The present study shows that a low Na–Cl level is independently associated with CKD progression, particularly among patients with an eGFR between 15 and 30 mL/min/1.73 m2 and among those with anemia (Hb < 12 g/dL). Metabolic acidosis has been shown to be associated with worsening renal disease in humans [1,2,3]. Furthermore, previous studies have reported that bicarbonate supplementation slows the progression of kidney disease, if optimum serum bicarbonate level is maintained [2, 5, 6, 17]. One of the previous studies reported that relative to the reference group (bicarbonate level, 25–26 mmol/L), the hazard ratio for 50% reduction of the eGFR was 1.54 (95% CI 1.13–2.09) for bicarbonate levels of 22 mmol/L or less [1]. This bicarbonate level (22 mmol/L) was applicable to 34 mmol/L in Na–Cl. Na–Cl was not equivalent to the serum bicarbonate level, but Na–Cl was reported as a simple parameter for acid–base status assessment, and the correlation coefficient was 0.733 in that study [18]. This supports our results; therefore, any of our outcomes may be associated with an acid–base disorder.
Hypoalbuminemia is an important factor that causes a dissociation between the Na–Cl level and the serum bicarbonate level, as the AG decreases to 2.5 mmol/L when the serum albumin level decreases to 1 mmol/L [12, 13]. Thus, in this study, severe hypoalbuminemia (< 3.0 g/dL) was excluded, and an additional analysis was attempted which attenuated the effect of hypoalbuminemia. Specifically, when the measured albumin value was < 4.0 g/dL, a corrected Na–Cl level, calculated as Na–Cl + 2.5 × (4-observed serum albumin), was used to categorize cases into low and normal Na–Cl groups. This correction confirmed the association between Na–Cl and renal function decline: (HR 1.428; 95% CI 1.114–1.831 for the measured Na–Cl level and HR 1.306; 95% CI 1.025–1.662 for the corrected Na–Cl level). This association, however, was only assured among patients with a serum albumin ≥ 3.0 g/dL. In the CKD-JAC cohort, only 2.5% of patients presented with severe hypoalbuminemia (< 3.0 g/dL). Thus, the use of the measured Na–Cl value was applicable in most of the CKD patients in our cohort.
When other anions are produced in the body, this correlation between the Na–Cl level and serum bicarbonate level is no longer reliable, but typically, an anion quickly disappears physiologically. Thus, in this cohort, temporary anion production would be less important than chronic metabolic acidosis. The use of the Na–Cl level as a marker of metabolic acidosis is only accurate within the normal range of the AG, as the sum of the serum bicarbonate level and the AG is equivalent to the Na–Cl level. In other words, a normal range of the AG is necessary for a normal range of the Na–Cl level. Thus, we included patients with CKD stages 3–4, as these stages have reported AGs in the normal range, and excluded patients with CKD stage 5, as this stage has a reported AG of 16.02 ± 0.66 [11]. Additionally, the newer auto-analyzers measure a higher serum chloride level, resulting in a lower AG, as reported by Winter et al. [19]. Consequently, the normal range of Na–Cl might actually be lower than the range we estimated. Considering this point, we completed a sensitivity analysis using a lower Na–Cl cut-off value of 32 mmol/L to categorize patients into low and normal Na–Cl groups. The similar trend as for the cut-off value of 34 mmol/L was identified in this analysis (HR 1.351; 95% CI 1.036–1.763). Clarifying the exact normal value of the Na–Cl level is beyond the scope of this study, as only a few patients had a Na–Cl level < 30 mmol/L in our study cohort. Therefore, maintaining a Na–Cl concentration ≥ 32 mmol/L would be reasonable for our cohort.
In general, metabolic acidosis is indicative of the inability of the kidneys to synthesize ammonia, regenerate bicarbonate, and excrete hydrogen ions, resulting in a decrease in Na–Cl levels. This pathway might explain the association between lower Na–Cl levels and poor renal outcomes and increased risk of tubulointerstitial injury [20]. Using an animal model, Nath et al. proposed that tubulointerstitial damage could be caused by the activation of the complement cascade due to an increase in renal cortical ammonia [21]. This hypothesis might explain why patients who maintain a normal serum bicarbonate level, either naturally and/or by supplementation, have a better Na–Cl level and, correspondingly, better kidney survival.
In CKD stage G4 (eGFR 15–30 mL/min/1.73 m2), a low Na–Cl level was strongly associated with poor outcomes (Table 2). de Brito-Ashurst et al. reported on the effectiveness of bicarbonate supplementation in slowing the progression of CKD among patients with a creatinine clearance of 15–30 mL/min/1.73 m2 and serum bicarbonate concentration of 16–20 mmol/L [5]. Over a 2-year follow-up, supplementation with 600-mg sodium bicarbonate tablets among these patients was sufficient to maintain a serum bicarbonate level ≥ 23 mmol/L. Moreover, the rate of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) development was lower among those who received bicarbonate supplementation (6.5%) than among those who did not receive supplementation (33%). Therefore, bicarbonate supplementation reduced the relative risk of ESRD (0.13; 95% CI 0.04–0.40). In our cohort, patients with CKD stage G4 who maintained a Na–Cl concentration ≥ 34 mmol/L had a better kidney prognosis, regardless of sodium bicarbonate supplementation status.
Interestingly, Hb concentration influenced the association between Na–Cl level and the incidence rate of renal function decline (Table 3), with only anemic patients having a poor outcome in kidney function. Generally, Hb plays an important buffering role against acidosis, incorporating free H+ ions into CO2 to form HCO3− [22]. Therefore, anemia impairs this buffering system, resulting in poor renal survival among patients with a low Na–Cl level. Improving anemia in patients with CKD may attenuate this aspect of CKD progression.
This study is the first to report on the direct association between the Na–Cl level and renal function decline. The Na–Cl level was indicated as the surrogate marker for the serum bicarbonate level, but was not shown as the renal function decline marker. This result suggested that both physiological and physicochemical approaches are possible for CKD patients.
This study has some limitations. First, the effect of diuretics on the measured association between the Na–Cl level and renal function decline was not sufficiently analyzed. Spironolactone blocks the actions of aldosterone, and amiloride reduces Na+ ion reabsorption in the collecting duct, which results in hyporeninemic hypoaldosteronism [23]. Although these diuretics may have had an influence on the incidence of composite renal function decline events, the association between a low Na–Cl level and composite renal function decline events remained significant in the secondary analysis, which controlled for the use of these diuretics (Supplemental Fig. 1). Second, the association between pre-supplementation serum bicarbonate and Na–Cl levels in this study was not known, because the CKD-JAC study checked serum bicarbonate level only in the patients who were prescribed sodium bicarbonate (9% of all patients). Third, this study enrolled only Japanese outpatients cared for by nephrologists belonging to the medical institutions that treat CKD patients in each area. Thus, there may be selection bias.
In conclusion, the Na–Cl level is a simple parameter for an acid–base disorder without arterial blood gas examination, and our investigation shows that the Na–Cl level is an independent predictor of CKD progression, especially among patients with CKD stage G4 and those with anemia.