BACKGROUND: Although attention has recently focused on electrolyte-free water clearance (E-CH2O) as a replacement for solute-free water clearance (CH2O), especially from the viewpoint of plasma sodium regulation, a thorough comparison of the two has yet to be conducted. METHODS: CH2O and E-CH2O were systematically compared in normal subjects in different diuretic stages, including furosemide-induced solute diuresis, and in patients with renal disease. RESULTS: The normal renal ability to conserve free water based on E-CH2O was only 41% of that based on CH2O. E-CH2O remained positive until the urinary osmolality exceeded 500 mosm/kg H2O, markedly different from the 300 mosm/kg H2O for CH2O. The difference between E-CH2O and CH2O could ultimately be attributed to urea osmolar clearance, i.e., urea excretion rate/plasma osmolality, which accounted for about 40% of the osmolar clearance. CH2O underestimated the free water clearance by about 1 ml/min on average at all diuretic stages. CONCLUSIONS: E-CH2O is a more correct parameter than CH2O with regard to the regulation of both plasma sodium and plasma osmolality. However, there is the opinion that the concept of E-CH2O is difficult to understand and that E-CH2O is still not a generally accepted parameter. It is expected that the results of the present study will lead to more general acceptance. Copyright 2002 S. Karger AG, Basel
BACKGROUND: Although attention has recently focused on electrolyte-freewater clearance (E-CH2O) as a replacement for solute-freewater clearance (CH2O), especially from the viewpoint of plasma sodium regulation, a thorough comparison of the two has yet to be conducted. METHODS:CH2O and E-CH2O were systematically compared in normal subjects in different diuretic stages, including furosemide-induced solute diuresis, and in patients with renal disease. RESULTS: The normal renal ability to conserve freewater based on E-CH2O was only 41% of that based on CH2O. E-CH2O remained positive until the urinary osmolality exceeded 500 mosm/kg H2O, markedly different from the 300 mosm/kg H2O for CH2O. The difference between E-CH2O and CH2O could ultimately be attributed to urea osmolar clearance, i.e., urea excretion rate/plasma osmolality, which accounted for about 40% of the osmolar clearance. CH2O underestimated the freewater clearance by about 1 ml/min on average at all diuretic stages. CONCLUSIONS:E-CH2O is a more correct parameter than CH2O with regard to the regulation of both plasma sodium and plasma osmolality. However, there is the opinion that the concept of E-CH2O is difficult to understand and that E-CH2O is still not a generally accepted parameter. It is expected that the results of the present study will lead to more general acceptance. Copyright 2002 S. Karger AG, Basel
Authors: Maria-Eleni Roumelioti; Todd S Ing; Helbert Rondon-Berrios; Robert H Glew; Zeid J Khitan; Yijuan Sun; Deepak Malhotra; Dominic S Raj; Emmanuel I Agaba; Glen H Murata; Joseph I Shapiro; Antonios H Tzamaloukas Journal: Int Urol Nephrol Date: 2018-03-06 Impact factor: 2.370
Authors: Eliane F E Wenstedt; Nienke M G Rorije; Rik H G Olde Engberink; Kim M van der Molen; Youssef Chahid; A H Jan Danser; Bert-Jan H van den Born; Liffert Vogt Journal: BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care Date: 2020-05
Authors: Mark Rohrscheib; Ramin Sam; Dominic S Raj; Christos P Argyropoulos; Mark L Unruh; Susie Q Lew; Todd S Ing; Nathan W Levin; Antonios H Tzamaloukas Journal: Front Med (Lausanne) Date: 2022-01-10
Authors: Jetta J Oppelaar; Nienke M G Rorije; Rik H G Olde Engberink; Youssef Chahid; Naomi van Vlies; Hein J Verberne; Bert-Jan H van den Born; Liffert Vogt Journal: Mol Genet Metab Rep Date: 2021-11-05