Another question from OUWB

Hi Dr. Topf 

First of all, apologies for sending this via email but I do not have a Twitter account (I know, its the 21st century, who doesn’t?). 

I had a quick question regarding a practice problem I was doing. Rather than summarize the question for you, I included a screenshot so that you have the primary source with the explanation provided. Below, I also included my explanation for my reasoning for choosing that option. Basically, I am confused as to why the bicarb would be decreased in this scenario.

So the stem describes acute trauma. Specifically crush injuries, so you should be thinking rhabdomyolysis where the body gets turned inside out. In my very first lecture we talked about the intracellular atmosphere versus the extracellular atmosphere:

So expect increased potassium and phosphorus.
The vital signs show a patient with circulatory insufficiency, i.e. shock. There are some initial labs drawn from the blood and urine right before resuscitation is initiated. The urine shows an osmolality of 800 mmol/kg H2O (highly concentrated, indicating a lot of ADH activity) and a urine sodium of 5 mEq/L (very low, indicating increased activity of the renin angiotensin aldosterone system).
The question then asks you to predict the serum labs. Cool question. The best testing strategy here is to cross off ones that make no sense. Here are the foils:
BUN. This should be elevated as the patient moves to a pre-renal physiology. This leads to an increased filtration fraction to maintain GFR in the face of decreased renal plasma flow. This causes an increase in the osmolality in the efferent arteriole and vasa recta. this increases osmotic reabsorption of fluid from the proximal tubule. BUN flows passively with the fluid, decreasing renal urea clearance and increasing serum BUN. So D is wrong. E is wrong.
Potassium (K+) ions. All the choices show that it rises as the rhabdomyolysis from the crush injury releases loads of intracellular potassium. No answers are eliminated here.
Sodium (Na+) ions. We have a mishmash of choices here. This is difficult to predict. The increased ADH released due to shock would tend to lower the sodium. Increased aldosterone and renin would tend to increase the sodium. Since both are happening together I would expect them to balance each other out resulting in no change in sodium concentration. This is especially true since the stem specifically says there has not been much urine output I would go with D, for no change in sodium concentration. NOTE: About activation of the RAAS as a cause of hypernatremia. Hypernatremia is commonly listed as a symptom of Cushing syndrome and hyperaldosteronism so it is possible to have hypernatremia from (at least the pathological) activation of the renin angiotensin aldosterone system) but this is very unusual as increased in sodium concentration stimulates thirst which dilutes the sodium back to normal.
THIS COLUMN IS MESSED UP. THIS IS AN ERROR BY THE QUESTION AUTHOR.
Hydrogen (H+) ions. All the choices show that it rises. In shock we expect an increase in hydrogen ions as patients move to anaerobic metabolism due to inadequate perfusion (the functional definition of shock). No answers are eliminated here.
 
Bicarbonate (HCO3-) ions. Bicarbonate is the primary buffer in the body. Increases in hydrogen ions will be buffered by bicarbonate and bicarbonate will be consumed.
So the right answer is bicarbonate will be decreased. This eliminates answer A.
This leaves us with B or C and the question hangs on what the sodium will do and the reality is the change in sodium is unknowable. Shit question. Sorry.
Here is what Kaplan claims to be true:
The forth bullet point is the one where the question fails. It is true that there is accumulation of plasma electrolytes in acute kidney injury. The problem is that these are electrolytes are measured as concentrations and there is also an accumulation of water (which is normally excreted by the kidney). This means that the effect on concentration is variable. Some, like hydrogen and potassium, reliably increase in AKI, but sodium is often decreased in AKI. Maybe the question writers were looking at an unconventional way measuring ions in the the plasma (as total amount rather than concentration).
The line in the answer that pre-renal azotemia is associated with hypernatremia is just wrong. You will encounter numerous patients with pre-renal disease that will have simultaneous hyponatremia. It is impossible to predict the serum sodium concentration from the volume status. This question reinforces the worst instincts of med students when it comes to predicting serum sodium. As I emphasized in the lecture, volume regulation and osmoregulation have two different regulatory systems and, though there is some cross talk, they are largely independent from each other.
The last paragraph tries to make the case that hyponatremia is more common in ATN while hypernatremia predominates in pre-azotemia. This is total fiction and does not exist. Though there can be more urinary sodium in ATN, if the patient is oliguric, it doesn’t matter how high the urine sodium concentration is, if the urine volume volume is close to zero there will not be much urinary sodium excretion.
Distinguishing between pre-renal azotemia and ATN is a constant problem in nephrology. Trust me you can’t make the determination by looking at the serum sodium. It aint that easy.
This question writer should never write another question about sodium.

 I posted this to twitter. The subsequent discussion was pretty interesting:

Kaplan Blows it on Hypernatremia and AKI

Medical student questions about nephrology

I have the honor of teaching at Oakland University William Beaumont School of Medicine. I teach sodium and water and acid-base to the second year medical students. After the lectures there is a steady stream of questions that start to fill my in-box. I answer the e-mail but I also post the questions and answers on PBFluids. Here is a directory to this year’s crop of Q&A.

Sodium concentration versus sodium content. With a second question on pseudohyponatremia vs false hyponatremia vs factitious hyponatremia

Macula densa and TG feedback. With a second question on whether SIADH is really euvolemic or just mostly euvolemic.

Breaking down an acid-base question.

More on euvolemic hyponatremia and how does this affect uric acid.

Urine chloride in non-anion gap metabolic acidosis, where does it come from?

Starling forces and GFR. With additional Q&A on edema, and metabolic acidosis and ammonia-genesis.

The Fluid Electrolyte and Acid Base Companion

After Medical School Sarah Faubel and I set out to explain sodium, potassium and acid-base in a programmed text. Four years later, in late 1999 we finished this journey. The result was The Fluid, Electrolyte and Acid Base Companion.

Get it right here, for free (PDF, 29 mb):

If you would prefer a zip file with each chapter in individual PDF files, click here.

5 stars on Amazon

Highly reviewed by Beaver Medic

And by Mark Yoffe.

Dropbox problems

A while ago Dropbox changed how they handled public links. Then they announced that old links with the previous public folder system would be unsupported. I have no idea how many or where these links are littered through out PBFluids, but I suspect as of September 1, there will be a lot of them.

Today I received this tweet.

@kidney_boy Hi Dr Topf, I wanted to send med students your book, link says ‘File Not Found’; any advice? – https://t.co/hQ3nOGVRo6

— Paul Adams (@MSUPaul) September 7, 2017

So this bug struck the prized link on the whole damn blog. Annoying. Blogger is the only platform that doesn’t host files and forces you to store them elsewhere. This is the root cause of the problem. WordPress and SquareSpace allow you to host your files on their servers so you wouldn’t run into this problem reconnecting two services.

That’s like strike seven against Blogger. I’ve got to get out of this burning pile.

OUWB Starling forces question


I was hoping I could ask you a few questions. I’m finding there is a lottttt of contradictory information.

  1. According to starling forces, decreased plasma oncotic pressure should increase GFR, but according to nephrotic syndrome, decreased albumin will cause edema and overall decrease GFR. Which one should I believe? 
  2. In general, it’s said that AT2 at low levels dilates the afferent arteriole to increase GFR, but at high level it constricts both efferent and afferent to decrease GFR. However, the SNS, which stimulates renin, constricts all arterioles in the body as well as activates the RAAS system. How does that work? Is the SNS more immediate until the aldosterone system is ready to say okay go ahead and dilate the afferent I’m ready to take up the water anyway? 
  3. This is a very basic question but sometimes I have moments of self doubt and this is one of them: So we always say edema is fluid buildup in ISF due to increased hydrostatic or decreased oncotic pressure (like nephritic syndrome hypoalbumineia) right? So why does fluid build up in ISF as opposed to go inside the cell where I guess technically there is more stuff to pull it in? 
  4. How does K suppress ammonia genesis? 

Thank you very much!

Let’s take these one by one,

NUMBER ONE
Nephrotic syndrome and GFR. Don’t connect those neurons. Proteinuria does not cause an immediate and hemodynamic change in GFR that is clinically meaningful. Yes, you are right that lower oncotic pressure should increase GFR, but those increases in GFR will be trimmed by tubuloglomerular feedback so that in the end there is not a meaningful change in GFR. Likewise the nephrotic syndrome will cause fluid to leak from the blood vessels decreasing effective circulating volume lowering renal plasma flow. However, once again these changes in volume are small enough that the kidney easily compensates with changes in AT2, PGE, filtration fraction, etc so that GFR remains stable.

Over a long time, proteinuria causes chronic kidney disease and decreases renal function, but not by the mechanisms you described.

Of note the model you are talking about with nephrotic syndrome causing fluid to leave the blood vessels and that resulting in decreased perfusion of the kidney is a model called underfill hypothesis of edema in nephrotic syndrome. Most nephrologists now ascribe by the overfill hypothesis which states that the primary abnormality is not loss of fluid from the capillaries from the decreased albumin, but increased sodium absorption by the diseased kidney. This results in volume overload and that causes the edema.
NUMBER TWO
As I understand it, angiotensin is only a vasoconstrictor. The proximal tubule is dilated by prostaglandin E. In volume depletion there is release of renin which activates angiotensin 2 (with help of angiotensin converting enzyme). Angiotensin 2 vasoconstricts both the afferent arteriole and efferent arteriole. But since the afferent arteriole is so much bigger to begin with, after the angiotensin 2 induced vasoconstriction the resistance in the afferent arteriole is less than the resistance in the efferent arteriole, this serves to increase the intraglomerular pressure, forcing more plasma through the glomerular slit membranes and increasing the filtration fraction and maintaining GFR in the face of volume depletion.
And yes the SNS is more immediate and the renin angiotensin aldosterone system is a bit slower.
NUMBER THREE
Where fluid builds up depends on what is being altered. In nephrotic syndrome, the (underfill) theory states (I’m an overfill believer) that decreased plasma albumin lowers the oncotic pressure drawing fluid from the interstium back into the capillaries at the venous end. This means more of the fluid remains in the interstium leading to edema. The oncotic agent of note here is albumin which determines the flux of fluid between the interstitial and plasma compartment.
In order to shift fluid between the intracellular and extracellular compartments you would need to change sodium and potassium which are the chief osmotically active particles of interest between those two compartments.
NUMBER FOUR
Hyperkalemia causes potassium to shift into the cells. To maintain electroneutrality hydrogen leaves the cell. One cation in, one cation out. The loss of hydrogen ions makes the cell alkalotic. This rise in pH tricks the proximal tubule cell into believing the entire body is suffering from metabolic alkalosis and since ammonia generation is used to increase hydrogen excretion, and correct metabolic acidosis, metabolic alkalosis shuts down ammonia generation.

Great article on Visual Abstracts

Timmothy Aungst is a pharmacist who has been writing about the intersection of technology and healthcare for years. I first encountered him when he was on the handheld health applications beat for iMedicalApps. We met in person at the Boston Med 2.0 in 2012.

He recently wrote an insightful and in-depth essay on Visual Abstracts. Unique from other articles he went through the process of creating his own visual abstract in the article. The whole thing works quite well.

Here is his #VisualAbstract. Outstanding first effort.

He interviewed me for the article and included my CANVAS Visual Abstract. He asked me for my perspective on the future of visual abstracts and I provided an uncharacteristically cynical quote. We’ll see how prescient this turns out to be:

❝ We are going to go through a rough stage where enthusiasm for visual abstracts outstrips technical ability or understanding of what the goals of the abstract are. You will get journals asking for authors to supply them and they will have no idea what they are doing or what is really being asked for, so they will provide poor facsimiles of visual abstracts. This really has the potential to slow down the entire movement. ❞

The New Visual Abstract Editorial Team at CJASN

A year ago I had not even heard of a visual abstract.

Today I’m part of the visual abstract editorial team for CJASN.

I’m proud that nephrology, represented by CJASN, AJKD and JASN, has moved swiftly to adopt this new medium.

The team is working collaboratively and each of us is signing off on all of the designs so we can continue with #DesignThinking without breaking confidentiality. I’m really proud of the work we have done so far:

higher quality export pic.twitter.com/uNIBmEAn7c

— Joel Topf, MD FACP (@kidney_boy) July 14, 2017

Pre-ESRD Depression and Post-ESRD Mortality in Patients with Advanced CKD Transitioning to Dialysis @kamyarkalantarz https://t.co/z4wYW99SEb pic.twitter.com/46J4acS3sa

— CJASN (@CJASN) July 5, 2017

Initiation of Sevelamer and Mortality among Hemodialysis Patients Treated with Calcium-Based Phosphate Binders https://t.co/6m1JCKrqdS pic.twitter.com/Z3PiWJ0NqU

— Hector Madariaga, MD (@HecmagsMD) July 20, 2017

Why you should donate to the Multiple Myeloma Research Foundation

One thing that bothers me are disease organizations that use the fear of the disease to raise money to treat the well. This happens when breast cancer organizations raise money to “raise awareness.” You know what? No one with breast cancer needs their awareness raised. Similar to this but more subtle is raising money to promote and pay for screening. Again this is using the fear of the disease to treat people who do not have the disease. to treat people more like the board members and employees of a charity that likely do not have the disease.

If I’m going to work for a disease charity, I want to work with a charity that helps people with the disease. This is true in my work for the NKF of Michigan (though I have noted a recent, and troubling trend away from this core mission).

When I looked into the Multiple Myeloma Research Foundation (MMRF), the benefactor of my current fund raising push for my trip to Everest Basecamp, one of the facts that stood out was the claim that the MMRF had been instrumental in bringing nine drugs to market for the treatment of multiple myeloma.

Nine.

I read this and I thought “bullshit!” That just too much. A charity would be delighted and lucky to have just one drug come to market in a decade. To have 9 hits in 20 years begs credulity.

Since that initial skepticism I have done some research, talked to scientists, and I am a believer.

The MMRF is an amazing organization that is doing charity and medical research right and deserves your dollars. Let’s reward a charity for saving lives and making a real difference rather than just getting football players to wear pink gloves for a month.

The origin story of MMRF is remarkable. Kathy Giutsi, at age 37, was a pharma executive on the fast track up the corporate latter. Then she was diagnosed with multiple myeloma. She made some pretty dramatic changes in her life (including going through IVF to have another baby!) and started the MMRF.

As a patient it isn’t surprising that Giutsi was focused on novel treatments and one of the first treatments she funded was Velcade. A drug that turned out to be particularly effective for her variety of myeloma. She was instrumental in funding the discovery and approval of the treatment for her own disease. It sounds like a Hollywood script. The MMRF was also instrumental in developing Revlimid the other breakthrough myeloma drug of the last twenty years.

I spoke with a myeloma scientist and he described how MMRF helps him. The MMRF acts as an interface between commercial pharma companies that have promising new drugs and myeloma doctors that have patients. When this scientist works with the MMRF he is able to write the protocol and design the trial. When he works with drug companies outside of the MMRF, he follows the protocol provided by industry. Talking to him it became clear that the MMRF valued independent, researcher-driven studies looking for the Truth rather than drug company trials that looked for FDA approval.

Another tenet of the MMRF is sharing research advances the field. While a lot of pharma research never goes beyond the corporate firewall, research done with MMRF money is shared widely and timely.

This is how you move science: empower individual scientists motivated by truth not profits. Share the discoveries quickly. Lubricate the wheels with money and social connections. The MMRF does it all because it is motivated to find a cure, not promote its own name, screen the healthy, or spread disease awareness.

Here is an article on the MMRF from the New Yorker in 2008.

2011 article on MMRF by Matthew Harper.

Join me in supporting the MMRF by donating here. All of the money goes to research, none of it goes to support my Nepalese Trek to Everest Basecamp.