Case Reports in Nephrology

Case Reports in Nephrology / 2016 / Article

Case Report | Open Access

Volume 2016 |Article ID 7104098 | 8 pages | https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/7104098

Acute Kidney Injury, Recurrent Seizures, and Thrombocytopenia in a Young Patient with Lupus Nephritis: A Diagnostic Dilemma

Academic Editor: Yoshihide Fujigaki
Received26 Sep 2016
Accepted13 Nov 2016
Published04 Dec 2016

Abstract

Introduction. Posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome (PRES) is a constellation of clinical and radiologic findings. Fluctuations in blood pressure, seizures, and reversible brain MRI findings mainly in posterior cerebral white matter are the main manifestations. PRES has been associated with multiple conditions such as autoimmune disorders, pregnancy, organ transplant, and thrombotic microangiopathy (TMA). Case Presentation. A 22-year-old woman with history of Systemic Lupus Erythematous complicated with chronic kidney disease secondary to lupus nephritis class IV presented with recurrent seizures and uncontrolled hypertension. She was found to have acute kidney injury and thrombocytopenia. Repeat kidney biopsy showed diffuse endocapillary and extracapillary proliferative and membranous lupus nephritis (ISN-RPS class IV-G+V) and endothelial swelling secondary to severe hypertension but no evidence of TMA. Brain MRI showed reversible left frontal and parietal lesions that resolved after controlling the blood pressure, making PRES the diagnosis. Conclusion. PRES is an important entity that must be recognized and treated early due to the potential reversibility in the early stages. Physicians must have high suspicion for these unusual presentations. We present a case where performing kidney biopsy clinched the diagnosis in our patient with multiple confounding factors.

1. Introduction

Posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome (PRES) was initially described by Hinchey et al. in 1996 in a retrospective series of 15 patients with headache, seizures, altered mental status, high blood pressure, and unique MRI findings that disappeared on subsequent imaging after controlling blood pressure [1].

The exact incidence of PRES is unknown, commonly being mistaken for acute stroke. Some authors have reported in their case series predominance in young female patients (75%) particularly when being associated with autoimmune disorders, such as Systemic Lupus Erythematous (SLE) with nephritis [24]; but it can be present at any age or gender. PRES can be a challenging diagnosis especially when multiple comorbidities are present, as illustrated in our patient, masking the diagnosis and delaying the proper treatment. We propose an algorithm in the diagnosis of PRES associated with autoimmune disorders and acute kidney injury.

2. Case Report

A 22-year-old woman with history of Systemic Lupus Erythematous (SLE) complicated with chronic kidney disease (CKD) secondary to lupus nephritis [ISN-RPS class IV-G (A)] presented with generalized tonic-clonic seizures and uncontrolled hypertension. Vitals signs at presentation were as follows: blood pressure of 180/148 mmHg; heat rate of 140 per minute. She was afebrile and somnolent but responsive to verbal stimuli and oriented in time, place, and person with no evidence of apparent focal deficits. She had no body rashes, ulcers, hair loss, joint tenderness, or swelling. The rest of the physical examination was unremarkable.

Laboratory tests on presentation were remarkable for anemia, thrombocytopenia, elevated lactate dehydrogenase, and a reticulocyte count of 3.3% (Table 1). Urine toxicology and pregnancy test were negative. Urinalysis showed protein >300 and no evidence of infection. She received hydrocortisone, lorazepam, and levetiracetam and was loaded with phenytoin. An initial head CT scan revealed acute left frontal and parietal lobe infarcts. Patient was admitted to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) with presumptive diagnosis of acute ischemic stroke versus lupus vasculitis or cerebritis. Peripheral smear revealed marked anisocytosis and 4 to 10 schistocytes per HPF.


VariableReference range, adultsOn admissionThird hospital daySixteenth hospital stayAt discharge

White cells (per mm3)3,500–11,00029,00014,5008,9008,800
Hemoglobin (g/dl)12–16 (women)9.67.77.78.9
Hematocrit (%)36–4630.623.922.426.3
Platelets (per mm3)150,000–440,00095,00045,000143,000131,000
Carbon dioxide (mEq/L)24–3012.624.829.521
Urea nitrogen (mg/dl)5–2654454759
Creatinine (mg/dl)0.1–1.52.32.25.32.9
Albumin (g/dL)3.5–5.52.42.32.53.3
Lactate dehydrogenase (U/L)100–2101,144418393
Total bilirubin (mg/dl)0.1–1.20.20.30.30.3
Erythrocyte sedimentation rate (mm/hr)0–2036
C-reactive protein (mg/L)0–564.9
Complement C3 (mg/dl)90–18080
Complement C4 (mg/dl)10–4028.5
ADAMTS13 activity≥67%82%
Direct Coombs testNegativeNegativeNegative

She was diagnosed presumptively with thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (TTP) due to anemia, thrombocytopenia, and schistocytes on peripheral smear. Plasma exchange and prednisone were started as the mortality rate without early treatment in TTP is very high. Additional testing was pursued to rule out other causes.

Further tests showed antinuclear antibody 1 : 1280 with speckled pattern; antibodies including anti-Smith, RNP, dsDNA, and histone were also positive. Lupus anticoagulant and cardiolipin antibody were negative.

Electroencephalogram (EEG) was with no epileptiform discharges. First brain MRI showed extensive areas of high signal intensity in the subcortical white matter of both parietooccipital regions, as well as in the frontal lobes and right basal ganglia/capsular region and the head of the caudate nucleus on the left (Figures 1(a)1(c)) on both FLAIR and T2-weighted images.

She completed a ten-day course of plasma exchange but continued to have low platelets, anemia, and worsening kidney function. ADAMTS13 assay level returned back to normal (82%) and also paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria panel was negative. At this time, after an interdisciplinary team meeting, a decision was made to perform a kidney biopsy. She was considered to have very high risk of the procedure due to persistent thrombocytopenia, anemia, and high risk of bleeding; but this was thought to be essential in order to clarify the diagnoses which at this time were mainly lupus nephritis versus atypical hemolytic uremic syndrome. Nicardipine IV infusion was continued for a more stable and tight blood pressure control. Patient received one dose of complement based therapy with eculizumab one day before the kidney biopsy (day 14 of hospitalization). The kidney biopsy showed diffuse endocapillary and extracapillary proliferative and membranous lupus nephritis (ISN-RPS class IV-G+V), new changes with endothelial swelling secondary to severe hypertension, but no evidence of thrombotic microangiopathy (Figure 2). Eculizumab was stopped. The platelet count and hemoglobin level started to increase and BP was better controlled.

Second MRI of the head was performed weeks later which confirmed reversal of the brain lesions seen on the first MRI (Figures 1(d)1(f)).

Unfortunately her kidney function did not improve, requiring permanent renal replacement therapy. She required renal replacement therapy for a brief period for optimizing her volume status. Her BP medications were optimized, requiring maximum doses of labetalol, nifedipine, clonidine, and minoxidil. She was transferred to acute rehabilitation service where she had multiple episodes of seizures due to uncontrolled BP secondary to poor medication compliance. Third MRI performed showed diffuse bilateral peripheral cortical and subcortical signal abnormalities including the posterior fossa and cerebellum. She left the hospital without completing rehabilitation and unfortunately was lost to follow-up.

3. Discussion

This case raises awareness of PRES in the differential diagnosis of acute stroke. Most of the presentations of PRES are straightforward, but in some patients with confounding factors the diagnosis is not obvious. This is especially true when the patient presents with acute or chronic manifestation of their underlying disease or is on a medication that can predispose to PRES, making the diagnosis challenging.

PRES can occur with variable degrees of hypertension regardless of its etiology. A rapid rise in blood pressure is a greater risk for development of PRES than the degree of hypertension itself [5]. The majority of PRES cases present only with mild increases in blood pressure [6, 7] with average maximum mean arterial blood pressure (MAP) of 160 mmHg and in some cases even with normal blood pressure [8]. Other frequent findings are seizures (60–75%), mostly generalized tonic-clonic type [2, 912], altered mental status [1113], visual disturbances [10, 11, 13, 14], severe headache [12, 14, 15], status epilepticus (5–15%) [2, 10, 12], and nausea and vomiting [6, 7].

Despite a plethora of information on PRES in general, there is a paucity of data in those with established chronic kidney disease (CKD), even though these patients have a high preponderance of risk factors.

Settings in Which PRES May Be Likely to DevelopAutoimmune disorders: Systemic Lupus Erythematous, antiphospholipid syndrome, polyarteritis nodosa, cryoglobulinemia, thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura, scleroderma, polyangiitis, antiglomerular basement membrane antibody disease, rheumatoid arthritis, Sjögren syndrome, Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, autoimmune hepatitis, type 1 diabetes mellitus, Grave’s disease, Hashimoto thyroiditis, and neuromyelitis optica [2, 1620]Essential hypertensionPreeclampsia and eclampsia [21, 22]Acute or chronic renal failure and dialysis (55%)[2327]Septicemia and severe infections (predominantly gram positive organisms) [4, 28]Immunosuppressive therapy (despite normal levels): cisplatin, cyclosporine, tacrolimus, intravenous globulin, rituximab, methotrexate, bevacizumab, sunitinib, and sorafenib [15, 2933]Others: blood transfusion, contrast exposure, hypercalcemia, cocaine, and methamphetamineThe incidence has been variably reported, with a study from Ireland showing an occurrence of 0.84% [34]. Patients with CKD and end stage renal disease (ESRD) have the perfect setup for the development of PRES such as a higher MAP, volume overload, electrolyte abnormalities, and underlying chronic vascular disease. Despite this, the incidence reported seems to be low except in the realm of solid organ transplantation and in those receiving peritoneal dialysis [3537]. Though originally described as a reversible lesion, the Berlin PRES study showed that 43% had incomplete resolution of edema and this was associated with a higher MAP at presentation [11].

The pathophysiology of PRES is not fully understood and two theories are proposed [16] both with limitations. One theory proposes that severe systemic hypertension leading to hyperperfusion overwhelms the autoregulatory capacity of the cerebral vasculature (principally arterioles) and results in increased capillary pressure and vasogenic edema. According to the second theory, the principal problem is cerebral vasoconstriction that causes downstream hypoperfusion, ischemia, and capillary leak. Blood flow dysregulation is thought to cause blood brain barrier (BBB) disruption and endothelial damage. In addition, drugs and certain underlying disease processes can cause direct endothelial injury [31] and disruption of the blood brain barrier. But in most of the cases it is related to fluctuations of the blood pressure [24] with subsequent disordered cerebral autoregulation and endothelial dysfunction [16], possibly from cytokines [38] and upregulation of vascular endothelial growth factor. The hydrostatic edema is characteristically seen on MRI on FLAIR and T2-weighted images.

PRES was initially described in a case series [1] of diverse diseases including SLE, hypertensive encephalopathy, acute nephritis, eclampsia, melanoma, and multiple posttransplant immunosuppressed patients that were taking cyclosporine [9, 39] or tacrolimus [1, 2, 9]. In patients with SLE, it has been found that aggressive immunosuppressive therapy, high SLEDAI scores, renal dysfunction, and uncontrolled hypertension contribute to the development of PRES [4042].

Brain imaging is essential in the diagnosis of PRES. Typically seen are asymmetric cortical and subcortical white matter edema in the posterior cerebral hemispheres not confined to a single vascular territory [9]. Particularly affected are the parietooccipital regions (94–98%) and frontal (77%–79%) and temporal (64%–68%) lobes. Less commonly involved areas include the cerebellum (35%), mainly in patients with underlying autoimmune disease, as well as brainstem and basal ganglia (10%) [43, 44]. These changes are classically described as punctuate or confluent areas of T2-hyperintense vasogenic edema on MRI, being more sensitive on fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR) [43].

It is imperative not only to correctly identify PRES as an entity but also to identify the underlying cause(s) that are triggering this syndrome. There are no specific diagnostic criteria or algorithm for PRES. We present a diagnostic algorithm that can be used in these particularly difficult cases with kidney injury (Figure 3). In this algorithm we suggest the crucial role that performing kidney biopsy can play when the cause is not obvious or there are multiple triggers present, so we can properly direct the therapy and reduce complications from treatment [45]. In our case, although it was a difficult decision to make, the kidney biopsy ruled out aHUS and helped guide treatment. In addition, compared to the previous kidney biopsy, there was less histologic activity and more chronicity. The arterioles display focal luminal obliteration, concentric intimal fibroplasia, endothelial cell swelling, and entrapped RBCs, which could be secondary to severe hypertension. With these findings it was possible to stop the administration of eculizumab, reducing costs of treatment tremendously (approximate yearly cost per patient: USD $400,000). Eculizumab is a humanized recombinant immunoglobulin G2/4 monoclonal antibody that has been shown to be effective in the treatment of aHUS by linking to complement protein C5 and preventing the formation of membrane attack complex C5b-9. It was demonstrated in two studies that the use of eculizumab in aHUS reduces endothelial damage and thrombosis of the kidney vasculature [46, 47]; its use was approved by FDA for management of aHUS in 2011 and is currently considered first-line treatment. In adults with aHUS it is administered intravenously 900 mg weekly for 4 doses with a maintenance dose of 1,200 mg at week 5 and 1,200 mg every 2 weeks thereafter.

There is no specific treatment for PRES. Prompt and moderate lowering of blood pressure along with removal of the underlying cause is the mainstay of treatment. Delay in diagnosis and treatment can result in cerebral infarction or hemorrhage with persistent neurologic damage and chronic seizures. There are no established guidelines for BP reduction, but aiming for an initial 20% reduction in MAP is usual [48]. It is important to avoid a precipitous drop in blood pressure. Control of the blood pressure will often be followed by dramatic improvement within days to weeks [2, 10, 15]. The goal is to decrease the mean arterial blood pressure by 25% within the first few hours, preferably with continuous intravenous medications to avoid BP fluctuations [49]. The preferred medications are nicardipine, labetalol, nitroprusside, enalaprilat, or hydralazine [50, 51]. Patients with seizures are preferably treated with phenytoin or other antiepileptic medication depending on the patient’s comorbidities [52].

The prognosis is favorable and most patients will recover with prompt treatment [53]. Nevertheless a small percentage (3–6%) will have an unfortunate outcome despite treatment [14, 23, 54, 55] such as intracranial hemorrhage, posterior fossa edema with brainstem compression or hydrocephalus, and diffuse cerebral edema with increased intracranial pressure [56, 57]. Hyperglycemia is an independent factor associated with poor outcome [14]. There are unique adverse prognostic factors for developing PRES-related intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) especially in patients with lupus, including hypoalbuminemia, thrombocytopenia, and SLEDAI score >18 [17]. The recurrence of PRES is rare, reported in 4 to 8% of cases [53, 58]. Most of the recurrences are caused by unsatisfactorily controlled blood pressure [59], occurring between 30 days and 2 years after the initial episode [60, 61].

In our patient, the initial presentation was very complicated and posed a diagnostic and therapeutic dilemma. In addition despite atypical features and presenting with 2 of the adverse prognosticators, there was no ICH during the course. The patient also had recurrence which is unusual. The recurrent episodes of seizures correlated with high blood pressure and were confirmed as PRES with MRI. In addition, the case highlights that atypical MRI findings involving cerebellum and basal ganglia may occur.

4. Conclusions

Posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome should be included as a differential diagnosis in any cause of headache, acute confusional state, seizure, and acute stroke. It must be recognized and treated timely because of the potential reversibility in the early stages. Physicians must have high suspicion for unusual presentations. In patients with AKI or CKD as in our patient, having a low threshold for performing kidney biopsy is helpful when the diagnosis is obscure.

Disclosure

The authors current address is as follows: Jacobi Medical Center, The Albert Einstein College of Medicine, 1400 Pelham Parkway South, Bronx, NY 10461, USA.

Competing Interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

References

  1. J. Hinchey, C. Chaves, B. Appignani et al., “A reversible posterior leukoencephalopathy syndrome,” New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 334, no. 8, pp. 494–500, 1996. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  2. J. E. Fugate, D. O. Claassen, H. J. Cloft, D. F. Kallmes, O. S. Kozak, and A. A. Rabinstein, “Posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome: associated clinical and radiologic findings,” Mayo Clinic Proceedings, vol. 85, no. 5, pp. 427–432, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  3. J. Ni, L.-X. Zhou, H.-L. Hao et al., “The clinical and radiological spectrum of posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome: a retrospective series of 24 patients,” Journal of Neuroimaging, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 219–224, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  4. I. R. Varaprasad, S. Agrawal, V. N. N. Prabu, L. Rajasekhar, M. A. Kanikannan, and G. Narsimulu, “Posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome in systemic lupus erythematosus,” Journal of Rheumatology, vol. 38, no. 8, pp. 1607–1611, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  5. H. Ay, F. S. Buonanno, P. W. Schaefer et al., “Posterior leukoencephalopathy without severe hypertension: utility of diffusion-weighted MRI,” Neurology, vol. 51, no. 5, pp. 1369–1376, 1998. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  6. V. H. Lee, E. F. M. Wijdicks, E. M. Manno, and A. A. Rabinstein, “Clinical spectrum of reversible posterior leukoencephalopathy syndrome,” Archives of Neurology, vol. 65, no. 2, pp. 205–210, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  7. W. S. Bartynski, “Posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome, part 1: fundamental imaging and clinical features,” American Journal of Neuroradiology, vol. 29, no. 6, pp. 1036–1042, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  8. W. S. Bartynski and J. F. Boardman, “Catheter angiography, MR angiography, and MR perfusion in posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome,” American Journal of Neuroradiology, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 447–455, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  9. A. M. McKinney, J. Short, C. L. Truwit et al., “Posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome: incidence of atypical regions of involvement and imaging findings,” American Journal of Roentgenology, vol. 189, no. 4, pp. 904–912, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  10. M. M. Burnett, C. P. Hess, J. P. Roberts, N. M. Bass, V. C. Douglas, and S. A. Josephson, “Presentation of reversible posterior leukoencephalopathy syndrome in patients on calcineurin inhibitors,” Clinical Neurology and Neurosurgery, vol. 112, no. 10, pp. 886–891, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  11. T. G. Liman, G. Bohner, P. U. Heuschmann, M. Endres, and E. Siebert, “The clinical and radiological spectrum of posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome: the retrospective Berlin PRES study,” Journal of Neurology, vol. 259, no. 1, pp. 155–164, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  12. Y. Li, D. Gor, D. Walicki et al., “Spectrum and potential pathogenesis of reversible posterior leukoencephalopathy syndrome,” Journal of Stroke and Cerebrovascular Diseases, vol. 21, no. 8, pp. 873–882, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  13. J. Brewer, M. Y. Owens, K. Wallace et al., “Posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome in 46 of 47 patients with eclampsia,” American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, vol. 208, no. 6, pp. 468.e1–468.e6, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  14. S. Legriel, O. Schraub, E. Azoulay et al., “Determinants of recovery from severe posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome,” PLoS ONE, vol. 7, no. 9, Article ID e44534, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  15. C. Tlemsani, O. Mir, P. Boudou-Rouquette et al., “Posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome induced by anti-VEGF agents,” Targeted Oncology, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 253–258, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  16. W. S. Bartynski, “Posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome, part 2: controversies surrounding pathophysiology of vasogenic edema,” American Journal of Neuroradiology, vol. 29, no. 6, pp. 1043–1049, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  17. C.-C. Lai, W.-S. Chen, Y.-S. Chang et al., “Clinical features and outcomes of posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus,” Arthritis Care and Research, vol. 65, no. 11, pp. 1766–1774, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  18. S. S. Shaharir, R. Remli, A. A. Marwan, M. S. M. Said, and N. C. T. Kong, “Posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome in systemic lupus erythematosus: pooled analysis of the literature reviews and report of six new cases,” Lupus, vol. 22, no. 5, pp. 492–496, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  19. T. M. Burrus, E. F. M. Wijdicks, and A. A. Rabinstein, “Brain lesions are most often reversible in acute thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura,” Neurology, vol. 73, no. 1, pp. 66–70, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  20. M. Nakabou, T. Kai, T. Maeshima, and K. Kanamasa, “Hypertensive encephalopathy in patients with chronic renal failure caused by stopping antihypertensive agents: a report of two cases,” Clinical & Experimental Nephrology, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 256–262, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  21. J. O. Amagada, H. Kondagunta, N. Afshan, S. Watermeyer, and R. Jones, “Posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome secondary to eclampsia,” Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, vol. 28, no. 6, pp. 646–647, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  22. P. E. Marik, “Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy,” Postgraduate Medicine, vol. 121, no. 2, pp. 69–76, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  23. C. Mueller-Mang, T. Mang, A. Pirker, K. Klein, C. Prchla, and D. Prayer, “Posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome: do predisposing risk factors make a difference in MRI appearance?” Neuroradiology, vol. 51, no. 6, pp. 373–383, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  24. T. G. Liman, G. Bohner, M. Endres, and E. Siebert, “Discharge status and in-hospital mortality in posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome,” Acta Neurologica Scandinavica, vol. 130, no. 1, pp. 34–39, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  25. A. Sharma, R. T. Whitesell, and K. J. Moran, “Imaging pattern of intracranial hemorrhage in the setting of posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome,” Neuroradiology, vol. 52, no. 10, pp. 855–863, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  26. M. Gokce, E. Dogan, S. Nacitarhan, and G. Demirpolat, “Posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome caused by hypertensive encephalopathy and acute uremia,” Neurocritical Care, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 133–136, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  27. M. Punaro, P. Abou-Jaoude, R. Cimaz, and B. Ranchin, “Unusual neurologic manifestations (II): posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome (PRES) in the context of juvenile systemic lupus erythematosus,” Lupus, vol. 16, no. 8, pp. 576–579, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  28. W. S. Bartynski, J. F. Boardman, Z. R. Zeigler, R. K. Shadduck, and J. Lister, “Posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome in infection, sepsis, and shock,” American Journal of Neuroradiology, vol. 27, no. 10, pp. 2179–2190, 2006. View at: Google Scholar
  29. M. J. Cooney, W. G. Bradley, S. C. Symko, S. T. Patel, and P. K. Groncy, “Hypertensive encephalopathy: complication in children treated for myeloproliferative disorders—report of three cases,” Radiology, vol. 214, no. 3, pp. 711–716, 2000. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  30. H. Pihko, T. Tyni, K. Virkola et al., “Transient ischemic cerebral lesions during induction chemotherapy for acute lymphoblastic leukemia,” The Journal of Pediatrics, vol. 123, no. 5, pp. 718–724, 1993. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  31. R. B. Schwartz, S. M. Bravo, R. A. Klufas et al., “Cyclosporine neurotoxicity and its relationship to hypertensive encephalopathy: CT and MR findings in 16 cases,” American Journal of Roentgenology, vol. 165, no. 3, pp. 627–631, 1995. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  32. R. C. S. Seet and A. A. Rabinstein, “Clinical features and outcomes of posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome following bevacizumab treatment,” Quarterly Journal of Medicine, vol. 105, no. 1, pp. 69–75, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  33. R. Wong, G. Z. Beguelin, M. De Lima et al., “Tacrolimus-associated posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome after allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplantation,” British Journal of Haematology, vol. 122, no. 1, pp. 128–134, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  34. M. Canney, D. Kelly, and M. Clarkson, “Posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome in end-stage kidney disease: not strictly posterior or reversible,” American Journal of Nephrology, vol. 41, no. 3, pp. 177–182, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  35. B. R. Graham and G. B. Pylypchuk, “Posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome in an adult patient undergoing peritoneal dialysis: a case report and literature review,” BMC Nephrology, vol. 15, no. 1, article 10, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  36. A. Ogawa, H. Sugiyama, K. Nakayama, H. Morinaga, S. Akagi, and H. Makino, “Eversible posterior leukoencephalopathy syndrome in a young adult patient receiving peritoneal dialysis,” Peritoneal Dialysis International, vol. 32, no. 6, pp. 587–589, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  37. M. Kitamura, A. Furusu, M. Hirose et al., “A case of reversible posterior leukoencephalopathy syndrome in a patient on peritoneal dialysis,” Clinical and Experimental Nephrology, vol. 14, no. 6, pp. 633–636, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  38. A. Marra, M. Vargas, P. Striano, L. Del Guercio, P. Buonanno, and G. Servillo, “Posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome: the endothelial hypotheses,” Medical Hypotheses, vol. 82, no. 5, pp. 619–622, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  39. S. O. Casey, R. C. Sampaio, E. Michel, and C. L. Truwit, “Posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome: utility of fluid-attenuated inversion recovery MR imaging in the detection of cortical and subcortical lesions,” American Journal of Neuroradiology, vol. 21, no. 7, pp. 1199–1206, 2000. View at: Google Scholar
  40. G. Leroux, J. Sellam, N. Costedoat-Chalumeau et al., “Posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome during systemic lupus erythematosus: Four new cases and review of the literature,” Lupus, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 139–147, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  41. M. D. Magnano, T. M. Bush, I. Herrera, and R. D. Altman, “Reversible posterior leukoencephalopathy in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus,” Seminars in Arthritis and Rheumatism, vol. 35, no. 6, pp. 396–402, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  42. S. M. Jung, S.-J. Moon, S.-K. Kwok et al., “Posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome in Korean patients with systemic lupus erythematosus: risk factors and clinical outcome,” Lupus, vol. 22, no. 9, pp. 885–891, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  43. W. S. Bartynski and J. F. Boardman, “Distinct imaging patterns and lesion distribution in posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome,” American Journal of Neuroradiology, vol. 28, no. 7, pp. 1320–1327, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  44. A. M. McKinney, B. D. Jagadeesan, and C. L. Truwit, “Central-variant posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome: brainstem or basal ganglia involvement lacking cortical or subcortical cerebral edema,” American Journal of Roentgenology, vol. 201, no. 3, pp. 631–638, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  45. M. P. Madaio, “Renal biopsy,” Kidney International, vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 529–543, 1990. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  46. J. Rathbone, E. Kaltenthaler, A. Richards, P. Tappenden, A. Bessey, and A. Cantrell, “A systematic review of eculizumab for atypical haemolytic uraemic syndrome (aHUS),” BMJ Open, vol. 3, no. 11, article no. e003573, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  47. C. M. Legendre, C. Licht, P. Muus et al., “Terminal complement inhibitor eculizumab in atypical hemolytic-uremic syndrome,” The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 368, no. 23, pp. 2169–2181, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  48. D. A. Calhoun and S. Oparil, “Treatment of hypertensive crisis,” The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 323, no. 17, pp. 1177–1183, 1990. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  49. M. F. Piepoli, A. W. Hoes, S. Agewall et al., “European Guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice: The Sixth Joint Task Force of the European Society of Cardiology and Other Societies on Cardiovascular Disease Prevention in Clinical Practice (constituted by representatives of 10 societies and by invited experts): developed with the special contribution of the European Association for Cardiovascular Prevention Rehabilitation (EACPR),” European Journal of Preventive Cardiology, vol. 23, no. 11, 2016. View at: Google Scholar
  50. E. Grossman, A. N. Ironi, and F. H. Messerli, “Comparative tolerability profile of hypertensive crisis treatments,” Drug Safety, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 99–122, 1998. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  51. F. Peacock, A. Amin, C. B. Granger et al., “Hypertensive heart failure: patient characteristics, treatment, and outcomes,” The American Journal of Emergency Medicine, vol. 29, no. 8, pp. 855–862, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  52. Y.-X. Zhang, J.-R. Liu, M.-P. Ding et al., “Reversible posterior encephalopathy syndrome in systemic lupus erythematosus and lupus nephritis,” Internal Medicine, vol. 47, no. 9, pp. 867–875, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  53. C. Roth and A. Ferbert, “Posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome: long-term follow-up,” Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry, vol. 81, no. 7, pp. 773–777, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  54. S.-N. Moon, S. J. Jeon, S. S. Choi et al., “Can clinical and MRI findings predict the prognosis of variant and classical type of posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome (PRES)?” Acta Radiologica, vol. 54, no. 10, pp. 1182–1190, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  55. H. F. Keyserling and J. M. Provenzale, “Atypical imaging findings in a near-fatal case of posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome in a child,” American Journal of Roentgenology, vol. 188, no. 1, pp. 219–221, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  56. A. J. Grossbach, T. J. Abel, B. Hodis, S. N. Wassef, and J. D. W. Greenlee, “Hypertensive posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome causing posterior fossa edema and hydrocephalus,” Journal of Clinical Neuroscience, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 207–211, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  57. S. Y. Lee, S. K. Dinesh, and J. Thomas, “Hypertension-induced reversible posterior leukoencephalopathy syndrome causing obstructive hydrocephalus,” Journal of Clinical Neuroscience, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 457–459, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  58. J. M. Sweany, W. S. Bartynski, and J. F. Boardman, “‘Recurrent’ posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome: report of 3 cases—PRES can strike twice!,” Journal of Computer Assisted Tomography, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 148–156, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  59. R. Li, P. Mitchell, R. Dowling, and B. Yan, “Is hypertension predictive of clinical recurrence in posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome?” Journal of Clinical Neuroscience, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 248–252, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  60. N. J. Daniel, C. L. Hernandez, and R. A. Walker, “Recurrent posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome in a pediatric patient with end-stage renal disease,” Journal of Emergency Medicine, vol. 46, no. 2, pp. e39–e42, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  61. T. Ergün, H. Lakadamyali, and A. Yilmaz, “Recurrent posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome in a hypertensive patient with end-stage renal disease,” Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 182–185, 2008. View at: Google Scholar

Copyright © 2016 Hector Alvarado Verduzco and Anjali Acharya. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

3043 Views | 544 Downloads | 0 Citations
 PDF  Download Citation  Citation
 Download other formatsMore
 Order printed copiesOrder

We are committed to sharing findings related to COVID-19 as quickly and safely as possible. Any author submitting a COVID-19 paper should notify us at help@hindawi.com to ensure their research is fast-tracked and made available on a preprint server as soon as possible. We will be providing unlimited waivers of publication charges for accepted articles related to COVID-19. Sign up here as a reviewer to help fast-track new submissions.