+1 Recommend
1 collections
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found

      Glomerular Filtration Rate and Brush Border Debris Excretion after Mercuric Chloride and Ischemic Acute Renal Failure: Mannitol Versus Furosemide Diuresis


      S. Karger AG

      Acute renal failure, Renal tubular epithelial antigens, Mannitol, Furosemide

      Read this article at

          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.


          Tubular obstruction is an important pathophysiologic mechanism in acute renal failure (ARF). The anatomic basis for this obstruction may be impaction of the pars recta of the proximal tubule with sloughed brush border debris. If so, then diuretics which act proximal to the site of obstruction (e.g. mannitol, M) should be more effective in expelling brush border debris from the tubules than diuretics with more distal sites of action (e.g. furosemide, F). This difference could make M superior to F as a protector of renal function following acute renal injury. To test this hypothesis 35 rats were subjected to M or F diuresis. After a 60-min control period, nephrotoxic (HgCl<sub>2</sub>) or ischemic (vascular cross-clamping) ARF was induced. Glomerular filtration rate (GFR; clearance iothalamate-<sup>125</sup>I) and the urinary excretion of brush border derived-renal tubular epithelial antigens (RTE; measured by RIA) were determined before and after the nephrotoxic and ischemic insults. During control periods of diuresis, M and F produced comparable urine flow rates, GFRs, and RTE excretion. However, following HgCl<sub>2</sub> or renal ischemia, M-treated rats had 3 times (HgCl<sub>2</sub>) and 9 times (ischemia) greater RTE excretion rates than did their F-treated counterparts (p < 0.01–0.001). M-treated rats also retained one third more of their original GFRs than did the F-treated rats (p < 0.01). The beneficial effects of M did not require its administration prior to renal injury: a single M bolus immediately post-ischemia produced GFRs and RTE excretion rates comparable to those observed in rats which had received M prophylactically. Conclusion: M is superior to F in protecting against ischemic and HgCl<sub>2</sub> induced ARF. The efficacy of M may be due, in part, to its proximal tubular site of action which facilitates flushing of the pars recta of brush border debris, thereby decreasing intratubular obstruction.

          Related collections

          Author and article information

          S. Karger AG
          03 December 2008
          : 33
          : 3
          : 196-201
          The Department of Medicine, The Ohio State University Hospitals, Columbus, Ohio, USA
          182942 Nephron 1983;33:196–201
          © 1983 S. Karger AG, Basel

          Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug. Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.

          Page count
          Pages: 6
          Original Paper


          Comment on this article