Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Published Ahead of Print
    • Current Issue
    • JASN Podcasts
    • Article Collections
    • Archives
    • ASN Meeting Abstracts
    • Saved Searches
  • Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Author Resources
  • Editorial Team
  • Editorial Fellowship
    • Editorial Fellowship Team
    • Editorial Fellowship Application Process
  • More
    • About JASN
    • Advertising
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Impact Factor
    • Reprints
    • Subscriptions
  • ASN Kidney News
  • Other
    • CJASN
    • Kidney360
    • Kidney News Online
    • American Society of Nephrology

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
American Society of Nephrology
  • Other
    • CJASN
    • Kidney360
    • Kidney News Online
    • American Society of Nephrology
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Advertisement
American Society of Nephrology

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Published Ahead of Print
    • Current Issue
    • JASN Podcasts
    • Article Collections
    • Archives
    • ASN Meeting Abstracts
    • Saved Searches
  • Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Author Resources
  • Editorial Team
  • Editorial Fellowship
    • Editorial Fellowship Team
    • Editorial Fellowship Application Process
  • More
    • About JASN
    • Advertising
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Impact Factor
    • Reprints
    • Subscriptions
  • ASN Kidney News
  • Follow JASN on Twitter
  • Visit ASN on Facebook
  • Follow JASN on RSS
  • Community Forum
UP FRONT MATTERSClinical Commentary
You have accessRestricted Access

Prophylactic Anticoagulation in Nephrotic Syndrome: A Clinical Conundrum

Richard J. Glassock
JASN August 2007, 18 (8) 2221-2225; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1681/ASN.2006111300
Richard J. Glassock
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • View PDF
Loading

Abstract

It has long been recognized that nephrotic syndrome is associated with an increased risk for thromboembolic complications, including deep venous thrombosis, renal vein thrombosis, and pulmonary embolism. This risk varies with the nature of the underlying disease and seems to be greatest for membranous nephropathy. Other factors, including the level of serum albumin, previous thromboembolic episodes, and a genetically determined predisposition to thrombosis, may also be involved. Prevention of thromboembolic events with oral anticoagulants in nephrotic syndrome requires a careful case-by-case analysis of the risks for thromboembolic events balanced by the risks for anticoagulant induced bleeding. Markov-based decision analysis using literature-based assumptions regarding these risks has suggested that prophylactic anticoagulants may be indicated in certain circumstances. Such decisions need to take into account the nature of the underlying disease, the severity of the nephrotic syndrome (as assessed by serum albumin concentration), preexisting thrombophilic states, and the overall likelihood of serious bleeding events consequent to oral anticoagulation (as assessed by the international normalized ratio for prothrombin time). The optimal duration of prophylactic anticoagulation is unknown but very likely extends to the duration of the nephrotic state per se.

Uncertainty is integral to the practice of medicine. The current wave of enthusiasm for the practice of “evidence-based” medicine is in large part motivated by a desire to reduce uncertainty in the diagnosis and treatment of patients with a variety of illnesses. In nephrology, the role of prophylactic anticoagulants in the treatment of patients with nephrotic syndrome (especially those with underlying idiopathic membranous nephropathy) is a prime example of the conundrum of uncertainty. A careful analysis of this conundrum requires assessment of the risks for fatal and nonfatal thromboembolic events in nephrotic syndrome and comparison of this risk with the potential benefits and risks of a prophylactic anticoagulation strategy.

Little doubt exists that certain forms of renal disease are associated with an increased risk for thrombosis or embolism (“thrombophilia”) compared with the general population.1,2 Most noteworthy among these disorders are the various forms of primary and secondary nephrotic syndrome,1,2 systemic lupus erythematosus with “lupus anticoagulant”,3 granulomatous vasculitis (Wegener's granulomatosis),4 and Behçet syndrome.5 In the recent past, the greatest attention to thromboembolic risk and its management has been given to the nephrotic syndrome. Among the numerous causes of the nephrotic syndrome, only a relatively few conditions are consistently associated with a decidedly increased risk for thromboembolism; these include membranous nephropathy (primary and secondary), membranoproliferative glomerulonephritis, minimal-change disease, and perhaps renal amyloidosis.1,6 However, the reported risk for thromboembolism in these disorders varies widely, depending in part on how the cases were ascertained, how the diagnosis of a thrombotic event was established, or what the severity of the nephrotic state per se was. Both venous and systemic or pulmonary arterial thrombosis have been noted to occur with increased frequency in nephrotic syndrome.1,7 Among the venous thromboses associated with nephrotic syndrome, both acute and chronic renal vein thrombosis (RVT) and deep venous thrombosis (DVT) of the lower extremities may develop (separately or together), both of which may be associated with pulmonary embolism.1,8–11 DVT is said to develop in approximately 15% of patients with the nephrotic syndrome, either with or without an accompanying RVT.12 RVT, unilateral or bilateral, has been reported to develop in approximately 25 to 30% of patients with the nephrotic syndrome as a result of primary renal disease, with the greatest risk seen in membranous glomerulonephritis (37%), membranoproliferative glomerulonephritis (26%), and minimal-change disease (24%).1,8–11 The combined burden of DVT and RVT in patients with membranous nephropathy and the nephrotic syndrome has been estimated to be as high as 45% in some reports.12 The risk for DVT and/or RVT seems to be higher when the serum albumin concentration is <2.0 to 2.5 g/dl. For example, Bellomo and Atkins12 found venous thromboembolic events to occur in 40% of patients with membranous nephropathy and nephrotic syndrome with a serum albumin concentration of <2.5 g/dl but only 2.7% in those with a serum albumin concentration of >2.5 g/dl. The reported development of DVT and/or RVT among nephrotic renal diseases varies widely. In cross-sectional studies of membranous nephropathy, the reported risk for RVT has ranged from 1.9 to 60%.1,8–11,13 To some extent, this extreme variation is the result of differing methods to establish the diagnosis of RVT and gradations in the severity of the underlying disease. In many cases, the RVT is asymptomatic and discovered only upon “routine” screening studies or diagnosed after a thromboembolic event. Ventilation-perfusion lung abnormalities that are suggestive of pulmonary embolism (or in situ thrombosis) can be found in 10% of asymptomatic patients without RVT or DVT and in approximately 20% of those with RVT alone accompanying nephrotic syndrome.8 Higher values for pulmonary embolism (or in situ thrombosis in nephrotic syndrome have been reported when pulmonary angiography is used for diagnosis.14 Thus, general agreement exists that nephrotic syndrome, especially as a result of membranous nephropathy, membranoproliferative glomerulonephritis, and minimal-change disease, is a risk factor for thromboembolic disease, although the precise level of this risk is not fully agreed on. A very low serum albumin level seems to be a surrogate measure of increased risk, but thromboembolism can occur even when serum albumin is only modestly reduced.

The underlying mechanisms of the “thrombophilia” of the nephrotic syndrome are multiple but seem to related to an imbalance of prothrombotic factors (e.g., increased fibrinogen levels, increased factor VIII levels, increased platelet adhesiveness) and antithrombotic factors (e.g., reduced antithrombin III levels, reduced protein C and S levels or activity) and impaired thrombolytic activity (decreased plasminogen levels, elevated plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 levels or albumin deficiency–related impairment of the interaction of plasminogen-fibrin).1,15 Volume depletion, diuretic and/or steroid therapy, venous stasis, immobilization, or immune complex activation of the clotting cascade may also participate in the “thrombophilia” of the nephrotic syndrome. It remains a mystery why only certain conditions have such a strong (but variable) association with RVT. The recent discovery of the association of anti-enolase autoantibodies with membranous nephropathy offers a tantalizing clue, because these autoantibodies could interfere with fibrinolysis.16,17 The coexistence of another “thrombophilic” state, such as hereditary resistance to the activation of protein C (Leiden trait), with nephrotic syndrome could be another factor involved in the generation of thrombotic events in selected patients.18

The treatment of overt thrombotic or embolic events in patients with nephrotic syndrome is relatively straightforward. Anticoagulation with sequential high or low molecular weight heparin and oral warfarin is the recommended therapy with the greatest experience.1 The duration of treatment needed to prevent recurrent events is unknown but is probably equal to the duration of the nephrotic state per se. “Breakthrough” thrombosis in anticoagulated patients is distinctly uncommon.

Prophylactic oral anticoagulation of asymptomatic patients who have nephrotic syndrome and are believed to be at elevated risk for a thromboembolic event is another matter altogether.1 The issue of prophylactic anticoagulation in nephrotic syndrome, such as caused by membranous nephropathy, is complicated further by suggestions that asymptomatic patients who are thought to be “at risk” for RVT should be routinely screened for covert RVT, using spiral computed tomography (CT), and then anticoagulated for secondary prophylaxis of a pulmonary embolic event if the test is positive.8–11 The sensitivity and specificity of CT for the diagnosis of covert RVT is 90 and 100%, respectively, using renal venous angiography as the gold standard.19 Magnetic resonance angiography may also be useful, but this technique has not been as well studied as CT.20 Doppler ultrasonography has test characteristics (high false positive [40%] and false negative [15%] rates) that make it less desirable as a screening tool.21 A major weakness of uncritical advocacy for routine screening for DVT is that a negative test does not predict whether (or when) a negative study is likely to convert to a positive study. Furthermore, the risk for developing an overt pulmonary embolus in an untreated patient with a covert RVT detected by “screening” is not well understood. Some studies have suggested that the risk for a pulmonary embolus is approximately twice as high with the presence of covert chronic RVT (20%) compared with its absence (10%),1,8 but long-term prospective studies are lacking. Clinical clues (other than an overt thromboembolic episode in the absence of an obvious DVT) for the presence of an occult RVT are relatively few but include ipsilateral renal enlargement, pelvicaliceal abnormalities, and ureteric notching from collateral veins as determined by intravenous urography.1 A renal biopsy with prominent leukocyte margination (stasis) in the glomerular capillaries and interstitial edema may also suggest RVT.22 Chronic RVT is most often asymptomatic, whereas acute RVT may produce flank pain and hematuria. Therefore, it remains uncertain whether routine screening for RVT (with CT scanning) is needed in asymptomatic patients with nephrotic syndrome, although a case might be made for this approach in patients who are at high risk, such as patients with membranous glomerulonephritis and severe nephrotic syndrome with a serum albumin level of <2.0 to 2.5 g/dl. A positive study (expected in between 2 and 60% of patients, averaging approximately 30%) would be a possible indication for anticoagulation, depending on the risks for bleeding or other contraindications to anticoagulation (e.g., a central nervous system lesion). A negative study would be unhelpful with a decision to anticoagulate, because the patient could subsequently develop an asymptomatic RVT or DVT. It is apparent that routine screening for covert RVT is not considered standard of practice because this has not been a requirement for admission to randomized, controlled trials of nephrotic syndrome, including membranous glomerulonephritis.

The excess “burden” of thrombosis that is seen in nephrotic syndrome (particularly in membranous nephropathy) may contribute to the morbidity and mortality of this condition. For example, Bellomo and Atkins12 found a yearly mortality rate from thromboembolism of approximately 10% in membranous nephropathy. These events tended to occur “early” (within the 6 mo) after diagnosis.12 It is noteworthy that a much lower rate of thromboembolism has been observed in randomized therapeutic trials in idiopathic membranous nephropathy. A survey of all such trials reported between 1979 and 2001 revealed an extraordinarily low rate of thromboembolism (one case in >500 randomly assigned patients who were followed for >2000 patient-years).23–29 Subtle selection forces operating at the enrollment level may have contributed to this finding. Natural history studies of untreated patients have also noted a low prevalence of thromboembolism in membranous nephropathy.30

What, then, should be the position of a nephrologist who is confronted with a patient who has nephrotic syndrome with no overt symptoms or signs suggestive of a thromboembolic disorder with respect to the initiation of prophylactic oral anticoagulation? Unfortunately, no randomized, controlled trials have been conducted to provide evidence to guide and inform this decision-making process. What does exist are analyses of hypothetical scenarios using Markov modeling and decision analysis, which uses assumptions (estimated from the literature) regarding the risk and benefit of such prophylactic oral anticoagulation in patients with nephrotic syndrome (most often with membranous nephropathy as the underlying disorder). Sarasin and Schifferli31 reported on such an analysis in 1994. They assumed an incidence of RVT of 0.5% per month of observation. For DVT, they assumed an incidence of 1% per month for acute symptomatic disease. They assumed that a pulmonary embolus would occur in 30% of patients with RVT and in 50% of patients with DVT. These assumptions may be somewhat higher than the true risk, which is not very well known. They are also much higher than the observed rate of pulmonary embolism in patients with membranous nephropathy enrolled in randomized clinical trials of therapy of membranous nephropathy cited previously. The risk for hemorrhagic complications of oral anticoagulation was deemed to range between 0.05 and 1.4% per month depending on the presence of other risk factors, such as advanced age, history of stroke or gastrointestinal bleeding, or other serious comorbidity. These values have been extrapolated from patients who have received oral anticoagulation for nonrenal indications. More recent studies have suggested that the risk for serious bleeding complications from oral (warfarin) anticoagulation has been decreasing but remains higher in the elderly (10.5 events/100 patient-years) compared with younger patients (6.0 events/100 patient-years).32 Hemorrhagic events are also associated with the intensity of oral anticoagulation (as assessed by the international normalized ratio [INR] for prothrombin time). Hemorrhagic events are infrequent when the INR is well maintained within a recommended “therapeutic” range (4.8/100 patient-years for an INR of 2.0 to 2.9) but increase substantially when the INR increases above the “therapeutic” range (9.5/100 patient-years for an INR of 3.0 to 4.4 and >40/100 patient-years for INR >4.4).32 A therapeutic target of an INR between 1.8 and 2.0 has been suggested as optimal for prevention of recurrent DVT.12

Using these assumptions and a Markov-based decision analysis model incorporating utilities (morbidity and mortality), Sarasin and Schifferli31 concluded that a policy of routine prophylactic oral anticoagulation of patients with the nephrotic syndrome as a result of idiopathic membranous glomerulonephritis would result in a gain of 2.5 mo of quality-adjusted life expectancy for a 50-yr-old patient who remained on anticoagulation for 2 yr. However, observation without anticoagulation would be preferred if the risk for venous thrombosis were a factor of two times lower than the estimates and/or the risk for bleeding were twice that assumed. Obviously these analyses do not apply to secondary membranous glomerulonephritis (e.g., malignancy related, lupus membranous glomerulonephritis related), to other forms of glomerular disease associated with the nephrotic syndrome, to patients with a history of thromboembolism, or to patients with a genetic disorder that predisposes to thrombosis (e.g., the Leiden trait). Sarasin and Schifferli31 also noted that patients with nephrotic syndrome other than that as a result of membranous glomerulonephritis have risk levels of thrombosis that yield different results on Markov decision analysis much closer to a “toss up” and much more sensitive to minor changes in the underlying assumptions. A somewhat similar decision analysis was conducted by Bellomo and Atkins12 in 1993. They assumed that hemorrhagic complications from oral anticoagulation (at INR levels of approximately 2.0) would occur at a rate of approximately 17 per 100 patient-years (approximately three times higher than rates currently observed) and that the combined risk for thromboembolic events was approximately 40%. They further assumed that “breakthrough” thromboembolism would occur in approximately 10% of patients who are anticoagulated. Using these assumptions, they estimated that 54 morbid events would occur per 100 patient-years (40 thromboembolic events requiring therapeutic anticoagulation, 11 hemorrhagic events, and three “breakthrough” thromboembolic events in anticoagulated patients) in a strategy involving therapeutic anticoagulation after a thromboembolic event had transpired. Using similar estimates, they estimated that 37 morbid events per 100 patient-years (26 hemorrhagic events and 10 breakthrough thromboembolic events in anticoagulated patients) in a strategy involving routine prophylactic anticoagulation. Thus, the rate of morbid events is 32% lower with a prophylactic rather than a therapeutic strategy using these estimates. A “sensitivity” analysis was not conducted to determine what level of assumptions (risk for thrombosis and risk for hemorrhagic complications from anticoagulation) would generate a toss-up decision between the therapeutic and prophylactic strategies, but if the theoretical risk for thromboembolism is half that used in this analysis, then the “benefit” of a prophylactic compared with a therapeutic strategy is nullified. Despite repeated calls for a randomized clinical trial of prophylactic anticoagulation to validate or deny the conclusions derived from decision analyses, none has yet been conducted. A possible argument against “routine” prophylactic anticoagulants in idiopathic membranous nephropathy is that none of the randomized therapeutic trials in membranous nephropathy reported between 1979 and 2001 required that enrolled patients be routinely treated with prophylactic anticoagulants.23–29 Because ethical considerations demand that participants in such trials receive standard of care, one would have to conclude that prophylactic anticoagulation of patients with membranous nephropathy (and by inference other patients with nephrotic syndrome) has not yet reached a uniform level of standard of care.

This does not mean that prophylactic anticoagulants are not indicated in management. Patients who have severe nephrotic syndrome, regardless of underlying cause, and a history of a thromboembolic event (a DVT or a pulmonary embolus) should be offered prophylactic anticoagulants if no contraindications exist. Patients with severe nephrotic syndrome (serum albumin <2.0 to 2.5 g/dl) should also be considered candidates for prophylactic anticoagulation if they have other risk factors for thrombosis (e.g., congestive heart failure; prolonged immobilization; morbid obesity; abdominal, orthopedic, or gynecologic surgery). Patients with a family history of “thrombophilia” (who might have a genetic predisposition to thrombosis) might also be considered for prophylactic therapy. The utility of screening for such genetic causes of thrombophilia has not been tested in a cohort of patients with the nephrotic syndrome. The value of prophylactic aspirin therapy has also not been rigorously tested in nephrotic syndrome.

The decision to screen (with CT) asymptomatic patients with nephrotic syndrome for covert RVT should be undertaken with caution. A clearly positive test will mandate anticoagulation for secondary prophylaxis of a pulmonary embolus, and there are no randomized, controlled trials to suggest that this “screen and treat” strategy is both safe and effective. A negative study is not helpful with respect to the decision to recommend prophylactic anticoagulation. Personally, I find little reason to recommend routine screening for RVT in patients with the nephrotic syndrome. Studying patients with nephrotic syndrome and overt DVT or pulmonary emboli for occult RVT seems to me to be very unnecessary because anticoagulation will be offered to the patient irrespective of the findings. In my inspection of the relevant literature, I can also find no justification for prolonged prophylactic anticoagulation for patients with unilateral or bilateral covert chronic RVT discovered by screening to improve the nephrotic syndrome or to slow the rate of progression to ESRD. No evidence exists that anticoagulation has any clear-cut beneficial effects on these parameters.

In summary, a “selective” or individualized rather than a “routine” approach to prophylactic anticoagulation seems justified in nephrotic syndrome. A case can be made for prophylactic anticoagulation in patients with severe nephrotic syndrome (serum albumin concentration <2.0 to 2.5 g/dl) as a result of membranous nephropathy when no contraindication to the use of long-term warfarin anticoagulation exists. It is unclear whether a “cutoff” of an albumin concentration of <2.0 or 2.5 g/dl is most appropriate. The INR during maintenance therapy should be targeted to 1.8 to 2.0, and the treatment should be continued for as long as the patient is nephrotic (unless, of course, a serious hemorrhagic event ensues). The desirability of prophylactic anticoagulation of an individual patient would be enhanced if a history of a thromboembolic event is obtained or if other factors that favor thrombosis are identified. Screening for genetic causes of thrombophilia might be indicated if a family history of recurrent thrombosis is present, but the value of this approach and its cost-effectiveness have not yet been evaluated in the nephrotic syndrome. However, the clinical conundrum that is the subject of this clinical commentary can be truly resolved only by a properly designed randomized clinical trial. I can only echo the numerous calls for this conundrum-resolving exercise, none of which has been heeded to date.

DISCLOSURES

None.

Footnotes

  • Published online ahead of print. Publication date available at www.jasn.org.

  • © 2007 American Society of Nephrology

REFERENCES

  1. ↵
    Singhal R, Brimble KS: Thrombo-embolic complications in the nephrotic syndrome: Pathophysiology and clinical management. Thromb Res 118 : 397 –407, 2006
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    Orth SR, Ritz E: The nephrotic syndrome. N Engl J Med 338 : 1202 –1211, 1998
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    To CH, Petri M: Is antibody clustering predictive of clinical subsets and damage in systemic lupus erythematosus? Arthritis Rheum 52 : 4003 –4010, 2005
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    Merkel PA, Lo GH, Holbrook JT, Tibbs AK, Allen NB, Davis JC Jr, Hoffman GS, McCune WJ, St. Clair EW, Specks U, Spiera R, Petrie M, Stone JH; Wegeners's Granulomatosis Etanercept Trial Research Group: Brief communication: High incidence of venous thrombotic events among patients with Wegener's granulomatosis. The Wegener's Clinical Occurrence of Thrombosis (WeCLOT) Study. Ann Intern Med 142 : 620 –626, 2005
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    Ricart JM, Vaya A, Todoli J, Calvo J, Villa P, Estellas A, Espana F, Santaolaria M, Corella D, Aznar J: Thrombophilic risk factors and homocysteine levels in Behcet's disease in eastern Spain and the association with thrombotic events. Thromb Haemost 95 : 618 –624, 2006
    OpenUrlPubMed
  6. ↵
    Chugh KS, Malik N, Uberoi HS Gupta VK, Agarwal ML, Singhal PC, Suri S, Jain SK: Renal vein thrombosis in nephritic syndrome: A prospective study and review. Postgrad Med J 57 : 566 –570, 1981
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. ↵
    Parag KB, Somers SR, Seedat YK, Byrne S, Da Cruz CM, Kenoyer G: Arterial thrombosis in nephrotic syndrome. Am J Kidney Dis 15 : 176 –177, 1990
    OpenUrlPubMed
  8. ↵
    Llach F, Papper S, Massry SG: The clinical spectrum of renal vein thrombosis. Am J Med 69 : 819 –827, 1980
    OpenUrlPubMed
  9. Wagoner RD, Stanson AW, Holley KE, Winter CS: Renal vein thrombosis in idiopathic membranous nephropathy and nephrotic syndrome: Incidence and significance. Kidney Int 23 : 368 –374, 1983
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. Velasquez FF, Garcia PN, Ruiz MN: Idiopathic nephrotic syndrome of the adult with asymptomatic thrombosis of the renal vein. Am J Nephrol 8 : 457 –462, 1988
    OpenUrlPubMed
  11. ↵
    Llach F, Koffler A, Finck E, Massry SG: On the incidence of renal vein thrombosis in the nephrotic syndrome. Arch Intern Med 137 : 333 –336, 1977
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. ↵
    Bellomo R, Atkins RC: Membranous nephropathy and thrombo-embolism: Is prophylactic anticoagulation warranted? Nephron 63 : 249 –254, 1993
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. ↵
    Pohl M, McLaurin JP, Alfidi RJ: Renal vein thrombosis and the nephrotic syndrome. Abstract from the American Society of Nephrology Annual Meeting, 1977
  14. ↵
    Cheng SC, Huang WS, Wang YF, Lin YF: The role of lung scintography in the diagnosis of nephrotic syndrome with pulmonary embolism. Clin Nucl Med 25 : 167 –172, 2000
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. ↵
    Cameron JS: Coagulation and thrombo-embolic complications in the nephrotic syndrome. Adv Nephrol Necker Hosp 13 : 75 –114, 1984
    OpenUrlPubMed
  16. ↵
    Wakui H, Imai H, Komatsuda A, Miura A: Circulating antibodies against alpha-enolase in patients with primary membranous nephropathy. Clin Exp Immunol 118 : 445 –450, 1999
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. ↵
    Lopez-Alemany R, Longstaff C, Hawley S, Mirshaski M, Fabregas I, Jardi M, Merton E, Miles LA, Felig J: Inhibition of cell-surface mediated plasminogen activation by a monoclonal antibody against alpha-enolase. Am J Hematol 72 : 234 –242, 2003
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. ↵
    Price DT, Ridker PM: Factor V Leiden mutation and the risks for thromboembolic disease: A clinical perspective. Ann Intern Med 127 : 895 –903, 1997
    OpenUrlPubMed
  19. ↵
    Wei LQ, Rong ZK, Gui L, Shan RD: CT diagnosis of renal vein thrombosis in nephrotic syndrome. J Comput Assist Tomogr 15 : 454 –457, 1991
    OpenUrlPubMed
  20. ↵
    Tempany CM, Morton RA, Marshall FF: MRI of the renal veins: Assessment of non-neoplastic venous thrombosis. J Comput Assist Tomogr 16 : 929 –934, 1992
    OpenUrlPubMed
  21. ↵
    Avasthi PS, Greene ER, Schotter C, Fowler CR: Noninvasive diagnosis of renal vein thrombosis by ultrasonic echo-Doppler flowmetry. Kidney Int 23 : 882 –887, 1983
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. ↵
    Rosenmann E, Pollak VE, Pirani CL: Renal vein thrombosis in the adult. A clinical and pathological study based on renal biopsies. Medicine (Baltimore) 47 : 269 –335, 1968
    OpenUrlPubMed
  23. ↵
    Collaborative Study of the Adult Nephrotic Syndrome. A controlled trial of short-term prednisone treatment in adults with membranous nephropathy. N Engl J Med 301 : 1301 –1306, 1979
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. Cattran DC, Delmore T, Roscoe J, Cole E, Cardella C, Charron R, Ritchie S: A randomized controlled trial of prednisone in patients with idiopathic membranous nephropathy. N Engl J Med 320 : 210 –215, 1989
    OpenUrlPubMed
  25. Cameron JS, Healy MT, Adu D: The Medical Research Council trial of short-term, high-dose alternate day prednisolone in idiopathic membranous nephropathy with nephrotic syndrome in adults. Q J Med 74 : 133 –156, 1990
    OpenUrlPubMed
  26. Ponticelli C, Zuchelli P, Imbasciati E, Cagnoli L, Pozzi C, Passerini P, Grassi C, Limido P, Pasquali S, Volpini T: Controlled trial of methylprednisolone and chlorambucil in idiopathic membranous nephropathy. N Engl J Med 310 : 946 –950, 1984
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. Ponticelli C, Zuchelli P, Passerini P, Cagnoli L, Cesana B, Pozzi C, Pasquali S, Imbasciati E, Grassi C, Redaelli B, et al.: A randomized trial of methylprednisolone and chlorambucil in idiopathic membranous nephropathy. N Engl J Med 320 : 8 –13: 1989
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. Ponticelli C, Zuchelli P, Cesana B, Locatelli F, Pasquali S, Sasdelli M, Raedelli B, Grassi C, Pozzi C: A 10 year follow-up of a controlled study with methylprednisolone and chlorambucil in membranous nephropathy. Kidney Int 48 : 1600 –1604, 1995
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. ↵
    Cattran DC, Appel GB, Hebert LA, Hunsicker L, Pohl MA, Hoy WE, Maxwell DR, Kunis CL; North American Nephrotic Syndrome Study Group: Cyclosporin in patients with steroid-resistant membranous nephropathy: A randomized trial. Kidney Int 59 : 1484 –1490, 2001
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. ↵
    Donadio JV Jr, Torres VE, Velosa JA, Wagoner RD, Holley KE, Okamura M, Ilstrup DM, Chu CP: Idiopathic membranous nephropathy: The natural history of untreated patients. Kidney Int 33 : 708 –715, 1988
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. ↵
    Sarasin FP, Schifferli JA: Prophylactic anticoagulation in nephrotic patients with idiopathic membranous nephropathy. Kidney Int 45 : 578 –585, 1994
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. ↵
    Palareti G, Leali N, Coccheri S, Poggi M, Manotti C, D'Angelo A, Pengo V, Erba N, Moia M, Ciavarella N, Devoto G, Berrettini M, Musolesi S: Bleeding complications of oral anti-coagulant treatment: An inception-cohort, prospective collaborative study (ISCOAT). Italian Study on Complications of Oral Anticoagulant Therapy. Lancet 17 : 423 –428, 1996
    OpenUrl
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of the American Society of Nephrology: 18 (8)
Journal of the American Society of Nephrology
Vol. 18, Issue 8
August 2007
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Index by author
View Selected Citations (0)
Print
Download PDF
Sign up for Alerts
Email Article
Thank you for your help in sharing the high-quality science in JASN.
Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Prophylactic Anticoagulation in Nephrotic Syndrome: A Clinical Conundrum
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Society of Nephrology
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Society of Nephrology web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Prophylactic Anticoagulation in Nephrotic Syndrome: A Clinical Conundrum
Richard J. Glassock
JASN Aug 2007, 18 (8) 2221-2225; DOI: 10.1681/ASN.2006111300

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Request Permissions
Share
Prophylactic Anticoagulation in Nephrotic Syndrome: A Clinical Conundrum
Richard J. Glassock
JASN Aug 2007, 18 (8) 2221-2225; DOI: 10.1681/ASN.2006111300
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • DISCLOSURES
    • Footnotes
    • REFERENCES
  • Info & Metrics
  • View PDF

More in this TOC Section

UP FRONT MATTERS

  • QALYs, DALYs and Now PALYs: Strengthening the Argument for Prevention of CKD
  • Management of Obesity in Adults with CKD
  • Me Or Your Own Eyes: RNA-Seq and the Kidney
Show more UP FRONT MATTERS

Clinical Commentary

  • Trends in Discharge Claims for Acute Myocardial Infarction among Patients on Dialysis
  • Reassessing Medical Risk in Living Kidney Donors
  • Commentary on the 2014 BP Guidelines from the Panel Appointed to the Eighth Joint National Committee (JNC 8)
Show more Clinical Commentary

Cited By...

  • Nephrotic Syndrome Disease Activity Predicts Severity of the Associated Hypercoagulopathy
  • Nephrotic Syndrome-Associated Hypercoagulopathy is Alleviated by Nuclear Receptor Agonist Therapy with both Pioglitazone and Glucocorticoids
  • Prophylactic Anticoagulation in Adult Patients with Nephrotic Syndrome
  • Evidence Gaps in the Era of Non-Vitamin K Oral Anticoagulants
  • Thrombosis and anticoagulation in the setting of renal or liver disease
  • Disease Severity Correlates with Thrombotic Capacity in Experimental Nephrotic Syndrome
  • Retrospective Analysis of a Novel Regimen for the Prevention of Venous Thromboembolism in Nephrotic Syndrome
  • Glomerular Diseases: Membranous Nephropathy--A Modern View
  • Membranous nephropathy
  • Attending Rounds: An Older Patient with Nephrotic Syndrome
  • Epidemiology and Pathophysiology of Nephrotic Syndrome-Associated Thromboembolic Disease
  • Venous Thromboembolism and Membranous Nephropathy: So What's New?
  • Nephrotic syndrome in adults
  • Google Scholar

Similar Articles

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Articles

  • Current Issue
  • Early Access
  • Subject Collections
  • Article Archive
  • ASN Annual Meeting Abstracts

Information for Authors

  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Author Resources
  • Editorial Fellowship Program
  • ASN Journal Policies
  • Reuse/Reprint Policy

About

  • JASN
  • ASN
  • ASN Journals
  • ASN Kidney News

Journal Information

  • About JASN
  • JASN Email Alerts
  • JASN Key Impact Information
  • JASN Podcasts
  • JASN RSS Feeds
  • Editorial Board

More Information

  • Advertise
  • ASN Podcasts
  • ASN Publications
  • Become an ASN Member
  • Feedback
  • Follow on Twitter
  • Password/Email Address Changes
  • Subscribe to ASN Journals

© 2021 American Society of Nephrology

Print ISSN - 1046-6673 Online ISSN - 1533-3450

Powered by HighWire