Electrolyte-Free Water Clearance versus Modified Electrolyte-Free Water Clearance: Do the Results Justify the Effort

Abstract

Background: Calculation of electrolyte-free water clearance (EFWC) allows for quantification of renal losses of free water and was shown to be helpful in the differential diagnosis of dysnatremias and might help in the correction of the electrolyte disorders. A modified EFWC formula (MEFWC) was described to be more accurate than the conventional one; however, it has never been evaluated clinically. Methods: In order to evaluate the performance of MEFWC compared to EFWC under clinical circumstances, we gathered data from a total of 912 patient days of 138 critically ill patients. EFWC and MEFWC were calculated on the basis of these data. Additionally, from data of critically ill patients, we calculated a prediction of serum sodium based on the Edelman equation using either EFWC or MEFWC and compared results. Results: Altogether, 343 normonatremic, 124 hyponatremic and 445 hypernatremic days were analyzed. Results for EFWC and MEFWC correlated significantly (R = 0.98). In patients with hyponatremia, the absolute difference between EFWC and MEFWC was significantly larger than in patients with normonatremia (437 vs. 256 ml, p < 0.01). The absolute difference between EFWC and MEFWC correlated significantly with the level of serum sodium (R = –0.41). The mean difference in the prediction of serum sodium change as calculated based on the Edelman equation between the formula using EFWC and the formula using MEFWC was 0.7 mmol/l (SD 0.68) and was highest in hyponatremia and lowest in hypernatremia. Conclusion: Results of EFWC and MEFWC were comparable in critically ill patients. Under normal circumstances, the use of the more complicated MEFWC is not justified. In hyponatremia, the difference between EFWC and MEFWC is larger and thus might justify the use of the more complicated formula.