I find using LLMs is a bit like skipping stones on a lake

I had a patient’s potassium pop from 3.1 to 5.1. It struck a half-remembered dream of a mentor teaching me that the most common cause of hyperkalemia was the treatment of hypokalemia. It is one of those internship myths that are recited mostly just to scare caution into over eager interns. So I asked Bluesky if anyone knew about this.

I then immediately, I went to Chat GPT4o and asked the same question. I hit the right domain with a correctly-worded prompt and the rock skipped clear across the lake.

Looking at my choices, I went with the middle one, because it had a DOI and I don’t have a subscription to UpToDate.

And being from 1998 made it contemporary with the pearl of wisdom in question.

The NEJM review of Hypokalemia by G. John Gennari was part of a review series on Fluids and Electrolytes the NEJM ran around the turn of the century. They were foundational articles for me as a fellow from 2001-2003. And on page 6 of an 8 page review of hypokalemia he drops this bomb.

Principles of Potassium Replacement
Potassium replacement is the cornerstone of therapy for hypokalemia. Unfortunately, supplemental potassium administration is also the most common cause of severe hyperkalemia in patients who are hospitalized,53 and this risk must be kept in mind when one is initiating treatment. The risk is greatest with the administration of intravenous potassium, which should be avoided if possible. When potassium is given intravenously, the rate should be no more than 20 mmol per hour, and the patient’s cardiac rhythm should be monitored. Oral potassium is safer, because potassium enters the circulation more slowly.

Reference 53 is a study that G. John Gennari published in 1987.

In that study he combed the lab computer to find every case of hyperkalemia over 5.9 in a year. He found 300 and examined every case. Forty-eight of them were associated with new medications. Here was his list of meds that could cause hyperkalemia

Notice he doesn’t include ACEi as a group. He uses group names for beta-blockers and potassium sparing diuretics. But he lists captopril as a single agent because there were no other ACEi. This is an old study.

Of those 300, 172 had sustained hyperkalemia. He found 43 to have a single etiology of hyperkalemia (Group 1). And of those 43, potassium chloride was the sole etiology in 29 patients. Renal insufficiency was right behind at 24, followed by digoxin at 21. Did I mention this was an old study?

The whole study sounds pretty flimsy and polluted with biases. It stinks of post hoc choices and arbitrary rationalizations. Research has become much more rigorous in the last 40 years.

I don’t find this data to be cempelling but I’m also sure this was the source of the myth in question. And Chat GPT4o was instrumental in finding it and finding it fast.

That said the discussion on Bluesky was absolutely delightful. Follow the original post to see the rich conversation that bubbled up.

Post script: I do not believe that the most common cause of hyperkalemia is the treatment of hypokalemia. I think we live in a world with so much angiotensin and aldosterone inhibition that mistreatment of hypokalemia is a tiny blip on the radar.

Post-Post Script: the first reference, the review from 2017 in the NEJM by Kamel and Haperin, It doesn’t exist. The computer is pulling their book from 2016.

Nephron, c’mon do something

I spend a lot of time talking about how incredible the kidney is but then sometimes you see kidneys that just don’t do anything. I was in the hospital and we had a patient develop acute on chronic kidney disease. Following a few days of anuria they started to make urine so we checked urine creatinine to see how well the kidney was recovering.

Not good, Bob.

The patient had among the lowest urine creatinines I had ever seen. Compare the urine creatinine of 14 to the serum creatinine of 10 and you see the laziest nephron ever. It is barely altering the composition of the urine at all.

The patient also had the highly unusual situation with urine Na greater than serum Na. I think I have only ever seen that in cases of severe hyponatremia due to SIADH.

This patient had a fractional excretion of Na of 70%. Amazing. Normally the kidney reabsorbs 99% of the filtered sodium, here 70% of the filtered sodium just flies by.

This helped our discussions on the patient’s renal prognosis. The urine they were making was a useless gasp of a dying organ.

Rest in peace ASN Innovations in Education Award

So I just pushed out the latest episode of Channel Your Enthusiasm. This one was recorded in November of 2022. (Yes, I am a little behind on the editing, but I have a new workflow and its name is Simon Topf. Things are going better.) During the recording Josh mentioned that we had just won the ASN Innovations in Education Award and Melanie pipes in we won the 2022 version of the contest because even then we knew that it was going to be awhile before the episode was published and we all assumed that there would be other, subsequent winners.

Nope

2022 was the last year of the ASN Innovations in Education Award.

The website says that they are skipping 2023 and to check back in 2024

oof

I asked about the contest on ASN Communities and got the following reply:

The Channelers had a discussion about the award, which you can hear here

The audio is from the podcast recording, most of which ended up being cut from the episode. The images are from our video application for the award. You can see that video with the original audio, here. In the video we discuss how the winners were announced. Edgar took a video which i now on You tube. Take a look:

Awards given by professional societies is one of the ways that an organization can demonstrates its values. And the ASN Innovations in Education Award told the world that nephrology valued education and educators. Unfortunately, we live in a world where promotion and tenure committees undervalue the work that goes into educational initiatives. During my most recent tangle with P&T they expressly said that when outlining what you do for the medical school, to not include teaching, as that is just table stakes and not that important. The ASN education award provided a bit of incentive to pursue big audacious educational projects.

Some of the discussion was about how slipshod the award recognition was in 2022. This was a change from previous years and we couldn’t figure out why. Now it is apparent that the organization had already walked away from Innovation Award.

This is a disappointment. I am sorry to see it go away.

Bluesky Social Media: Workarounds and Tips

I have essentially moved all of my social media activity to Bluesky. This has had some downstream effects.

Gifs

For example you cannot upload your own animated gifs. So this cool animated gif:

Gets dumbed down to a static image

To work around this I have been exporting slides as short movies and uploading them to my YouTube channel and then embedding them into a Bluesky post like this

and this:

I like this better because audio!

Bookmarks

Bluesky does not have bookmarks. The best work around is to reply to a post with an emoji of your choice. Many people use  📌. Then when you want to look at your book marks, just go to the search panel and enter “from:me 📌” Consider bookmarking the results so you can get back there quickly.

There is no reason you need to use the push pins, and you can use multiple emoji to get organize you bookmarks. If you want to look at other people’s bookmarks replace “me” with their username. Here are Swap’s pins: from:hswapnil.bsky.social 📌

Search

This page with search tips for Bluesky is useful.

Import

I imported my posts from Twitter into Bluesky using BluueArk.app. It worked great. A lot of my posts did not dome, but a lot did and it makes my Bluesky profile feel more fleshed out.

The imported tweets came in to bluesky recently but they are still ordered chronologically with a date created tag. So this post from 2018 was imported just a few weeks ago.

So this has resulted in a few of people replying to years old tweets which is simultaneously confusing and delightful.

What tips do you have for using Bluesky?

ApEx Pathshala 2024

I was invited to speak at ApEx Pathshala this year and had a ball with the assignment. Conference organizer, Viswanath “Vish” Billa came up with the prompt “A numerical crime scene: When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable…must be the truth.” He gave Roger Rodby and I, a three-hour-block to put together the edutainment we could come up with.

I leaned into “whatever remains, however improbable must be the truth” and did all three of my cases on pseudo-XXX-emias:

  • Pseudohyponatremia
  • Pseudohyperkalemia (5 different flavors)
  • Pseudohypobicarbonatemia

Roger went with a case of metabolic alkalosis from an ACTH producing tumor and a case of hypophosphatemic rickets. He had a third case of exercise induced hyponatremia that we didn’t get to.

Roger and I decided to ham it up and go full victorian detective. I had Chat GPT make us a victorian detective doctor icon that we used to brand the slides:

Here are a few of my slides

Here is a movie I made of a beat about the correct fluid prescription in acute pancreatitis

Then to full lean into the Victorian Doctor Detective theme we added costumes.

My slides are available, as always, at Sorry-My-Slides-Aren’t Done.

Thanks to Vish and the rest of ApEx for putting on a world-class nephrology conference.

Its time for a new paradigm in hyponatremia

The latest salvo in the hyponatremia wars takes off where Seethapathy left us (NEJM Evidence | NephJC). Last week, Juan Carlos Ayus published his latest study (JAMA Internal Medicine) on hyponatremia, a meta analysis of patient outcomes in the management of hyponatremia.

If you are not aware of Ayus’ prior hits, you should take a look.

Retrospective data that looks at speed of correction and uses that to look at outcomes has been a staple in hyponatremia research for decades. It is the basis for the current, decades-old, hyponatremia guidelines from the US and Europe. However, until recently the only outcome of interest was osmotic demyelinating syndrome (ODS, and boy is that a loaded term that probably should be re-litigated, see Seethapathy’s grand rounds in Ottawa, YouTube). When looking at ODS, a pattern emerges that slower correction is associated with fewer cases of hyponatremia, however it is unusual to look at a case series and only care about one outcome. If we pull back a bit and look at all the outcomes that matter, things like length of stay and mortality, the situation changes. In Ayus’ meta-analysis, the primary outcome was mortality and just like in Seethapathy, slower correction was associated with increased mortality. Not a great look. And I think the orders of magnitude are important here.

Patients that experience faster correction of sodium consistently have better clinical outcomes in these sorts of analysis. And the rate of ODS is vanishingly low, expecially with the looming specter of death. The focus on ODS makes us ignore what an ominous sign hyponatremia really is. I can’t think of an electrolyte with such a frightening association with mortality.

The obvious weakness with this type of analysis is they do not provide any insight as to why the correction was slow. While we like to think that the slow correctors are populated by patients with bespeckled nephrologists carefully calculating sodium and water prescriptions according to the Edelman formula, but the reality is that the patients with slow correction is populated by people with liver and heart disease that are not easy to fix. And their prolonged length of stay and poor outcomes are driven by these dismal diagnosis.

And what of the rapid correctors? This cohort gets better quickly, not because cowboy nephrologists are slinging 3% saline to rapidly bring the sodium to heal, no, rather these are patients whose body wants a normal sodium and as soon as it is able to reject the excess water it will return the sodium to normal. And this is often despite the best intention of the treatment team. In Sterns’ study on the DDAVP clamp, 25% of patients in the control group (historic controls for their retrospective case series) made more than 1200 ml of urine an hour.

The slow correctors is populated by patients who are so ill that their bodies have rejected sodium and water homeostasis in the name of perfusion. Not a good place to be, hence the bad outcomes. While the fast correctors is populated by people whose physiology remains committed to sodium and water homeostasis. It is not hard to see why disease so severe that it rewrites the laws of homeostasis would have increased rates of devastating outcomes.

More simply the results are confounded.

Does the confounding explain all of the excess mortality?

Is it that far fetched to believe that the low sodium itself could contribute at least a little to the excess mortality seen with hyponatremia? It seems likely that something the body spends so much energy trying to keep regulated would be important and have an effect on outcomes. And given the rarity of CPM/ODS, even a small residual effect would swamp the concern for CPM/ODS because not only is ODS, rarer than we were lead to believe, the outcomes of ODS are not as bad as we were taught.

In Jason George’s study of nearly 1,500 people with sodiums less than 120, they had 9 patients with ODS on imaging. In terms of neurologic outcomes among these 9, “five patients with documented osmotic demyelination had recovery with no neurologic deficits, two patients died from unrelated causes, and two were lost to follow-up.”

When you look at Ayus’ meta-analysis of hyponatremia are you sure there is no residual signal? Because the people promoting ever slower rates of correction to avoid CPM feel that there is nothing on the other side of the balance pan. That slowing the rates of correction will always be justified. That it is okay to prolong hospitalization by any length of time. That we should adopt interventions like DDAVP clamps without any prospective data because the risk of ODS is so important that concern for this complication should drive the therapeutics in hyponatremia.

And while we are adopting DDAVP, we should restrict and avoid tolvaptan, not because it causes ODS, there were no cases in Schrier’s Phase three SALT1 and SALT2 trials, but because it may correct the sodium faster than guidelines suggest. Now we are not even worried about ODS, but rather the purported risk factor for ODS, speed of correction.

We adopted the risk factor rather than the outcome in the case of hypertension. We want to avoid the stroke and CV death, so we treat the blood pressure to a target BP. But the hypertension guys didn’t just look at retrospective data. They went out and did the work to see if treating blood pressure avoided the outcome, and it did. We should demand similar certainty for the treatment of hyponatremia.

We no longer should accept retrospective observational data. The Hyponatremia Intervention Trial (HIT, Protocol and rational for design publication in PubMed) showed that we could do prospective, randomized trials, in the treatment of hyponatremia. The study was not positive, but it was important. Here are my tweets from the Late Breaking and High Impact Clinical Trial Session at Kidney Week where the results were announced. We are still awaiting publication.

It is time to demand this. Hyponatremia is too common for us to trust that the mortality signal is entirely a statistical mirage.

Bluesky versus Twitter: Engagement Fight

Monday night I had my biggest “hit” on Bluesky. I had been tipped about a forthcoming hyponatremia meta-analysis in JAMA Internal Medicine at Kidney Week and so I was primed when it was posted to the JAMA website Monday evening. As soon as I saw it I posted to Bluesky:

(OMG, it is so cool to be able to embed a tweet in a blog post again!

So at the time of this blog post it has 290 likes, 105 retweets, and 41 replies.

The next morning, I saw that my post was gaining steam, so I copy-pasted to Twitter at 9:30 AM. Later that day Swap saw that I posted in both places and declared Bluesky the winner.

But the Bluesky post had a nine hour head start . How does the twitter post look now compared to Bluesky?

The Twitter post has 27 replies compared to 41 on Bluesky. I find replies to be the best form of engagement, Retweets are similar at 105 on Bluesky versus 129 on Twitter, but Twitter’s 603 hearts and 388 bookmarks swamps Bluesky’s 209 hearts.

But it really doesn’t matter. I’m all in on Bluesky. I like the philosophy. I like the aesthetic. And it is where my people are.

Automating Posts: Goodbye Twitter. Hello Bluesky.

When I first started this blog, it automatically sent a tweet when I had a new post. This continued until Musk disabled a number of APIs, including the one that allowed automatic posting.

Now I am disentangling myself from Twitter and embedding myself in Bluesky. Hopefully, this will post there automatically.

Fingers crossed.

Testing 1…2…3…Testing