 and EFWC2 formulas result in greater errors at higher urinary flow rates compared with that calculated according to the MEFWC formula.

    FACTORS MODULATING THE SLOPE AND Y-INTERCEPT IN THE EDELMAN EQUATION

    As the slope and y-intercept in the Edelman equation have several physiological determinants, alterations in these parameters could result in changes in the slope and y-intercept in EQ. 1. Since the slope of EQ. 1 is determined by the combined effect of the osmotic coefficient of Na+ salts at physiological concentrations and Gibbs-Donnan equilibrium (12, 13), clinical conditions characterized by hemoconcentration or hemodilution would be expected to change the value of the slope in EQ. 1 by altering Gibbs-Donnan equilibrium. Similarly, alterations in the magnitude of the parameters comprising the y-intercept could lead to a change in its value. For instance, the quantities of Na+ lost and water retained in the syndrome of antidiuretic hormone secretion (SIADH) are insufficient to account for the magnitude of the observed reduction in [Na+]p in severely hyponatremic patients (15, 18). This discrepancy has been attributed to loss or inactivation of an osmotically active solute. A change in the quantity of osmotically inactive Nae and Ke would, therefore, lead to a change in the magnitude of the y-intercept. Moreover, changes in the quantity of osmotically active non-Na+ and non-K+ osmoles would also alter the magnitude of the y-intercept. Indeed, we have previously demonstrated that the y-intercept is not constant in hyperglycemia-induced dilutional hyponatremia resulting from the translocation of water and will vary directly with the [glucose]p (6, 11–13).

    Although the exact slope and y-intercept may not be known in any given individual, Edelman et al. (3) demonstrated that the slope of 1.11 and y-intercept of –25.6 in the empirically derived regression equation (EQ. 1) provide an excellent characterization of the relationship between the [Na+]pw and Nae, Ke, and TBW in euglycemic clinical conditions. In the derivation of the MEFWC formula, the slope of 1.03 and y-intercept of –23.8 are utilized instead to account for the fact that plasma is 93% water. It is therefore important to realize that the slope of 1.03 and y-intercept of –23.8 are not applicable in clinical conditions characterized by an increase in the lipid and protein fraction of plasma as in hyperlipidemia and multiple myeloma (20). Finally, a modified y-intercept must be utilized in the setting of hyperglycemia-induced hyponatremia because the y-intercept will vary directly with the [glucose]p (6, 11–13).

    MEFWC IN HYPERGLYCEMIC STATES

    In the setting of hyperglycemia, EQ. 12 must be modified to account for the dilutional effect of blood glucose on the [Na+]p (5). We have previously demonstrated that the y-intercept in the Edelman equation is not constant and will vary predictably with the [glucose]p (6, 11–13). Moreover, we have previously shown (11–13) that the [Na+]p varies with the [glucose]p according to

    (13)

    Therefore, in the setting of hyperglycemia, the MEFWC formula must be generalized as follows:

    (14)

    Hyperglycemia-induced hyponatremia results from changes in the mass balance of Na+, K+, and H2O (osmotic diuresis) and from the dilutional effect of hyperglycemia induced by the translocation of water (6, 11–13). Equation 14 takes into consideration the dilutional effect of hyperglycemia on the [Na+]p by accounting for the fact that there is an expected decrease of 1.6 meq/l in the [Na+]p for each 100 mg/dl increment in the [glucose]p (5). In addition, EQ. 14 accounts for the increase in urinary Na+, K+, and H2O excretion resulting from the glucosuria-induced osmotic diuresis as reflected by the terms [Na+ + K+]urine and V in EQ. 14. Since glucosuria can only affect [Na+]p by altering urinary Na+, K+, and H2O excretion, the incorporation of urinary glucose excretion in the EFWC formula as previously suggested (19) has no mathematical basis. Moreover, none of the previous free water clearance formulas considers the dilutional effect of hyperglycemia on the [Na+]p induced by the translocation of water, and therefore they are not applicable in the setting of hyperglycemia. Finally, according to EQ. 14, MEFWC is zero (i.e. urine is isonatric to the [Na+]p) when the [Na+ + K+]urine = (Nae + Ke)/TBW = {[Na+]p + 23.8 + (1.6/100)([glucose]p – 120)}/1.03 = 0.97 [Na+]p + 23.1 + 0.0155 ([glucose]p – 120) (Fig. 4). Since EQ. 14 already accounts for the dilutional effect of hyperglycemia on the [Na+]p, the actual measured [Na+]p should be employed when EQ. 14 is utilized in calculating the EFWC.

    Using the patient data from Shoker's analysis (19), we now illustrate the utility of this formula in a patient with diabetic ketoacidosis with a urinary [Na+ + K+] = 100 mmol/l, [glucose]urine = 270 mg/dl (15 mmol/l), V = 2 l/day, urine osmolality = 600 mosmol/kgH2O, [Na+]p = 120 mmol/l, [K+]p = 3 mmol/l, [glucose]p = 720 mg/dl (40 mmol/l), and plasma osmolality = 315 mosmol/kgH2O:

    The urinary free-water clearance as calculated by the previous formulas is as follows:

    In the setting of hyperglycemia, Shoker suggested that the renal clearance of glucose should also be incorporated in the calculation of EFWC as V{1 – (2 [Na+ + K+]urine + [glucose]urine)/(2([Na+]p + [K+]p) + [glucose]p)} (19). EFWC as calculated according to this formula is –0.38 l/day. This formula cannot be correct because it does not incorporate in its derivation the fact that there is an expected decrease of 1.6 meq/l in the [Na+]p for each 100 mg/dl increment in the [glucose]p (5). Furthermore, as discussed, there is no theoretical basis for incorporating the urinary glucose excretion rate into the EFWC formula since glucosuria can only affect [Na+]p by altering urinary excretion of Na+, K+, and H2O, which are already accounted for mathematically. In addition, it is well known that glucosuria-induced osmotic diuresis results in the loss of H2O in excess of Na+ + K+ (16); hence, EFWC in the setting of osmotic diuresis cannot be a negative value as is incorrectly predicted by the formula derived by Shoker (19). Therefore, as shown in this clinical example, calculations of free-water clearance based on previous formulas will result in an inaccurate estimation of the rate of urinary free water excretion since these formulas cannot account for the dilutional effect of blood glucose on the [Na+]p and fail to incorporate the parameters of the Edelman equation in their derivations.

    SUMMARY

    The classic FWC and EFWC formulas used to assess the rate of urinary free water clearance fail to incorporate in their derivations the empirical relationship between the [Na+]pw and Nae, Ke, and TBW originally demonstrated by Edelman et al. (3). Because previous EFWC formulas do not consider the quantitative and physiological significance of the slope and y-intercept in the Edelman equation, they implicitly assume in their derivation that urine is isonatric to the [Na+]p when [Na+ + K+]urine is equal to the [Na+]p or [Na+]p + [K+]p. In this article, we present a new formula, MEFWC, for determining the EFWC, taking into consideration the relationship between the [Na+]pw and Nae, Ke, and TBW empirically demonstrated by Edelman et al. (3). As required by the Edelman equation, we demonstrate that urine is isonatric to the [Na+]p if [Na+ + K+]urine is equal to 0.97[Na+]p + 23.1. Our new formula incorporates this fact in its derivation, and it also takes into consideration the quantitative and physiological significance of the slope and y-intercept in the Edelman equation. This new formula will be especially useful in the evaluation of the urinary diluting defect in hyponatremic disorders as well as the urinary concentrating defect that contributes to the development of hypernatremia in diabetes insipidus. Moreover, we have derived a generalized formula for calculating the MEFWC in the setting of hyperglycemia, which can be utilized to quantify the rate of urinary free water excretion in patients with diabetic ketoacidosis and hyperglycemic nonketotic coma.

    GRANTS

    This work was supported by the Max Factor Family Foundation, the Richard and Hinda Rosenthal Foundation, and the Fredericka Taubitz fund to I. Kurtz.

    FOOTNOTES

    The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. The article must therefore be hereby marked "advertisement" in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.

    REFERENCES

    Albrink M, Hold PM, Man EB, and Peters JP. The displacement of serum water by the lipids of hyperlipemic serum. A new method for rapid determination of serum water. J Clin Invest 34: 1483–1488, 1955.

    Davis FE, Kenyon K, and Kirk J. A rapid titrimetric method for determining the water content of human blood. Science 118: 276–277, 1953.

    Edelman IS, Leibman J, O'Meara MP, and Birkenfeld LW. Interrelations between serum sodium concentration, serum osmolality and total exchangeable sodium, total exchangeable potassium and total body water. J Clin Invest 37: 1236–1256, 1958.

    Goldberg M. Hyponatremia. Med Clin North Am 65: 251–269, 1981.

    Katz M. Hyperglycemia-induced hyponatremia. Calculation of expected sodium depression. N Engl J Med : 843–844, 1973.

    Kurtz I amd Nguyen MK. A simple quantitative approach to analyzing the generation of the dysnatremias. Clin Exp Nephrol 7: 138–143, 2003.

    Lifson N and Visscher MB. Osmosis in living systems. In: Medical Physics, edited by Glasser O. Chicago, IL: Year Book, 1961, vol. 1, p. 869–892.

    Mallie JP, Bichet DG, and Halperin ML. Effective water clearance and tonicity balance: the excretion of water revisited. Clin Invest Med 20: 16–24, 1997.

    Nguyen MK and Kurtz I. A new quantitative approach to the treatment of the dysnatremias. Clin Exp Nephrol 7: 125–137, 2003.

    Nguyen MK and Kurtz I. Analysis of current formulas used for treatment of the dysnatremias. Clin Exp Nephrol 8: 12–16, 2004.

    Nguyen MK and Kurtz I. Are the total exchangeable sodium, total exchangeable potassium and total body water the only determinants of the plasma water sodium concentration Nephrol Dial Transplant 18: 1266–1271, 2003.

    Nguyen MK and Kurtz I. Determinants of the plasma water sodium concentration as reflected in the Edelman equation: role of osmotic and Gibbs-Donnan equilibrium. Am J Physiol Renal Physiol 286: F828–F837, 2004.

    Nguyen MK and Kurtz I. New insights into the pathophysiology of the dysnatremias: a quantitative analysis. Am J Physiol Renal Physiol 287: F172–F180, 2004.

    Nguyen MK and Kurtz I. Role of potassium in hypokalemia-induced hyponatremia: lessons learned from the Edelman equation. Clin Exp Nephrol 8: 98–102, 2004.

    Nolph KD and Schrier RW. Sodium, potassium and water metabolism in the syndrome of inappropriate antidiuretic hormone secretion. Am J Med 49: 534–545, 1970.

    Rose BD. Hyperosmolal states. Hypernatremia. In: Clinical Physiology of Acid-Base and Electrolyte Disordersm, edited by Rose BD. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1994, p. 695–736.

    Rose BD. New approach to disturbances in the plasma sodium concentration. Am J Med 81: 1033–1040, 1986.

    Schwartz WB, Bennett W, Curelop S, and Bartter FC. A syndrome of renal sodium loss and hyponatremia probably resulting from inappropriate secretion of antidiuretic hormone. Am J Med 23: 529–542, 1957.

    Shoker AS. Application of the clearance concept to hyponatremic and hypernatremic disorders: a phenomenological analysis. Clin Chem 40: 1220–1227, 1994.

    Waugh WH. Utility of expressing serum sodium per unit of water in assessing hyponatremia. Metabolism 18: 706–712, 1969.

    Wesson LG and Anslow WP. Effect of osmotic diuresis and mercurial diuresis in simultaneous water diuresis. Am J Physiol 170: 255–259, 1952.(Minhtri K. Nguyen and Ira)