Things we do for no reason (#TWDFNR ) in AKI

Last week I wrote this tweetorial

I had been thinking about this for a long time.

When you hear #TWDFNR talks about AKI the two things that are usually hammered are:

  1. The uselessness of the FENa and other urinary excretion indices.
  2. The low yield of the kidney ultrasound.

I actually like both of those tests, despite the pundit class dumping on them.

The FENa is vilified because in trials that look at its ability to separate out purely hemodynamic decreases in GFR from acute tubular necrosis it does poorly. This is especially disappointing because all of the board exams and med student level lectures on FENa says this is just what the test is all about. I concede that FENa in isolation is a bad test to determine the etiology of AKI. But as part of the global assessment of the patient, getting a FENa can be incredibly powerful.

Saying the FENa is useless is like testing to see if a blinded physician given only an aucultory exam could diagnose community acquired pneumonia. I think there is a good chance auscultation would fail that hurdle. But that doesn’t mean we should abandon our stethoscopes. The auscultory exam is one of a number of studies we do when assessing a patient who may have pneumonia. It is a valuable part of the global patient assessment.

Similarly, the FENa is part of my global assessment of a patient.

For example, I have a patient with cirrhosis and acute kidney injury. I look at the urine and see a mixture of hyaline casts and granular casts. Now, you need to be careful about granular casts in cirrhosis. As the bilirubin climbs, it can stain innocent hyaline casts to look brown, and they can start to look somewhat like muddy-brown casts. I don’t think that is what is happening on this slide, because I can see simultaneous dirty brown and hyaline casts. Then we checked the urine sodium and it was 50. This is off diuretics. This is remarkably high for a patient with cirrhosis and ascites. But there it is. The urine sodium is high and in agreement with U/A findings. I make a diagnosis of acute tubular necrosis.

Not the patient’s urine, but those are some nice muddy brown casts.

It’s an N of 1, but that’s all we have in clinical medicine, one N of 1 study after another.

The kidney ultrasound story is a much simpler than the FENa story. The argument that kidney ultrasound is of low yield and low cost effectiveness is due to the exrtemely low yield of U/S to find obstruction. In almost every case that you find obstruction, you suspected obstruction, and using it in cases without a clinical suspicion is like Acestes aiming at a non-existent target.

But the thing is, the treatment of obstruction is not dialysis, and if you fail to identify and correct the obstruction, no mixture of IV fluids, avoiding nephrotoxins, and regulating blood pressure will fix the obstruction. That obstruction will lead to renal failure and dialysis. In a world of $60,000 a month maintenance therapies, I refuse to miss even one easily correctable (but otherwise irreversible) cause of kidney failure.

The real #TWDFNR in AKI are:

  • Urinary protein to creatinine ratio
  • Intact PTH

The fallacy of the Protein Creatinine ratio was the subject of the afore mentioned tweetorial.

Some great comments and discussion from the tweetorial:

The problem with PTH in AKI is that it is useless. I see fellows and attendings ordering this and I have no idea what to do with it. Some people try to use the KDIGO PTH guidelines for ESKD. This seems to be totally evidence-less. PTH is an acute phase reactant in AKI. Part of the AKI syndrome is a drop in calcium, and after that PTH rises, just like it is supposed to. I don’t see any reason to suppose this secondary hyperparathyroidism is pathologic. I have seen some people order it to try to distinguish acute from chronic CKD. The reasoning being, that chronic kidney disease would have a high PTH and acute would not. This is not the case both acute and chronic kidney disease can have secondary hyperparathyroidism.

Stop ordering PTH in AKI. Stop checking urinary protein to creatinine ratio and start doing urinalysis and microscopy.

My work is done here…

https://twitter.com/PDX_Tom/status/1102394278049853445

The NSMC internship is back

The Nephrology Social Media Collective Internship (NSMCi) is looking for interns. The NSMCi is a year long social media training program. It is not an introduction to social media, we expect some basic knowledge of how to use a computer, engage in social media, and how to write. What the internship does is provide recurrent opportunities to be public physicians.

You will learn how to creatively and effectively use Twitter to communicate. You will learn how to create visual abstracts. You will get involved in the inner workings of NephMadness. You will become familiar with every aspect of NephJC and produce summaries of articles, curated summaries of chats and even run the @NephJC account for a chat.

But listing the opportunities the the NSMC internship provides, misses the most important part of the internship. Joining the NSMC means joining a community of people that care about the field. You will get to work and learn from a motivated, international cohort of people who want to make nephrology and medicine better by sharing their knowledge and enthusiasm.  This cohort is not just the faculty but also the interns themselves provide a lot of the insight, education and inspiration during the year.

Applications are due by the end of the year. The application is just a couple of questions and a CV. Be thoughtful with your answers. We read every one of them. Don’t think that because you are friends with Edgar Lerma you’ve got an inside line. (One of the first lessons of the internship is that everyone is friends with Edgar.)

We have been doing this for four years and we think the internship works best for nephrology attending and fellows, but we have had success with residents, nurses, PhD candidates, and medical students, but it is harder for them. We all speak fluent potassium. Be prepared.

If you have questions Tweet me up. I’m looking forward to a great year. We have done some rethinking of the curriculum and it is going to be great.

Some great nephrology content on #NephTwitter

This Tweet by Christos has a beautiful truth to it

Juan Carlos is a great contributor to #NephTwitter, but this most recent rant knocked it out of the park.

Twitter and the New England Journal of Medicine

In the last month, the NEJM published two articles with Twitter as a central focus.

First there was “Social Media and Advancement of Women Physicians” featuring Heather Logghe’s #ILookLikeASurgeon and @McSassyMD, @SingleScalpel and @DoctorMeowskis‘s #GirlMedTwitter

https://twitter.com/mcsassymd/status/1019283981106405376

And then in tomorrow’s print edition is former NEJM editor, Lisa Rosenbaum‘s editorial about Esther Choo‘s recent viral hashtag #ShareAStoryInOneTweetTwitter Tailwinds — Little Capsules of Gratitude.

It is amazing to see thought leaders in medicine emerge from #MedTwitter. And it is equally amazing to see the oldest of the old guard, The NEJM, embracing this brave new world.

Tweetorial attention attenuation–updated

My first Tweetorial has turned into my second most popular tweet, only behind:

A tale of two tweets:

Twitter analytics provide a unique opportunity to look deeper than just who saw the original tweet. By checking the analytics of each subsequent tweet in the stream we can see how many people trudged all the way to the end.So how did the hyponatremia tweet stream do? Here are the analytics from the first to the last tweet.The Y-axis is “Impressions.”This is not impressions like Symplur does (used to do?). This is not the tweets multiplied by the number of followers. Twitter is in the unique position to know how many times any particular tweet is delivered to a device. So your cousin who lost her twitter password in 2014 and the sock puppet account that Eugene Gu abandoned in medical school don’t get counted as impressions. The first Tweet had 47,000 impressions. The second had 5,700. That first step is a doozy.From there things were surprisingly stable. Hey Dr V, let’s see a blog post track who reads to the end of the post.More than 3,000 people read pretty much the entire stream. I am quite satisfied. 3000 people is a lot of grand rounds.

 

Update

Some people have wondered about the second drop in participation that occurs at tweet 31.

I think the answer is here:

When you click on the initial tweet, you can see tweets 1-30, but to get the last 5 you need to click on the “5 more replies” link.

The final bump is due to a surge of people tweeting in celebration of completing the tweet stream:

 

How to search Twitter

And this from NephJC by Nimra Sarfaraz.

And the all important advanced search link: https://twitter.com/search-advanced

Rise of the Tweetorial

One of the interesting developments in MedTwitter has been the chained tweet to demonstrate a point. I think the master of this is Professor Darrel Francis.

This one is nicely relevant to this week’s NephJC:

Another famous innovator of the Medical Tweetorial is Vinay Prasad. Vinay smartly collects the first tweet to his Tweetorials in a pinned tweet.

https://twitter.com/vinayprasadmd/status/1007337958846783488?s=21

Another master of the Tweetorial is Tony Breu. He, similarly, collected his Tweetorials in one place.

This one has relevance to nephrology. Brilliant explanation.

Speaking of relevance to nephrology, Swapnil has thrown his hat in the Tweetorial ring

Paul Sufka has joined the party focusing with a focus on rheumatology:

Here is Bryan Vartebedian’s take on this development. His problems with the rise of the tweetorial can be summed as:

  • Poor indexing and search means these tweetorials will not be able to be found later.
  • Using 280 character tweets to convey 500-word ideas is a mismatch between the medium and message. These ideas would be better conveyed in a blog post rather than chopped up into beads of text to be strung together.
  • MedTwitter is a just a small sliver of the medical community and doing tweetorials traps the ideas in this small box.

In his conclusion, Vartabedian hedges a bit, but it is clear he believes in the blog:

I firmly believe that all of us should be poking at these applications to discover their most creative uses. But what any of us think is less relevant than what sticks with the public community of physicians. The market will bear this one out.

I love Sufka’s lessons on ANA. Prasay’s thread is a bold call to action that challenges the medical industrial publishing complex. It’s an important reminder that we are the publishers and no longer live in a permission-based system of launching ideas to the world.

We just need to remember that there’s a big medical world and a whole lot of eyeballs beyond our Twitter space. Let’s put our brilliance in the right place.

The mentor keynote

Matt Sparks gave KidneyCON keynote on Friday night. It was an amazing talk.

Things you don’t see at #KidneyWK

John Arthur asked Matt to talk about his career and how he navigated medicine to become an accomplished scientist, clinician, and educator.  Matt organized his talk around the mentors that guided him. The theme was that the way he made his way forward was by finding the best mentors available and learning as much as he could from them. It started with Wynton Marsalis

Though he went to the University of Arkansas to play trumpet he transitioned to biomedical science and found Dr Jeannine Durdik, an inspiring basic science professor, who taught him the scientific method.

After flirting with a career in basic science he went medical school at the University of Arkansas and matched at Arkansas where also did a chief resident year. The chair of medicine was Dr. Andreoli. I never knew Andreoli, but he sounds like the type of physician they don’t make any more…and you are simultaneously saddened and relieved by that fact. Andreoli was a giant in nephrology and Sparks worked close with him as a resident and closer during his chief year.

Andreoli directed Matt to Duke where he mentored by Tom Coffman. Coffman taught Matt how to write and directed him on his scientific career.

Then Matt talked about going to Mount Desert Island and meeting Nate Hellman. Matt was already an avid reader of the Renal Fellow Network, and Nate invited Matt to contribute. Matt really didn’t get involved until after Nate passed away and this ignited his desire to contribute to the Renal Fellow Network. This is how Matt got involved in and ultimately helped forge what would eventually become our online tribe of nephrologists.

It was fascinating to see the people that mentored Matt, because he is a mentor to so many right now.

Matt seems to know every nephrology fellow in the country and he takes an interest in promoting them and getting them involved. He is a strong advocate for fellows, both in and outside of Duke.

Even though Matt is younger than me, he is one of my important mentors. He has a wisdom that I don’t have and I often go to him with questions. I also trace my success with social media to his reaching out to me back in 2010. He guided me and really transformed my efforts from a solo project to one that recognizes that we can go further and do better by working together. Its a simple lesson but it has been critical to all of the successes we have found in social media.

Matt,

Congratulations on the Keynote.

Congratulations on putting together an amazing conference.

I am honored to be your friend and mentee.

Joel