Should I avoid intravenous furosemide for management of ascites in my patient with cirrhosis?

Generally, yes! IV furosemide for treatment of ascites in patients with cirrhosis should be avoided for couple of reasons.

First, in contrast to patients with congestive heart failure in whom the absorption of oral furosemide may be impaired due to bowel wall edema, patients with cirrhosis and ascites appear to absorb oral furosemide efficiently, similarly to that of control patients.1   Another reason for avoiding IV furosemide in this setting is the possibility of a significant drop in the GFR with its attendant rise in BUN and serum creatinine, clinically resembling a picture of hepatorenal syndrome.2

Although the mechanism of the adverse effect of IV furosemide on the renal function of patients with cirrhosis is not totally clear, furosemide-induced vasoconstriction, not intrasvascular volume depletion due to sodium wasting, seems to play an important role.3

Nevertheless, certain situations may necessitate the use of IV furosemide in patients with cirrhosis and ascites, such as in single doses to help identify patients who will be responsive to diuretics, and in patients in need of prompt diuresis such as those with concurrent pulmonary edema. In a somewhat reassuring study, a single dose of 80 mg IV furosemide reliably identified cirrhotic patients with ascites responsive to diuretics, without a significant risk of deteriorating renal function.3

 

References

  1. Sawhney VK, Gregory PB, Swezey SE, et al. Furosemide disposition in cirrhotic patients. Gastroenterology 1981; 81: 1012-16. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7286579
  2. Daskalopoulos G, Laffi G, Morgan T, et al. Immediate effects of furosemide on renal hemodynamics in chronic liver disease with ascites. Gastroenterology 1987;92:1859-1863. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3569760
  3. Spahr, L., Villeneuve, J., Tran, H. K., & Pomier-Layrargues, G. Furosemide-induced natriuresis as a test to identify cirrhotic patients with refractory ascites. Hepatology 2001;33:28-31. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11124817

 

Contributed by Sam Miller, MD, Mass General Hospital, Boston, MA.

 

Should I avoid intravenous furosemide for management of ascites in my patient with cirrhosis?

Could constipation contribute to hyperkalemia in my patient with chronic kidney disease?

Yes! Constipation may be an important contributor to hyperkalemia in some patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD).

 Under normal conditions, 80-90% of excess dietary potassium (K+) is excreted by the kidneys, with the remainder excreted through the GI tract.1 However, in advanced CKD, particularly in the setting of end-stage kidney disease (ESKD), the GI tract assumes a much more important role in maintaining K+ balance. 

As early as 1960’s, the daily fecal excretion of K+ was found to be directly related to the wet stool weight, irrespective of creatinine clearance. Furthermore, K+ excretion in stool was as high as ~80% of dietary intake (average 37%) in some hemodialysis (HD) patients compared to normal controls (average 12%). 2

Such increase in K+ excretion in the GI tract of patients with CKD was later found to be primarily the result of K+ secretion into the colon/rectum rather than reduced dietary K+ absorption in the small intestine 1,3, was inversely related to residual kidney function, and as a consequence could serve as the main route of K+ excretion in patients with ESKD. 4

Collectively, these findings suggest that in addition to non-dietary factors such as medications, we may need to routinely consider constipation as a potential cause of hyperkalemia in patients with advanced CKD or ESKD. 1

Bonus Pearl: Did you know that secretion of K+ by the apical surface of colonic epithelial is mediated in part by aldosterone-dependent mechanisms? 5

References

  1. St-Jules DE, Goldfarb DS, Sevick MA. Nutrient non-equivalence: does restricting high-potassium plant foods help to prevent hyperkalemia in hemodialysis patients? J Ren. Nutr 2016;26: 282-87. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26975777
  2. Hayes CP, McLeod ME, Robinson RR. An extrarenal mechanism for the maintenance of potassium balance in severe chronic renal failure. Trans Assoc Am Physicians 1967;80:207-16.
  3. Martin RS, Panese S, Virginillo M, et al. Increased secretion of potassium in the rectum of humans with chronic renal failure. Am J Kidney Dis 1986;8:105-10. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3740056
  4. Cupisti A, Kovesdy CP, D’Alessandro C, et al. Dietary approach to recurrent or chronic hyperkalemia in patients with decreased kidney function. Nutrients 2018, 10, 261;doi:10.3390/nu10030261. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5872679/
  5. Battle D, Boobes K, Manjee KG. The colon as the potassium target: entering the colonic age of hyperkalemia treatment. EBioMedicine 2015;2: 1562-1563. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4740340/pdf/main.pdf

 

Contributed in part by Alex Blair, MD, Mass General Hospital, Boston, MA.

If you liked this post, sign up under Menu and receive future pearls right into your mailbox!

Could constipation contribute to hyperkalemia in my patient with chronic kidney disease?

Is neurotoxicity caused by cefepime common?

The incidence of cefepime-induced neurotoxicity (CIN) has varied from 1% to 15%.1 Potential clinical manifestations of CIN include delirium, impaired level of consciousness, disorientation/agitation, myoclonus, non-convulsive status epilepticus, seizures, and aphasia.1  Many of these signs and symptoms (eg, delirium) are common among hospitalized patients.

Although renal dysfunction and inadequately adjusted dosages are often cited as risk factors, one-half of patients develop suspected CIN despite apparently proper adjustment for renal function.In addition,  several case reports of CIN have involved patients with normal renal function. 2  A study of 1120 patients receiving cefepime found epileptiform discharges in 14 cases, most having normal renal function.3 Of interest, in the same study, the prevalence of epileptiform discharges was 6-fold higher than that of meropenem!

Proposed mechanisms for CIN include its avidity for central nervous system GABA-A receptors (higher than that of many beta-lactam antibiotics) combined with its high concentration in brain tissue.1 Renal impairment, decreased protein binding, and increased organic acid accumulation can increase transfer of cefepime across the blood brain barrier from an expected 10% to up to 45% of its serum concentration, further contributing to its neurotoxicity.4

 

References

  1. Appa AA, Jain R, Rakita RM, et al. Characterizing cefepime neurotoxicity: a systematic review. Open Forum Infectious Diseases 2017 Oct 10;4(4):ofx170. doi: 10.1093/ofid/ofx170. eCollection 2017 Fall. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29071284
  2. Meillier A, Rahimian D. Cefepime-induced encephalopathy with normal renal function. Oxford Medical Case Reports, 2016;6, 118-120. https://academic.oup.com/omcr/article/2016/6/118/2362353
  3. Naeije G, Lorent S, Vincent JL, et al. Continuous epileptiform discharges in patients treated with cefpime or meropenem Arch Neurol 2011;68:1303-7. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21987544
  4. Payne LE, Gaganon DJ, Riker RR, et al. Cefepime-induced neurotoxicity: a systematic review. Critical Care 017;21:276. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29137682

 

If you liked this pearl, sign up under menu and receive future posts right into your mailbox!

Is neurotoxicity caused by cefepime common?

My hypertensive patient needs hemodialysis. How dialyzable are common antihypertensives?

Among antihypertensives, most commonly used angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACE-Is) such as captopril, enalapril, lisinopril, and benazepril are at least partially removed by hemodialysis; ramipril and fosinopril are not appreciably removed.1,2

In contrast, none of the commonly used angiotensin receptor blockers such as losartan, valsartan, and irbesartan are removed by hemodialysis.

Among β-blockers and combined α- and β-blockers, atenolol and metoprolol are removed by hemodialysis while carvedilol, bisoprolol, propranolol and labetalol are not.

Many other antihypertensives such as calcium channel blockers, α-blockers, clonidine, and hydralazine are not appreciably removed by hemodialysis, while isosorbide dinitrate appears to be.

Of interest, a 2015 retrospective cohort study found that initiation of high- dialyzability β-blockers (atenolol, acebutolol, or metoprolol) was associated with a higher risk of death in the following 180 days compared to that of low-dialyzability  β-blockers (bisoprolol or propranolol), suggesting that perhaps we should be more selective in our choice of β-blockers in this patient population.2 In contrast, no significant difference in all-cause mortality was noted among older patients receiving ACE-Is with high vs low dialyzability potential.3

 

References

  1. Inrig JK, Antihypertensive agents in hemodialysis patients: A current perspective. Semin dial 2010;23:290-7. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3061334/pdf/nihms206964.pdf
  2. β-Blocker dialyzability and mortality in older patients receiving hemodialysis. J Am Soc Nephrol 2015;26:987-96. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25359874
  3. Weir MA, Fleet JL, Dixon SN, et al. Angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor dialyzability and outcomes in older patients receiving hemodialysis. Blood Purif 2015;40:232-42.  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26382240   

Contributed in part by Andrew Lundquist, MD, PhD, Mass General Hospital, Boston, MA.

If you like this pearl, sign up on P4P’s home page and get future pearls delivered right into your mailbox!

My hypertensive patient needs hemodialysis. How dialyzable are common antihypertensives?

Can my patient with renal insufficiency safely undergo gadolinium-based contrast MRI?

It may be possible for patients with renal insufficiency, including those with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD), to undergo MRI using potentially safer preparations of gadolinium-based contrast agents (GBCAs) with “very low, if any” risk of the feared nephrogenic systemic sclerosis (NSF). 1

In contrast to the so called “linear” chelates of gadolinium (eg, gadodiamide, gadopentetate), “cyclic” GBCA’s (eg, gadoteridol) have not been clearly associated with NSF. 2 A Veterans Administration study involving gadoteridol identified no cases of NSF among the 141 patients on hemodialysis following 198 exposures. 2 In fact, the 2017 American College of Radiology (ACR) Manual on Contrast Media reports the risk of NSF with cyclic chelates as “very low, if any”. 1 Even when a cyclic GBCA is used in patients with ESKD, however, hemodialysis is recommended as soon as possible after MRI. 3

GBCAs are chelates with 2 major components: gadolinium and either a linear or cyclic ligand. Cyclic ligands bind to gadolinium more avidly, resulting in lower probability of circulating renally-cleared free gadolinium which when deposited in tissue is thought to potentially trigger NSF.2

Although NSF is characterized by progressive fibrosis of skin and soft tissue, it may involve multiple organs with an estimated 30% mortality rate. 4

 Bonus Pearl: Did you know NSF is really a new disease, with no evidence of its existence before 1997?

References

  1. “Nephrogenic Systemic Fibrosis”. In ACR Manual on Contrast Media; Version 10.3; May 31, 2017. https://www.acr.org/-/media/ACR/Files/Clinical-Resources/Contrast_Media.pdf
  2. Reilly RF. Risk for nephrogenic systemic fibrosis with gadoteridol (ProHance) in patients who are on long-term hemodialysis. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2008;3:747-51. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18287249
  3. Wang Y, Alkasab TK, Nari O, et al. Incidence of nephrogenic systemic fibrosis after adoption of restrictive gadolinium-based contrast agent guidelines. Radiology 2011;260:105-111.  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21586680
  4. Schlaudecker JD, Bernheisel CR. Gadolinium-associated nephrogenic systemic fibrosis. Am Fam Physician 2009;80:711-14. https://www.aafp.org/afp/2009/1001/p711.pdf

 

Contributed by Richard Newcomb, MD, Mass General Hospital, Boston, MA.

Can my patient with renal insufficiency safely undergo gadolinium-based contrast MRI?

Is measurement of amylase and lipase useful in patients with renal insufficiency suspected of pancreatitis?

Depends on how high the serum levels are! Although the clearance of both amylase and lipase appears to be impaired in patients with significant renal insufficiency (eg,  creatinine clearance <50ml/min), serum levels greater than 2-4 times the upper limits of normal for these enzymes are still considered suggestive of pancreatitis in these patients1-3.

Interestingly, in hemodialysis patients, elevation of lipase may also be due to the lipolytic effect of heparin during this procedure.  That’s why obtaining serum lipase levels before, not after,  hemodialysis has been recommended4

Also fascinating is that most of the elevation of serum amylase in patients with significant renal insufficiency appears to be related to the elevation of salivary, not pancreatic, isoenzyme of amylase4.

Final fun fact: Did you know that at one time the diagnosis of pancreatitis was based on the activity of serum on starch (for amylase) and olive oil (for lipase)? 5

References

  1. Levitt MD, Rapoport M, Cooperband SR. The renal clearance of amylase in renal insufficiency, acute pancreatitis, and macroamylasemia. Ann Intern Med 1969;71:920-25. http://annals.org/aim/article/683643/renal-clearance-amylase-renal-insufficiency-acute-pancreatitis-macroamylasemia
  2. Collen MJ, Ansher AF, Chapman AB, et al. Serum amylase in patients with renal insufficiency and renal failure. Am J Gastroenterol 1990;85:1377-80. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1699413
  3. Royce VL, Jensen DM, Corwin HL. Pancreatic enzymes in chronic renal failure. Arch Intern Med 1987;147:537-39. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2435254
  4. Vaziri ND, Change D, Malekpour A, et al. Pancreatic enzymes in patients with end-stage renal disease maintained on hemodialysis. Am J Gastroenterol 1988;83:410-12. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2450453
  5. Editorial. Pancreatic enzymes. N Engl J Med 1963;268:901-2. http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJM196304182681613
Is measurement of amylase and lipase useful in patients with renal insufficiency suspected of pancreatitis?

How strong is the evidence for IV contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN) following CT scans?

Not as strong as one might expect with an increasing number of investigators questioning the causative role of IV contrast in precipitating CIN.

A 2013 meta-analysis involving observational—mostly retrospective— studies concluded that the risks of AKI, death, and dialysis were similar between IV contrast and non-contrast patients, including those with diabetes or underlying renal insufficiency1.

Two retrospective studies2,3 designed to control for a variety of factors that may affect the risk of AKI by propensity matching found divergent results with the larger and better designed study finding no significant difference in AKI between the 2 groups3. A 2017 retrospective cohort analysis of emergency department patients utilizing a similar propensity-score analysis also failed to find a difference in post-CT AKI between those receiving and not receiving IV contrast4.

Further shedding doubt on the role of IV contrast in causing AKI, a study involving patients with chronic kidney disease found no difference in the rates of excretion of 2 biomarkers of AKI (neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin-NGAL, and kidney injury molecule-1-KIM-1) between patients with and without presumed CIN5. Some have even criticized experimental animal studies supporting the existence of CIN due to their poor applicability to human renal disease1.

This is not to say that IV CIN does not exist. Rather, we should keep an open mind about the pathophysiology and epidemiology of CIN. Stay tuned!

Fun pearl: Did you know that the first case of CIN was described in a patient with multiple myeloma undergoing IV pyelography (before the CT era)?

References

  1. McDonald JS, McDonald RJ, Comin J, et al. Frequency of acute kidney injury following intravenous contrast medium administration: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Radiology. 2013;267(1):119-128. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23319662
  2. Davenport MS, Khalatbari S, Dillman JR, et al. Contrast material-induced nephrotoxicity and intravenous low-osmolality iodinated contrast material. Radiology. 2013;267(1):94-105. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3606541/pdf/121394.pdf
  3. McDonald RJ, McDonald JS, Bida JP, et al. Intravenous contrast material-induced nephropathy: causal or coincident phenomenon? Radiology 2013;267:106-18. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23360742
  4. Hinson JS, Ehmann MR, Fine DM, et al. Risk of acute kidney injury after intravenous contrast media administration. Ann Emerg Med 2017; 69:577-586. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28131489
  5. Kooiman J, van de Peppel WR, Sijpkens YWJ, et al. No increase in kidney injury molecule-1 and neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin excretion following intravenous contrast enhanced-CT. Eur Radio 2015;25:1926-34. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4457910/pdf/330_2015_Article_3624.pdf

Contributed by Ginger Jiang, Medical Student, Harvard Medical School

How strong is the evidence for IV contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN) following CT scans?

My patient with a thrombosed hemodialysis access is found to have an asymptomatic segmental pulmonary embolism following a vascular access declotting procedure. Does he need systemic anticoagulation?

There is no firm evidence either for or against the use of systemic anticoagulants (ACs) in patients with asymptomatic pulmonary embolism (PE) following hemodialysis vascular access declotting (HVAD).  

However, despite the common occurrence of asymptomatic PE following HVAD procedures (~40%), symptomatic PE—at times fatal—has also been reported in these patients1,2.

In the absence of hard data and any contraindications, anticoagulation can be justified in our patient for the following reasons:

  • Asymptomatic segmental PE is commonly treated as symptomatic PE irrespective of setting2,3
  • Hemodialysis patients are often considered hypercoagulable due to a variety of factors eg, platelet activation due to extracorporeal circulation, anti-cardiolipin antibody, lupus anticoagulant, decreased protein C or S activity, and/or reduced anti-thrombin III activity4-7
  • Overall, chronic dialysis patients have higher incidence of PE compared to the general population8
  • There is no evidence that asymptomatic PE following HVAD has a more benign course compared to that in other settings
  • Untreated PE may be associated with repeated latent thrombosis or progression of thrombosis in the pulmonary artery5

 

References

  1. Calderon K, Jhaveri KD, Mossey R. Pulmonary embolism following thrombolysis of dialysis access: Is anticoagulation really necessary? Semin Dial 2010:23:522-25. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21039878
  2. Sadjadi SA, Sharif-Hassanabadi M. Fatal pulmonary embolism after hemodialysis vascular access declotting. Am J Case Rep 2014;15:172-75. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4004792/pdf/amjcaserep-15-172.pdf
  3. Chiu V, O’Connell C. Management of the incidental pulmonary embolism. AJR 2017;208:485-88. http://www.ajronline.org/doi/pdf/10.2214/AJR.16.17201
  4. Kearon C, Akl EA, Ornelas J, et al. Antithrombotic therapy for VTE disease: Chest guideline and expert panel report. CHEST 2016;149:315-52. http://journal.chestnet.org/article/S0012-3692(15)00335-9/fulltext
  5. Yamasaki K, Haruyama N, Taniguchi M, et al. Subacute pulmonary embolism in a hemodialysis patient, successfully treated with surgical thrombectomy. CEN Case Rep 2016;5:74-77 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13730-015-0195-9
  6. Nampoory MR, Das KC, Johny KV, et al. Hypercoagulability, a serious problem in patients with ESRD on maintenance hemodialysis, and its correction after kidney transplantation. Am J Kidney Dis 2003;42:797-805. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14520631
  7. O’Shea SI, Lawson JH, Reddan D, et al. Hypercoagulable states and antithrombotic strategies in recurrent vascular access site thrombosis. J Vasc Surg 2003;38: 541-48. http://www.jvascsurg.org/article/S0741-5214(03)00321-5/pdf
  8. Tveit DP, Hypolite IO, Hshieh P, et al. Chronic dialysis patients have high risk for pulmonary embolism. Am J Kidney Dis 2002;39:1011-17. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11979344
My patient with a thrombosed hemodialysis access is found to have an asymptomatic segmental pulmonary embolism following a vascular access declotting procedure. Does he need systemic anticoagulation?

Should I be concerned about piperacillin-tazobactam nephrotoxicity in the absence of vancomycin?

Nephrotoxicity associated with piperacillin-tazobactam (PT) combined with vancomycin (V) has been increasingly reported1,2,  with  some recommending that an alternative to V be used when PT is also on board 2. However, there are several reasons why the nephrotoxic potential of PT either alone or with antibiotics other than V also deserves further study before such recommendations can be widely embraced3.

First, most studies of VPT combination do not include comparative V or PT alone arms making it difficult to assess the relative contribution of these 2 antibiotics to kidney injury when used in combination. A small study that did include a PT-only  arm reported a similar rate of acute kidney injury (AKI) in PT and VPT arms ( 15.4% and 18.8% , respectively), both significantly higher that than of  V-only group (4%).4

 Other reasons not to readily dismiss PT as a cause of nephrototoxicity include the  lack of association between higher V trough levels and AKI in patients receiving VPT2, the association of PT with lower rates of renal function recovery in critically ill patients when compared to other selected β-lactams5,  and higher magnesium and potassium renal tubular loss with the use of PT compared to selected cephalosporins and ciprofloxacin6.  As with other penicillins, PT-associated acute interstitial nephritis may also occur7-8.

In short, even in the absence of V, nephrotoxic potential of PT should not be automatically dismissed.

 

Disclosure: Ref 3 was also authored by the creator of this pearl.

References

  1. Hammond DA, Smith MN, Chenghui Li, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of acute kidney injury associated with concomitant vancomycin and piperacillin/tazobactam. Clin Infect Dis 2017;64:666-74.
  2. Navalkele B, Pogue JM, Karino S, et al. Risk of acute kidney injury in patients on concomitant vancomycin and piperacillin-tazobactam compared to those on vancomycin and cefepime. Clin Infect Dis 2017;64:116-123.
  3. Manian FA. Should we revisit the nephrotoxic potential of piperacillin-tazobactam as well? Clin Infect Dis 2017; https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/cix321
  4. Kim T, Kandiah S, Patel M, et al. Risk factors for kidney injury during vancomycin and piperacillin/tazobactam administration, including increased odds of injury with combination therapy. BMC Res Notes 2015;8:579.
  5. Jensen J-U S, Hein L, Lundgren B, et al. Kidney failure related to broad-spectrum antibiotics in critically ill patients: secondary end point results from a 1200 patient randomized trial. BMJ Open 2012;2:e000635. http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/2/2/e000635
  6. Polderman KH, Girbes ARJ. Piperacillin-induced magnesium and potassium loss in intensive care unit patients. Intensive Care Med 2002;28:530-522.
  7. Muriithi AK, Leung N, Valeri AM, et al. Clinical characteristics, causes and outcomes of acute interstitial nephritis in the elderly. Kidney International 2015;87:458-464.
  8. Soto J, Bosch JM, Alsar Ortiz MJ, et al. Piperacillin-induced acute interstitial nephritis. Nephron 1993;65:154-155. 
Should I be concerned about piperacillin-tazobactam nephrotoxicity in the absence of vancomycin?

How should I interpret a positive result for serum cryoglobulins?

Cryoglobulins (CGs) are immunoglobulins that precipitate in the blood under cold conditions (<37◦ C) and redissolve upon warming1.  The term “cryoglobulinemia” is commonly used to describe patients with a systemic inflammatory syndrome that is often associated with small-to-medium vessel vasculitis due to cryoglobulin-containing immune complexes. Although some patients with cryoglobulinemia may be asymptomatic, most present with a range of diseases characterized by fatigue, arthralgia, skin rashes or necrosis, purpura, neuropathy, bowel wall ischemia and/or glomerulonephritis and kidney failure.

Wintrobe and Buell are credited for first describing cryglobulinemia in 1933 when assessing a patient who ultimately was found to have multiple myeloma2. Since then the spectrum of diseases associated with CG has expanded to also include seemingly disparate conditions such as hepatitis C, autoimmune disorders and monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS).  A commonly cited classification scheme for CG is shown (Table)3.   It should be emphasized that some CGs may not fit neatly into this scheme.

In our patient, the positive CG serum test should be interpreted in the clinical context in which it was obtained while searching for risk factors as well as signs and symptoms that may be associated with cryoglobulinemia.

 

Table. Classification of cryoglobulinemia

Category Description Examples
Type I Isolated monoclonal immunoglobulin, either IgM or IgG (less commonly IgA or free immunoglobulin light chains Multiple myeloma, Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia, monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS)
Type II Mixture of monoclonal IgM and polyclonal IgG Hepatitis C, HIV, other viral infections
Type III Polyclonal mixture IgM and IgG Autoimmune disorders, hepatitis C

References

  1. Takada S, Shimizu T, Hadano Y, et al. Cryoglobulinemia (review). Mol Med Rep 2012;6:3-8
  2. Wintrobe MM, Buell MV. Hyperproteinemia associated with multiple myeloma. Bull Johns Hopkins Hosp 52: 156-165, 1933
  3. Brouet JC, Clauvel JP, Danon F, et al. Biological and clinical significance of cryoglobulins. Am J Med 1974; 57:775-88.

 

Contributed by Kirstin Scott, Medical Student, Harvard Medical School

How should I interpret a positive result for serum cryoglobulins?