Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, ISSN - 0973 - 709X

Users Online : 37035

AbstractMaterial and MethodsResultsDiscussionConclusionReferencesDOI and Others
Article in PDF How to Cite Citation Manager Readers' Comments (0) Audio Visual Article Statistics Link to PUBMED Print this Article Send to a Friend
Advertisers Access Statistics Resources

Dr Mohan Z Mani

"Thank you very much for having published my article in record time.I would like to compliment you and your entire staff for your promptness, courtesy, and willingness to be customer friendly, which is quite unusual.I was given your reference by a colleague in pathology,and was able to directly phone your editorial office for clarifications.I would particularly like to thank the publication managers and the Assistant Editor who were following up my article. I would also like to thank you for adjusting the money I paid initially into payment for my modified article,and refunding the balance.
I wish all success to your journal and look forward to sending you any suitable similar article in future"



Dr Mohan Z Mani,
Professor & Head,
Department of Dermatolgy,
Believers Church Medical College,
Thiruvalla, Kerala
On Sep 2018




Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar

"Over the last few years, we have published our research regularly in Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research. Having published in more than 20 high impact journals over the last five years including several high impact ones and reviewing articles for even more journals across my fields of interest, we value our published work in JCDR for their high standards in publishing scientific articles. The ease of submission, the rapid reviews in under a month, the high quality of their reviewers and keen attention to the final process of proofs and publication, ensure that there are no mistakes in the final article. We have been asked clarifications on several occasions and have been happy to provide them and it exemplifies the commitment to quality of the team at JCDR."



Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar
Head, Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad
Chairman, Research Group, Charutar Arogya Mandal, Karamsad
National Joint Coordinator - Advanced IAP NNF NRP Program
Ex-Member, Governing Body, National Neonatology Forum, New Delhi
Ex-President - National Neonatology Forum Gujarat State Chapter
Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad, Anand, Gujarat.
On Sep 2018




Dr. Kalyani R

"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research is at present a well-known Indian originated scientific journal which started with a humble beginning. I have been associated with this journal since many years. I appreciate the Editor, Dr. Hemant Jain, for his constant effort in bringing up this journal to the present status right from the scratch. The journal is multidisciplinary. It encourages in publishing the scientific articles from postgraduates and also the beginners who start their career. At the same time the journal also caters for the high quality articles from specialty and super-specialty researchers. Hence it provides a platform for the scientist and researchers to publish. The other aspect of it is, the readers get the information regarding the most recent developments in science which can be used for teaching, research, treating patients and to some extent take preventive measures against certain diseases. The journal is contributing immensely to the society at national and international level."



Dr Kalyani R
Professor and Head
Department of Pathology
Sri Devaraj Urs Medical College
Sri Devaraj Urs Academy of Higher Education and Research , Kolar, Karnataka
On Sep 2018




Dr. Saumya Navit

"As a peer-reviewed journal, the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research provides an opportunity to researchers, scientists and budding professionals to explore the developments in the field of medicine and dentistry and their varied specialities, thus extending our view on biological diversities of living species in relation to medicine.
‘Knowledge is treasure of a wise man.’ The free access of this journal provides an immense scope of learning for the both the old and the young in field of medicine and dentistry as well. The multidisciplinary nature of the journal makes it a better platform to absorb all that is being researched and developed. The publication process is systematic and professional. Online submission, publication and peer reviewing makes it a user-friendly journal.
As an experienced dentist and an academician, I proudly recommend this journal to the dental fraternity as a good quality open access platform for rapid communication of their cutting-edge research progress and discovery.
I wish JCDR a great success and I hope that journal will soar higher with the passing time."



Dr Saumya Navit
Professor and Head
Department of Pediatric Dentistry
Saraswati Dental College
Lucknow
On Sep 2018




Dr. Arunava Biswas

"My sincere attachment with JCDR as an author as well as reviewer is a learning experience . Their systematic approach in publication of article in various categories is really praiseworthy.
Their prompt and timely response to review's query and the manner in which they have set the reviewing process helps in extracting the best possible scientific writings for publication.
It's a honour and pride to be a part of the JCDR team. My very best wishes to JCDR and hope it will sparkle up above the sky as a high indexed journal in near future."



Dr. Arunava Biswas
MD, DM (Clinical Pharmacology)
Assistant Professor
Department of Pharmacology
Calcutta National Medical College & Hospital , Kolkata




Dr. C.S. Ramesh Babu
" Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a multi-specialty medical and dental journal publishing high quality research articles in almost all branches of medicine. The quality of printing of figures and tables is excellent and comparable to any International journal. An added advantage is nominal publication charges and monthly issue of the journal and more chances of an article being accepted for publication. Moreover being a multi-specialty journal an article concerning a particular specialty has a wider reach of readers of other related specialties also. As an author and reviewer for several years I find this Journal most suitable and highly recommend this Journal."
Best regards,
C.S. Ramesh Babu,
Associate Professor of Anatomy,
Muzaffarnagar Medical College,
Muzaffarnagar.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Arundhathi. S
"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a reputed peer reviewed journal and is constantly involved in publishing high quality research articles related to medicine. Its been a great pleasure to be associated with this esteemed journal as a reviewer and as an author for a couple of years. The editorial board consists of many dedicated and reputed experts as its members and they are doing an appreciable work in guiding budding researchers. JCDR is doing a commendable job in scientific research by promoting excellent quality research & review articles and case reports & series. The reviewers provide appropriate suggestions that improve the quality of articles. I strongly recommend my fraternity to encourage JCDR by contributing their valuable research work in this widely accepted, user friendly journal. I hope my collaboration with JCDR will continue for a long time".



Dr. Arundhathi. S
MBBS, MD (Pathology),
Sanjay Gandhi institute of trauma and orthopedics,
Bengaluru.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Mamta Gupta,
"It gives me great pleasure to be associated with JCDR, since last 2-3 years. Since then I have authored, co-authored and reviewed about 25 articles in JCDR. I thank JCDR for giving me an opportunity to improve my own skills as an author and a reviewer.
It 's a multispecialty journal, publishing high quality articles. It gives a platform to the authors to publish their research work which can be available for everyone across the globe to read. The best thing about JCDR is that the full articles of all medical specialties are available as pdf/html for reading free of cost or without institutional subscription, which is not there for other journals. For those who have problem in writing manuscript or do statistical work, JCDR comes for their rescue.
The journal has a monthly publication and the articles are published quite fast. In time compared to other journals. The on-line first publication is also a great advantage and facility to review one's own articles before going to print. The response to any query and permission if required, is quite fast; this is quite commendable. I have a very good experience about seeking quick permission for quoting a photograph (Fig.) from a JCDR article for my chapter authored in an E book. I never thought it would be so easy. No hassles.
Reviewing articles is no less a pain staking process and requires in depth perception, knowledge about the topic for review. It requires time and concentration, yet I enjoy doing it. The JCDR website especially for the reviewers is quite user friendly. My suggestions for improving the journal is, more strict review process, so that only high quality articles are published. I find a a good number of articles in Obst. Gynae, hence, a new journal for this specialty titled JCDR-OG can be started. May be a bimonthly or quarterly publication to begin with. Only selected articles should find a place in it.
An yearly reward for the best article authored can also incentivize the authors. Though the process of finding the best article will be not be very easy. I do not know how reviewing process can be improved. If an article is being reviewed by two reviewers, then opinion of one can be communicated to the other or the final opinion of the editor can be communicated to the reviewer if requested for. This will help one’s reviewing skills.
My best wishes to Dr. Hemant Jain and all the editorial staff of JCDR for their untiring efforts to bring out this journal. I strongly recommend medical fraternity to publish their valuable research work in this esteemed journal, JCDR".



Dr. Mamta Gupta
Consultant
(Ex HOD Obs &Gynae, Hindu Rao Hospital and associated NDMC Medical College, Delhi)
Aug 2018




Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey

"I wish to thank Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), for asking me to write up few words.
Writing is the representation of language in a textual medium i e; into the words and sentences on paper. Quality medical manuscript writing in particular, demands not only a high-quality research, but also requires accurate and concise communication of findings and conclusions, with adherence to particular journal guidelines. In medical field whether working in teaching, private, or in corporate institution, everyone wants to excel in his / her own field and get recognised by making manuscripts publication.


Authors are the souls of any journal, and deserve much respect. To publish a journal manuscripts are needed from authors. Authors have a great responsibility for producing facts of their work in terms of number and results truthfully and an individual honesty is expected from authors in this regards. Both ways its true "No authors-No manuscripts-No journals" and "No journals–No manuscripts–No authors". Reviewing a manuscript is also a very responsible and important task of any peer-reviewed journal and to be taken seriously. It needs knowledge on the subject, sincerity, honesty and determination. Although the process of reviewing a manuscript is a time consuming task butit is expected to give one's best remarks within the time frame of the journal.
Salient features of the JCDR: It is a biomedical, multidisciplinary (including all medical and dental specialities), e-journal, with wide scope and extensive author support. At the same time, a free text of manuscript is available in HTML and PDF format. There is fast growing authorship and readership with JCDR as this can be judged by the number of articles published in it i e; in Feb 2007 of its first issue, it contained 5 articles only, and now in its recent volume published in April 2011, it contained 67 manuscripts. This e-journal is fulfilling the commitments and objectives sincerely, (as stated by Editor-in-chief in his preface to first edition) i e; to encourage physicians through the internet, especially from the developing countries who witness a spectrum of disease and acquire a wealth of knowledge to publish their experiences to benefit the medical community in patients care. I also feel that many of us have work of substance, newer ideas, adequate clinical materials but poor in medical writing and hesitation to submit the work and need help. JCDR provides authors help in this regards.
Timely publication of journal: Publication of manuscripts and bringing out the issue in time is one of the positive aspects of JCDR and is possible with strong support team in terms of peer reviewers, proof reading, language check, computer operators, etc. This is one of the great reasons for authors to submit their work with JCDR. Another best part of JCDR is "Online first Publications" facilities available for the authors. This facility not only provides the prompt publications of the manuscripts but at the same time also early availability of the manuscripts for the readers.
Indexation and online availability: Indexation transforms the journal in some sense from its local ownership to the worldwide professional community and to the public.JCDR is indexed with Embase & EMbiology, Google Scholar, Index Copernicus, Chemical Abstracts Service, Journal seek Database, Indian Science Abstracts, to name few of them. Manuscriptspublished in JCDR are available on major search engines ie; google, yahoo, msn.
In the era of fast growing newer technologies, and in computer and internet friendly environment the manuscripts preparation, submission, review, revision, etc and all can be done and checked with a click from all corer of the world, at any time. Of course there is always a scope for improvement in every field and none is perfect. To progress, one needs to identify the areas of one's weakness and to strengthen them.
It is well said that "happy beginning is half done" and it fits perfectly with JCDR. It has grown considerably and I feel it has already grown up from its infancy to adolescence, achieving the status of standard online e-journal form Indian continent since its inception in Feb 2007. This had been made possible due to the efforts and the hard work put in it. The way the JCDR is improving with every new volume, with good quality original manuscripts, makes it a quality journal for readers. I must thank and congratulate Dr Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief JCDR and his team for their sincere efforts, dedication, and determination for making JCDR a fast growing journal.
Every one of us: authors, reviewers, editors, and publisher are responsible for enhancing the stature of the journal. I wish for a great success for JCDR."



Thanking you
With sincere regards
Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey, M.S., M. Ch., FAIS
Associate Professor,
Department of Paediatric Surgery, Gandhi Medical College & Associated
Kamla Nehru & Hamidia Hospitals Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 462 001 (India)
E-mail: drrajendrak1@rediffmail.com
On May 11,2011




Dr. Shankar P.R.

"On looking back through my Gmail archives after being requested by the journal to write a short editorial about my experiences of publishing with the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), I came across an e-mail from Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor, in March 2007, which introduced the new electronic journal. The main features of the journal which were outlined in the e-mail were extensive author support, cash rewards, the peer review process, and other salient features of the journal.
Over a span of over four years, we (I and my colleagues) have published around 25 articles in the journal. In this editorial, I plan to briefly discuss my experiences of publishing with JCDR and the strengths of the journal and to finally address the areas for improvement.
My experiences of publishing with JCDR: Overall, my experiences of publishing withJCDR have been positive. The best point about the journal is that it responds to queries from the author. This may seem to be simple and not too much to ask for, but unfortunately, many journals in the subcontinent and from many developing countries do not respond or they respond with a long delay to the queries from the authors 1. The reasons could be many, including lack of optimal secretarial and other support. Another problem with many journals is the slowness of the review process. Editorial processing and peer review can take anywhere between a year to two years with some journals. Also, some journals do not keep the contributors informed about the progress of the review process. Due to the long review process, the articles can lose their relevance and topicality. A major benefit with JCDR is the timeliness and promptness of its response. In Dr Jain's e-mail which was sent to me in 2007, before the introduction of the Pre-publishing system, he had stated that he had received my submission and that he would get back to me within seven days and he did!
Most of the manuscripts are published within 3 to 4 months of their submission if they are found to be suitable after the review process. JCDR is published bimonthly and the accepted articles were usually published in the next issue. Recently, due to the increased volume of the submissions, the review process has become slower and it ?? Section can take from 4 to 6 months for the articles to be reviewed. The journal has an extensive author support system and it has recently introduced a paid expedited review process. The journal also mentions the average time for processing the manuscript under different submission systems - regular submission and expedited review.
Strengths of the journal: The journal has an online first facility in which the accepted manuscripts may be published on the website before being included in a regular issue of the journal. This cuts down the time between their acceptance and the publication. The journal is indexed in many databases, though not in PubMed. The editorial board should now take steps to index the journal in PubMed. The journal has a system of notifying readers through e-mail when a new issue is released. Also, the articles are available in both the HTML and the PDF formats. I especially like the new and colorful page format of the journal. Also, the access statistics of the articles are available. The prepublication and the manuscript tracking system are also helpful for the authors.
Areas for improvement: In certain cases, I felt that the peer review process of the manuscripts was not up to international standards and that it should be strengthened. Also, the number of manuscripts in an issue is high and it may be difficult for readers to go through all of them. The journal can consider tightening of the peer review process and increasing the quality standards for the acceptance of the manuscripts. I faced occasional problems with the online manuscript submission (Pre-publishing) system, which have to be addressed.
Overall, the publishing process with JCDR has been smooth, quick and relatively hassle free and I can recommend other authors to consider the journal as an outlet for their work."



Dr. P. Ravi Shankar
KIST Medical College, P.O. Box 14142, Kathmandu, Nepal.
E-mail: ravi.dr.shankar@gmail.com
On April 2011
Anuradha

Dear team JCDR, I would like to thank you for the very professional and polite service provided by everyone at JCDR. While i have been in the field of writing and editing for sometime, this has been my first attempt in publishing a scientific paper.Thank you for hand-holding me through the process.


Dr. Anuradha
E-mail: anuradha2nittur@gmail.com
On Jan 2020

Important Notice

Original article / research
Year : 2023 | Month : October | Volume : 17 | Issue : 10 | Page : OC01 - OC05 Full Version

Clinical, Biochemical, and Outcome Profile of Hyponatremia in Geriatric and Non-geriatric Individuals Admitted to a Tertiary Care Centre: A Prospective Cohort Study


Published: October 1, 2023 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2023/63609.18543
Swati K Ashok, Bhargav Kiran Gaddam, Tumbanatham Appikatla, S Sumathi

1. Junior Resident, Department of Internal Medicine, Mahatma Gandhi Medical College and Research Institute, Pillayarkuppam, Pondicherry, India. 2. Assistant Professor, Department of Internal Medicine, Mahatma Gandhi Medical College and Research Institute, Pillayarkuppam, Pondicherry, India. 3. Professor, Department of Internal Medicine, Mahatma Gandhi Medical College and Research Institute, Pillayarkuppam, Pondicherry, India. 4. Professor, Department of Biochemistry, Mahatma Gandhi Medical College and Research Institute, Pillayarkuppam, Pondicherry, India.

Correspondence Address :
Bhargav Kiran Gaddam,
Type II GE Quarters, SBV Campus, MGMCRI, Pillayarkuppam, Pondicherry, India.
E-mail: kiransmiles21@gmail.com

Abstract

Introduction: Hyponatremia is one of the most common electrolyte disturbances encountered in medical wards, occurring in up to 22% of hospitalised patients. Timely recognition and correction of hyponatremia in hospitalised patients may help decrease in-hospital mortality and symptom severity, reduce the need for intensive hospital care, decrease the duration of hospitalisation and associated costs, and improve the treatment of underlying co-morbid conditions and patient’s quality of life.

Aim: To compare the clinical presentation, aetiology, biochemical profile, management strategies, and outcomes of hyponatremia in geriatric and non-geriatric individuals admitted to a tertiary care centre.

Materials and Methods: This prospective cohort study was conducted in the Department of General Medicine at Mahatma Gandhi Medical College and Research Institute, Pondicherry, India, from March 2021 to September 2022. A total of 166 subjects (83 geriatric and 83 non-geriatric patients) receiving inpatient services with hyponatremia were enrolled in the study by consecutive sampling. Patients over 18 years of age admitted to the Department of General Medicine with serum sodium levels below 135 mEq/L were included. Comparison of both the groups were done based on clinical presentation, laboratory values, co-morbidities, prescription drugs taken, aetiology, treatment given, and outcomes. For quantitative variables, mean, standard deviation, and independent t-tests were used, while percentages were used for qualitative variables.

Results: The majority of subjects in the non-geriatric group belonged to the age group of 50-59 years, with a mean age of 50.7 years. In the geriatric group, most subjects were in the age group of 65-74 years, with a mean age of 74.5 years. The most common cause of hyponatremia in both groups was Syndrome of Inappropriate Antidiuretic Hormone Secretion (SIADH), with 32 (38.6%) cases in the non-geriatric group and 27 (32.5%) cases in the geriatric group. This was followed by volume overload in the non-geriatric group, with 14 (16.9%) cases, and drug-induced hyponatremia in the geriatric group, with 22 (26.5%) cases. The most common drug causing hyponatremia was furosemide in both groups. In non-geriatric patients, the most common symptom was giddiness, with 28 (34.1%) cases, while in geriatric patients, it was nausea/vomiting, with 25 (30.1%) cases. Tolvaptan was the most common treatment used in both groups, with 12 (92.3%) of patients with mild hyponatremia receiving it in the non-geriatric group (p=0.042), and 46 (55.4%) patients in the geriatric group, with most of them having moderate hyponatremia (26, 86.7%, p<0.001).

Conclusion: The results of the non-geriatric and geriatric groups were similar in terms of clinical presentation, biochemical parameters, management strategies, and outcome of hyponatremia. However, the aetiology of hyponatremia appeared to be different. The most common cause of hyponatremia was SIADH in both groups, followed by volume overload in the non-geriatric group and drug-induced hyponatremia in the geriatric group.

Keywords

Diagnosis, Drug therapy, Electrolyte imbalance, Metabolic diseases

Hyponatremia is defined as a serum sodium concentration of less than 135 mEq/L (or 136 mmol/L) (1). Disorders in serum sodium concentration are caused by abnormalities in water homeostasis (2). Patients may be asymptomatic or experience symptoms such as headache, nausea, vomiting, seizures, central herniation, and even coma. Hyponatremia occurs in approximately 22 percent of hospitalised patients (2) and 15-30% of ICU patients. The in-hospital mortality rate of patients with hyponatremia is around 30-40%. Therefore, an in-depth study and analysis of hyponatremia is necessary (3),(4).

One of the contributing factors in the development of hyponatremia in geriatric patients is an age-associated decrease in free water excretion and Glomerular Filtration Rate (GFR), reduced action of the Renin-Angiotensin and Aldosterone System (RAAS), the prevalence of accompanying co-morbidities, and the intake of multiple prescription drugs. The most common factors that contribute to hyponatremia in non-geriatric patients (5), can be Syndrome of Inappropriate Antidiuretic Hormone Secretion (SIADH), vomiting, diarrhoea, primary renal disease, nephrotic syndrome, adrenal insufficiency, stroke, intracranial haemorrhage, severe burns, pancreatitis, intravenous administration of hypotonic fluids, use of antidiuretic hormone or its analogues, and diuretics (6).

In hospitalised patients, timely recognition and correction of hyponatremia may help reduce the severity of symptoms, the need for intensive hospital care, in-hospital mortality, the length of hospitalisation, associated costs, and improve the treatment of underlying comorbid conditions and the patient’s quality of life. There is a lack of data available on the comparison of hyponatremia between geriatric and non-geriatric age groups hospitalised in tertiary care centres in the Indian population. Therefore, this study was conducted to analyse the clinical presentation, aetiology, treatment options, and outcomes of hyponatremia in geriatric and non-geriatric individuals admitted to a tertiary care centre.

The alternative hypothesis of the study was that there is a difference in the clinical presentation, aetiology, management strategies, outcomes, and complications of hyponatremia among geriatric and non-geriatric hospitalised patients.

Material and Methods

This was a prospective observational study conducted in the Department of General Medicine at a Medical College in Pondicherry from March 2021 to September 2022. A total of 166 subjects (83 geriatric and 83 non-geriatric patients) receiving inpatient services in the Department of General Medicine with hyponatremia were enrolled in the study using consecutive sampling. Ethical clearance was obtained from the Institutional Human Ethics Committee with ethical approval number IHEC/336, and informed consent was obtained from all patients included in the study.

Sample size calculation: The proportion of comorbidity among patients with hyponatremia was assumed to be 73% (4). Assuming an alpha level of 0.05, a precision of 0.1, and an attrition rate of 10%, the sample size was calculated as 83 geriatric patients and 83 non-geriatric patients. The formula used for sample size calculation was:

n=Z2 1-α/2 P(1-P)/d2

n=sample size
Z=standard normal value of alpha=1.96
Alpha=type I error
P=proportion of comorbidity
d=precision=10%

Inclusion criteria: A total of 166 patients over 18 years of age admitted to the Department of General Medicine with a serum sodium level less than 135 mEq/L were included in the study. According to the sample size calculation, 83 non-geriatric patients (18-64 years) and 83 geriatric patients (>65 years) were included in the study.

Exclusion criteria: Patients who had undergone surgery and were hospitalised within 30 days prior to the current admission, patients on dialysis, and patients on total parenteral nutrition were excluded from the study.

Procedure

The selected patient underwent a thorough history taking and clinical examination. The history of hyponatremia symptoms, predisposing factors, and pre-existing illnesses was noted. Clinical assessment of symptomatology and volume status was conducted. The drugs and co-morbidities causing hyponatremia were recorded. The history of fluid loss, such as vomiting, diarrhoea, diuretic use, and excessive sweating, was documented for all patients. CNS examination was repeated after the correction of hyponatremia, and symptoms such as dizziness, lethargy, altered sensorium, and seizures were attributed to hyponatremia unless there was a co-existing medical condition or medication effect that could account for these symptoms.

For all patients, clinical details, final diagnosis, investigations, and management were recorded on a standard data collection sheet. Analysis was conducted to identify characteristics that differentiate hyponatremia in geriatric and non-geriatric hospitalised patients. The outcome was described as successful treatment of hyponatremia, defined by a serum Na+ level at discharge greater than 135 mEq/L. Patients who did not meet this criterion at discharge were classified as having failed treatment of hyponatremia.

Statistical Analysis

Quantitative variables were expressed as mean and standard deviation, while qualitative variables were expressed as frequency and percentage. The association between categorical variables was assessed by chi-square test. The comparison of continuous variables between two groups was analysed using the independent samples t-test. A p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

In (Table/Fig 1), it can be observed that the majority of subjects in the non-geriatric group belonged to the age group of 50-59 years, with a mean age of 50.7 years. On the other hand, in the geriatric group, the majority belonged to the age group of 65-74 years, with a mean age of 74.5 years.

Regarding the severity levels of hyponatremia, in non-geriatric patients, most of them had moderate hyponatremia (41, 49.4%) and severe hyponatremia (29, 34.9%). In the geriatric group, severe hyponatremia (38, 45.8%) and moderate hyponatremia (30, 36.1%) were more common. Severe hyponatremia was more prevalent among the geriatric group.

The most common cause of hyponatremia in both groups was SIADH, accounting for 38.6% in the non-geriatric group and 32.5% in the geriatric group. Volume overload was the second most common cause in the non-geriatric group (16.9%), while drug-induced hyponatremia (26.5%) was the second most common cause in the geriatric group. Furosemide was the most common drug causing hyponatremia in both groups, with 8.4% in the non-geriatric group and 12% in the geriatric group (Table/Fig 2),(Table/Fig 3),(Table/Fig 4).

Among non-geriatric individuals, 37.3% had one comorbidity, while 28.9% had more than one comorbidity. The most common co-morbidities were Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD), Cerebrovascular Accident (CVA), and systemic Hypertension (HTN). Among geriatric individuals, 45.8% had more than one comorbidity, and 31.3% had one comorbidity. The most common co-morbidities were systemic HTN, Type-2 Diabetes Mellitus (DM), and hypothyroidism.

In terms of medication, geriatric patients consumed a higher number of prescription drugs (3-5) compared to non-geriatric patients who took two drugs for their pre-existing co-morbidities.

A higher percentage of patients in the geriatric group (49, 59%) were symptomatic compared to the non-geriatric group (46, 55.4%). Most patients who were symptomatic had severe hyponatremia, with 71% in the geriatric group and 69% in the non-geriatric group.

In non-geriatric patients, the most common symptoms were giddiness (28, 34.1%), followed by nausea/vomiting (22, 26.5%) and altered sensorium (10, 12.2%). Among geriatric patients, the most common presentations were nausea/vomiting (25, 30.1%), giddiness (20, 24.1%), altered sensorium (14, 17.1%), and hiccups (10, 12%).

Altered sensorium (13, 35.1%) was the most common symptom among geriatric individuals with severe hyponatremia, and this difference was statistically significant (p=<0.001). It suggests that geriatric individuals are more prone to developing altered sensorium as the severity of hyponatremia increases.

When comparing the biochemical parameters (Table/Fig 5), it was found that in the non-geriatric group, the mean serum creatinine values were 1.50 mg/dL in mild and moderate hyponatremia, and 2.16 mg/dL in severe hyponatremia. This difference was statistically significant (p=0.032). However, in the geriatric group, the difference was not statistically significant. This suggests that kidney diseases may have contributed to the development of severe hyponatremia in non-geriatric individuals but not in the geriatric group. The values of other biochemical parameters were in a similar range in both groups and were not statistically significant.

In non-geriatric patients, the maximum number of patients were managed with Tolvaptan. Among the mild group patients, 12 (92.3%) received Tolvaptan, while 25 (61%) and 12 (41.4%) in the moderate and severe groups, respectively, also responded to the treatment. Similarly, in geriatric patients, Tolvaptan was the most common treatment used (46, 55.4%), with the majority of it being received by patients with moderate hyponatremia (26, 86.7%) (Table/Fig 6),(Table/Fig 7).

The mean duration of hospital stay across both groups was mostly in the range of 3-7 days, followed by more than seven days (Table/Fig 8),(Table/Fig 9). All patients in both groups have recovered from hyponatremia at the time of discharge, and none of them needed follow-up. There were no deaths among any of the subjects during the study.

The mean potassium levels among non-geriatric and geriatric patients were found to be 3.91 and 4.24 mEq/L, respectively, which was found to be statistically significant. However, the difference in other biochemical parameters between both groups was not statistically significant.

Discussion

This prospective observational study was conducted in the Department of General Medicine over a period of 18 months. The majority of patients in the non-geriatric group were found to be in the age group of 50-59 years, while the majority of geriatric patients were in the age group of 65-74 years.

Similar results were obtained in a study by Sindhu RP et al., where they found that 34.14% of patients were in the age group of 50-59 years, followed by 27.3% in the age group of 60-69 years. These patients had multiple co-morbidities and were taking multiple prescription drugs (6). Baji PP and Borkar SS also found that 63% of patients in the age group of 50-69 years were most commonly affected (7), whereas Prabhu T found that patients in the age group of 66-80 years were most commonly affected among geriatrics (8).

Regarding the severity levels of hyponatremia, non-geriatric patients showed the highest number of patients suffering from moderate hyponatremia, followed by severe hyponatremia. On the other hand, geriatric patients showed severe hyponatremia followed by moderate hyponatremia. Severe hyponatremia was more common among the geriatric group.

When assessing the aetiology of hyponatremia, the most common cause in the non-geriatric group was SIADH, followed by volume overload and diarrhoea. In the geriatric group, the most common cause of hyponatremia was SIADH, followed by drug-induced cases (26.5%). This is in agreement with the study by Vurgese TA et al., where the most common aetiology was SIADH (34.8%), followed by CKD (19.69%), CCF (18.18%), DM, HTN, cirrhosis (6% each), and acute gastroenteritis (3%) (9). Similar results were observed by Rao MY et al., who also found the common causes to be SIADH (30%) followed by drugs (24%) (10).

The most common drug causing hyponatremia was furosemide in both groups, with 8.4% in the non-geriatric group and 12% in the geriatric group [Table/Fig-7,8]. Similar results were found by Sunderam SG and Mankikar GD, who found that 17% of elderly patients taking diuretics developed hyponatremia (11). Studies by Wierzbicki AS et al., and Fadel S et al., showed that thiazide diuretics such as amiloride/hydrochlorothiazide can also cause significant hyponatremia [12,13]. Volume overload was the second most common cause of hyponatremia in the non-geriatric group, caused by CKD, heart failure, and liver failure.

When comparing the history of prescription drugs being taken for other illnesses/co-morbidities, it was found that among non-geriatric patients, the majority of patients with hyponatremia were not taking any prescription drugs. 22.9% consumed two drugs, and 19.3% consumed 3-5 drugs. Among geriatric patients, the majority of patients with hyponatremia consumed 3-5 drugs, followed by two drugs. This difference showed statistical significance with a p-value of 0.008, suggesting that the intake of an increased number of prescription drugs is a contributing factor to the development of hyponatremia in the elderly. A study conducted by Agarwal SM and Agarwal A also showed that the intake of multiple drugs can be one of the contributing factors for hyponatremia in admitted patients (14).

Among non-geriatric individuals, the majority had only one comorbidity, whereas 28.9% had more than one comorbidity. The most common co-morbidities in the non-geriatric group were CKD, CVA, systemic HTN, Type-2 DM, hypothyroidism, and seizures. Among geriatric individuals, most of them had more than one comorbidity. The most common co-morbidities in the geriatric group were systemic HTN, Type-2 DM, hypothyroidism, and CVA.

A study conducted by Saeed BO et al., also showed that hyponatremia was found to be caused by renal disorders (21%), liver disorders (7%), and CHF (9%) (15). Vurgese TA et al., found in their study that the common predisposing factors were CCF (18%), CKD (19.69%), HTN (6.06%), DM (6.06%), and cirrhosis (6.06%) (9). Rao MY et al., also found that the most common comorbid conditions were HTN (62%), DM (51%), CKD (22%), and IHD (18%) (10).

When comparing the clinical presentation of hyponatremia between both groups, it was observed that a higher percentage of patients in the geriatric group were symptomatic compared to the non-geriatric group. Most patients who were symptomatic had severe hyponatremia, with 71% in the geriatric group and 69% in the non-geriatric group. Among non-geriatric patients, giddiness was the most common symptom, followed by nausea/vomiting, altered sensorium, hiccups, and seizures. In geriatric patients, the most common symptom was nausea/vomiting, followed by giddiness and altered sensorium.

Baji PP and Borkar SS found that nausea and vomiting were the most common gastrointestinal symptoms present in 54% and 48% of patients, respectively, with seizures accounting for 11% of hyponatremia patients (7). A study by Prabhu T found that 46% of patients were asymptomatic, 30% were lethargic, and 28% experienced giddiness (8). Agarwal SM and Agarwal A recorded confusion in 30% and altered sensorium in 17.1% (similar to the present study in the geriatric population), with 2% having seizures and 14% being asymptomatic (14). Rao MY et al., showed that lethargy, drowsiness with slow response, and altered sensorium were the most common symptoms (10). Sharabi Y et al., from his study found weakness and vomiting to be the most common manifestations in hyponatremia (16).

When comparing the mean values of biochemical parameters between both groups, it was observed that in the non-geriatric group, the mean serum sodium value when hyponatremia was first detected during admission was 132.1 mEq/L in mild hyponatremia, 127.1 mEq/L in moderate hyponatremia, and 116.5 mEq/L in severe hyponatremia, and this difference was statistically significant (p=<0.001). In the geriatric group, the mean serum sodium value when hyponatremia was first detected during admission was 132.0 mEq/L in mild hyponatremia, 127.2 mEq/L in moderate hyponatremia, and 117.3 mEq/L in severe hyponatremia, and this difference was statistically significant (p=<0.001).

In the non-geriatric group, the mean serum creatinine value was 2.16 mg/dL in severe hyponatremia, and this difference was statistically significant (p=0.032). However, in the geriatric group, it was not statistically significant, suggesting that kidney diseases contributed to the development of severe hyponatremia in non-geriatric individuals but not so in the geriatric group. The values of other biochemical parameters were in a similar range in both groups and were not statistically significant. Patients were treated with intravenous fluid normal saline (IVF NS), tolvaptan, 3% NaCl, and restriction of fluid intake. The treatment for each patient was decided based on osmolality status, volume status, urine spot sodium, severity of hyponatremia, and contributing factors. In the study done by Agarwal SM and Agarwal A, 3% saline was given to 48.5% of patients, NS to 48.6%, and fluid restriction was given to 40% of hyponatremia patients (14).

It was observed that 24.4% of patients in the non-geriatric group and 32.5% of patients in the geriatric group had a prolongation of hospital stay attributable to hyponatremia. In both groups, the prolongation of hospital stay was associated with moderate and severe hyponatremia. The authors also found that the mean duration of hospital stays across both groups ranged from 3-7 days, followed by more than 7 days, and the least number of patients were discharged in less than or equal to 2 days. In a study by Agarwal SM and Agarwal A, the time taken for recovery was reported as 3.7±2.4 days (14). In another study by Chua M et al., the mean length of hospital stay was 13 days (17). Lohani S and Devkota UP found that the mean duration of hospital stay was 26.73 days in hyponatremia patients with Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) (18).

Factors contributing to prolonged hospital stay among the nongeriatric group were drug-induced, SIADH and DCLD, whereas in the geriatric group, the most common factors were SIADH, CVA, and drug-induced.

Limitation(s)

The volume status of the patient was clinically assessed, which might vary subjectively. This method of estimation was not accurate. Urinary osmolality could not be measured. Further studies are needed to compare the geriatric population and the non-geriatric population in order to eliminate discrepancies and reach a consensus regarding the severity of hyponatremia.

Conclusion

In this study, both the geriatric and non-geriatric groups showed similarities in clinical presentation and biochemical parameters. However, the aetiology of hyponatremia seemed to be different in both groups. The most common cause of hyponatremia was SIADH in both groups, followed by volume overload in the non-geriatric group and drug-induced in the geriatric group. Irrespective of age group, the management strategies were the same in both groups. All patients recovered from hyponatremia at the time of discharge, and there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in terms of the prolongation of hospital stay due to hyponatremia.

References

1.
Deitelzweig SB, McCormick L. Hyponatremia in hospitalized patients: The potential role of tolvaptan. Hosp Pract. (1995). 2011;39(3):87-98. [crossref][PubMed]
2.
Mount DB, Kasper DL, Fauci AS, Hauser S, et al, editors. Harrison’s Principles of Internal Medicine, 20th ed. New York: The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.; 2018. Pp.298.
3.
Fillippatos TD, Makri A, Elisaf MS, Liamis G. Hyponatremia in elderly: Challenges and solutions. Clin Interv Aging. 2017;12:1957-65. [crossref][PubMed]
4.
Dash SC, Sundaray NK, Rajesh B, Pagad T. Hyponatremia in elderly in-patients. J Clin Diagn Res. 2019;13(2):OC01-04. [crossref]
5.
Sahay M, Sahay R. Hyponatremia: A practical approach. Indian J Endocr Metab. 2014;18(6):760-71. [crossref][PubMed]
6.
Sindhu RP, Reddy MS, Rajani G, Raju AK. Study of prescriptive patterns of antihypertensive drugs in South India. International Journal of Advancements in Research and Technology. 2013;2(6):63-78.
7.
Baji PP, Borkar SS. Clinicoetiological profile and outcome of hyponatremia in hospitalised adult patients. Int J Sci Rep Int J Sci Rep. 2015;1(7):293-98. [crossref]
8.
Prabhu T. Hyponatremia in elderly. Int J Modn Res Revs. 2014;2(10):325-32.
9.
Vurgese TA, Radhakrishan BS, Mapkar OAW. Frequency and etiology of hyponatremia in adult hospitalized patients in medical wards of a general hospital in Kuwait. KMJ. 2006;38(3):211-13.
10.
Rao MY, Sudhir U, Anil Kumar T, Saravanan S, Mahesh E, Punith K. Hospital- based descriptive study of symptomatic hyponatremia in elderly patients. J Assoc Physicians India. 2010;58:667-69. PMID: 21510458.
11.
Sunderam SG, Mankikar GD. Hyponatraemia in the elderly. Age Ageing. 1983;12(1):77-80. [crossref][PubMed]
12.
Wierzbicki AS, Ball SG, Singh NK. Profound hyponatremia following an idiosyncratic reaction to diuretics. Int J Clin Pract. 1998;52(4):278-79. [crossref][PubMed]
13.
Fadel S, Karmali R, Cogan E. Safety of furosemide administration in an elderly woman recovered from thiazide-induced hyponatremia. Eur J Intern Med. 2009;20(1):30-34. [crossref][PubMed]
14.
Agarwal SM, Agarwal A. A comparative study of the clinico-etiological profile of hyponatremia at presentation with that developing in hospital. Indian J Med Res. 2011;134(1):118-22.
15.
Saeed BO, Beaumont D, Handley GH, Weaver JU. Severe hyponatremia: Investigation & management in a district general hospital. J Clin Pathol. 2002;55(12):893-96. [crossref][PubMed]
16.
Sharabi Y, Illan R, Kamari Y, Cohen H, Nadler M, Messerli FH, et al. Diuretic induced hyponatraemia in elderly hypertensive women. J Hum Hypertens. 2002;16(9):631-35. [crossref][PubMed]
17.
Chua M, Hoyle GE, Soiza RL. Prognostic implications of hyponatremia in elderly hospitalized patients. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2007;45(3):253-58. [crossref][PubMed]
18.
Lohani S, Devkota UP. Hyponatremia in patients with traumatic brain injury: Etiology, incidence, and severity correlation. World Neurosurg. 2011;76(3-4):355-60.[crossref][PubMed]

DOI and Others

DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2023/63609.18543

Date of Submission: Feb 28, 2023
Date of Peer Review: Apr 15, 2023
Date of Acceptance: Jul 11, 2023
Date of Publishing: Oct 01, 2023

AUTHOR DECLARATION:
• Financial or Other Competing Interests: None
• Was Ethics Committee Approval obtained for this study? Yes
• Was informed consent obtained from the subjects involved in the study? Yes
• For any images presented appropriate consent has been obtained from the subjects. Yes

PLAGIARISM CHECKING METHODS:
• Plagiarism X-checker: Mar 03, 2023
• Manual Googling: Apr 21, 2023
• iThenticate Software: Jul 08, 2023 (9%)

ETYMOLOGY: Author Origin

EMENDATIONS: 6

JCDR is now Monthly and more widely Indexed .
  • Emerging Sources Citation Index (Web of Science, thomsonreuters)
  • Index Copernicus ICV 2017: 134.54
  • Academic Search Complete Database
  • Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)
  • Embase
  • EBSCOhost
  • Google Scholar
  • HINARI Access to Research in Health Programme
  • Indian Science Abstracts (ISA)
  • Journal seek Database
  • Google
  • Popline (reproductive health literature)
  • www.omnimedicalsearch.com