Over- or underfill: not all nephrotic states are created equal

Abstract

Blessed were the days when it all made sense and the apparent mechanism for edema formation in nephrotic syndrome was straightforward: the kidneys lost protein in the urine, which lowered the plasma oncotic pressure. Thus, fluid leaked into the interstitium, depleting the intravascular volume with subsequent activation of renin/aldosterone and consequent avid renal sodium retention. As simple as that! Unfortunately, a number of clinical and laboratory observations have raised serious concerns about the accuracy of this “underfill” hypothesis. Instead, an “overfill” hypothesis was generated. Under this assumption, the nephrotic syndrome not only leads to urinary protein wasting, but also to primary sodium retention with consequent intravascular overfilling, with the excess fluid spilling into the flood plains of the interstitium, leading to edema. Recently, an attractive mechanism was proposed to explain this primary sodium retention: proteinuria includes plasma proteinases, such as plasmin, which activate the epithelial sodium channel in the collecting duct, ENaC. In this edition, further evidence for this hypothesis is being presented by confirming increased plasmin content in the urine of children with nephrotic syndrome and demonstrating ENaC activation. If correct, this hypothesis would provide a simple treatment for the edema: pharmacological blockade of ENaC, for instance, with amiloride. Yet, how come clinicians have not empirically discovered the presumed power of ENaC blockers in nephrotic syndrome? And why is it that some patients clearly show evidence of intravascular underfilling? The controversy of over- versus underfilling demonstrates how much we still have to learn about the pathophysiology of nephrotic syndrome.