Why is my diabetic patient complaining of arm pain and localized edema for couple of weeks without an obvious cause?

Aside from the usual suspects associated with a painful extremity (eg, trauma, deep venous thrombosis and soft tissue infections), think of spontaneous diabetic myonecrosis (DMN), also known as diabetic muscle infarction (1-3).

DMN is characterized by abrupt onset of painful swelling of the affected muscle, most often of the lower extremities, but also occasionally upper extremities. DMN occurs in patients with longstanding DM whose blood glucose control has deteriorated over time, often with nephropathy, retinopathy and/or neuropathy (1-3).

Couple of things to remember when considering DMN in your differential of a painful extremity. First, except for localized edema and tenderness over the involved muscle, the exam may be unremarkable. Specifically, there is no erythema or signs of compartment syndrome and fever is absent in the great majority of patients (~90%) (2). Even white blood cell count and creatine kinase (CK) are usually normal. The reason for normal CK at presentation is not clear but CK might have already peaked by the time of patient presentation (3). In contrast, C-reactive protein (CRP) and erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) are usually elevated (>80%) (1).

MRI (without contrast in patients with renal insufficiency) is the imaging of choice with muscle enlargement and edema with hyperintense signal on T2-weighted images and other changes, including perifascial, perimuscular and or subcutaneous edema (1-3). Muscle biopsy is not currently recommended because of its adverse impact on time to symptomatic improvement. Non-surgical therapy, with rest, analgesia and glycemic control is usually recommended (1-3).

 
Though its exact cause is still unclear, atherosclerosis, diabetic microangiopathy, vasculitis with thrombosis and ischemia-reperfusion injury have been posited as potential precipitants for DMN. The role of anti-phospholipid syndrome, particularly in patients with type I DM, is unclear (1,2).

 
Bonus pearl: Did you know that symptoms of DMN may last for weeks with at least one-third of patients having a recurrence in the same muscle or elsewhere (1)?

Liked this post? Download the app on your smart phone and sign up below to catch future pearls right into your inbox, all for free!

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Reference
1. Horton WB, Taylor JS, Ragland TJ, et al. Diabetic muscle infarction: a systematic review. BMJ Open Diabetes Research and Care 2015;3:e000082.
2. Trujillo-Santos AJ. Diabetic muscle infarction. An underdiagnosed complication of long-standing diabetes. Diabetes Care 2003;26:211-15.
3. Diabetes muscle infarction in end-stage renal disease:A scoping review on epidemiology, diagnosis and treatment. World J Nephrol 2018;7:58-64.

Why is my diabetic patient complaining of arm pain and localized edema for couple of weeks without an obvious cause?

Could measurement of urinary albumin-protein ratio be useful in my patient with renal insufficiency and proteinuria?

A spot urine test for determination of albumin-protein ratio (uAPR) may be useful in distinguishing glomerular vs tubulointerstitial source of proteinuria. A low (<0.4) uAPR, defined as urinary albumin to creatinine ratio(uACR)/urinary protein to creatinine ratio (uAPR) is more suggestive of a tubulointerstitial renal disease and less suggestive of glomerular pathology.1-3  

A 2012 study involving simultaneous measurements of urinary albumin and total protein in over 1000 proteinuric patients found a relatively high (0.84) area under curve (AUC) in a receiver operating characteristic curve analysis for uAPR (vs 0.74 for uACR and 0.54 for uPCR) in discriminating between tubular and non-tubular proteinuria pattern on urine protein electrophoresis and immunofixation. An uAPR cut-off of <0.4 was found to be 88% sensitive and 99% specific for the diagnosis of primary tubulointerstitial disorders on renal biopsy.1  

Due to the limitations of this study (including a relatively small subset of patient who had renal biopsy), a related editorial concluded that a low uAPR gives a “reasonable prediction of a tubular electrophoretic proteinuria”, but that it warrants further validation. Nevertheless, uAPR could potentially be useful in patients with moderate proteinuria (>300 mg/day to <3 g/day) who have not had renal biopsy and  where assessment of likelihood of tubulointerstitial vs glomerular source of proteinuria is desired.3 Interestingly, the utility of uAPR in predicting non-glomerular source of hematuria has also been reported.4

Bonus pearl: Did you know that the negatively-charged glomerular capillary wall repels negatively charged albumin thus preventing its filtration (charge-barrier) (5)?  

Liked this post? Download the app on your smart phone, and sign up below to catch future pearls right into your inbox, all for free! Thank you!

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

References

  1. Smith ER, Cai MMX, McMahon LP, et al. The value of simultaneous measurement of urinary albumin and total protein in proteinuric patients. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2012;27:1534-41. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4035283/
  2. Fraser SDS, Roderick PJ, McIntyre NJ, et al. Assessment of proteinuria in patients with chronic kidney disease stage 3: albuminuria and non-albumin proteinuria. PLOS ONE 2014;9:e98261. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4035283/pdf/pone.0098261.pdf
  3. Ellam T, Nahas ME. Urinary albumin to protein ratio: more of the same or making a difference. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2012;27:1293-96. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22362784
  4. Ohisa N, Yoshida K, Matsuki R, et al. A comparison of urinary albumin-total protein ratio to phase-contrast microscopic examination of urine sediment for differentiating glomerular and nonglomerular bleeding. Am J Kidney Dis 2008;52:235-41. https://www.ajkd.org/article/S0272-6386(08)00828-7/pdf
  5. Venkat KK. Proteinuria and microalbuminuria in adults: significance, evaluation, and treatment. S Med J 2004;97:969-79. https://internal.medicine.ufl.edu/files/2012/07/5.18.05.04.-Proteinuria-review.pdf
Could measurement of urinary albumin-protein ratio be useful in my patient with renal insufficiency and proteinuria?

My patient with no known liver disease appears to have bilateral asterixis. What other causes should I consider?

Although originally described in 1949 in patients with liver disease and labelled as “liver flap”, numerous other causes of asterixis exist aside from severe liver disease (1,2). As early as 1950s, asterixis was observed among some patients with heart failure and pulmonary insufficiency but without known significant liver disease (3). Azotemia has also been associated with asterixis.

 
Don’t forget about medication-associated asterixis . Commonly used drugs such as gabapentin, pregabalin, phenytoin, and metoclopramide have been associated with asterixis (1,4) . Even antibiotics such as ceftazidime and high dose trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole may be culprits (1,5). There are many psychiatric drugs including lithium, carbamazepine, clozapine, and valproic acid that have been implicated (1,6) as well. Some reviews have also included hypomagnesemia and hypokalemia on the list of causes of asterixis (1).

 
Although asterixis is essentially a negative myoclonus with episodic loss of electrical activity of muscle and its tone, its exact pathophysiology remains unclear (7). 

 

Bonus Pearl: Did you know that the origin of the word asterixis is An (negative)-iso (equal)-sterixis (solidity) which was shortened by Foley and Adams, its original discoverers, to what we now refer to as “asterixis” (1).

 

References
1. Agarwal R, Baid R. Asterixis. J Postgrad Med 1016;62:115-7. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4944342/ 2. Pal G, Lin MM, Laureno R. Asterixis: a study of 103 patients. Metab Brain Dis; 2014:29:813-24. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11011-014-9514-7
3. Conn HO. Aterixis—Its occurrence in chronic pulmonary disease, with a commentary on its general mechanism. N Engl J Med 1958;259:564-569. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM195809182591203
4. Kim JB, Jung JM, Park MH. Negative myoclonus induced by gabapentin and pregabalin: a case series and systemic literature review. J Neurol Sci 2017;382:36-9. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S096758681830225X
5. Gray DA, Foo D. Reversible myoclonus, asterixis, and tremor associated with high dose trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole: a case report. J Spinal Cord Med 2016; Vol. 39 (1), pp. 115-7. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26111222
6. Nayak R, Pandurangi A, Bhogale G, et al. Aterixis (flapping tremors) as an outcome of complex psychotropic drug interaction. J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci 2012;24: E26-7. https://neuro.psychiatryonline.org/doi/pdf/10.1176/appi.neuropsych.101102667. Ugawa Y, Shimpo T, Mannen T. Physiological analysis of asterixis: silent period locked averaging. J Neurol Neurosurg Psych 1989;52:89-9. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1032663/pdf/jnnpsyc00523-0104.pdf

 

If you liked this pearl, sign up under MENU and receive future pearls straight into your mailbox!

 

My patient with no known liver disease appears to have bilateral asterixis. What other causes should I consider?

My patient with cocaine and alcohol addiction is admitted with repeated convulsions during which he seems totally conscious. What could I be missing?

Consider strychnine poisoning as a cause of recurrent generalized tonic clonic seizures and muscle spasm with clear sensorium either during or following the episode. 1-4 In contrast to the cortical source of most seizures, convulsions due to strychnine poisoning are due to the blocking of the action of spinal and brain-stem inhibitory neurons resulting in overwhelming muscle rigidity, not unlike that seen in tetanus.

Although strychnine was found in various tonics and cathartic agents and was a common cause of accidental death in children under 5 years of age in early 20th century, it is still used in various rodenticides and pesticides.3  Today, it may be used intentionally in suicide attempts as well as an adulterant in street drugs, such as amphetamines, heroin and especially cocaine. 1,3,5

The initial symptoms of strychnine poisoning include nervousness, a hyperalert state, and confusion. These symptoms may be followed by severe muscle rigidity throughout the body often in response to minimal stimuli, such as physical contact, bright lights, noise and medical procedures.3, 6,7  Interestingly, strychnine also has an excitatory action on the medulla and enhances the sensation of touch, smell, hearing and sight.6  The cause of death is usually respiratory arrest due to prolonged muscle spasms, often complicated by rhabdomyolysis and associated renal failure.1

So among the numerous causes of seizures, think of strychnine as another potential cause when there is no concurrent loss of consciousness or the expected postictal state.

Bonus Pearl: Did you know that strychnine may be present in street drugs with a variety of names such as “back breakers”, “homicide”, “red rock opium”, “red stuff” and “spike”? 7

 

Liked this post? Download the app on your smart phone and sign up under MENU to catch future pearls right into your inbox, all for free!

 

References

  1. Wood DM, Webser E, Martinez D, et al. Case report: survival after deliberate strychnine self-poisoning, with toxicokinetic data. Critical Care 2002;6:456-9. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC130147/
  2. Santhosh GJ, Joseph W, Thomas M. Strychnine poisoning. J Assoc Physicians India 2003;51:736. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14621058
  3. Libenson MH, Young JM. Case records of Massachusetts General Hospital. A 16 years boy with an altered mental status and muscle rigidity. N Engl J Med 2001;344:1232-9. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM200104193441608
  4. Smith BA. Strychnine poisoning. J Emerg Med 1990;8: 321-25. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2197324
  5. O’Callaghan WG, Ward M, Lavelle P, et al. Unusual strychnine poisoning and its treatment: report of eight cases. B Med J 1982;285:478. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1499293/
  6. Burn DJ, Tomson CRV, Seviour J, et al. Strychnine poisoning as an unusual cause of convulsions. Postgrad Med J 1989;65:563-64. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2602253
  7. Radosavljevic J, Jeffries WS, Peter JV. Intentional strychnine use and overdose—an entity of the past? Crit Care Resusc 2006;8: 260-61. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16930120

 

My patient with cocaine and alcohol addiction is admitted with repeated convulsions during which he seems totally conscious. What could I be missing?

Should I continue nadolol in my patient with cirrhosis and refractory ascites?

Under certain circumstances, you may need to! Although nonselective beta blockers (NSBBs), such as nadolol and propranolol, have been the cornerstone of medical treatment of portal hypertension in preventing variceal bleeding in patients with cirrhosis for decades, recent reports of their association with worsening survival, increased risk of hepatorenal syndrome and acute kidney injury in patients with refractory ascites or spontaneous bacterial peritonitis [SBP]) 1,2 have added controversy to their routine use in end-stage cirrhosis.

This is because patients with end-stage cirrhosis may be highly dependent on their cardiac output (particularly the heart rate) in maintaining an adequate arterial blood pressure 3-5 and the negative inotropic and chronotropic effects of NSBBs blunt this compensatory mechanism. The result is a drop in the cardiac output that may be particularly significant in the presence of conditions already associated with hypotension, such as sepsis, spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP), or hemorrhage, further increasing the risk of renal hypoperfusion and hepatorenal syndrome.3

Although 2 meta-analysis studies failed to find an association between NSBBs and increased mortality among patients with cirrhosis and ascites, 6,7 serious concerns over the adverse effects of these drugs in at least a subset of patients has not waned.  Some have recommended reducing NSBB dose or discontinuing treatment in patients with refractory ascites or SBP and any of the following parameters: 4

  • Systolic blood pressure <90 mmHg
  • Serum creatinine >1.5 mg/dL
  • Hyponatremia <130 mmol/L

Similar recommendations were made by a 2015 consensus conference on individualizing the care of patients with portal hypertension.

In the absence of randomized-controlled studies, it seems prudent to proceed with more caution when using NSBBs in patients with end-stage cirrhosis and watch closely for any signs of hypotension or renal function deterioration.

References

  1. Serste T, Njimi H, Degre D, et al. The use of beta-lackers is associated with the occurrence of acute kidney injury in severe hepatitis. Liver In 2015;35:1974-82. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25611961
  2. Mandorfer M, Bota S, Schwabl P, et al. Nonselective beta blockers increase risk of hepatorenal syndrome and death in patients with cirrhosis and spontaneous bacterial peritonitis. Gastroenterol 2014;146:1680-90. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016508514003060?via%3Dihub
  3. Garcia-Tsao G. The use of nonselective beta blockers for treatment of portal hypertension. Gastroenterol Hepatol 2017;13: 617-19. http://www.gastroenterologyandhepatology.net/archives/october-2017/the-use-of-nonselective-beta-blockers-for-treatment-of-portal-hypertension/
  4. Reiberger T, Mandorfer M. Beta adrenergic blockade and decompensated cirrhosis. J Hepatol 2017;66: 849-59. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27864004
  5. Giannelli V, Lattanzi, Thalheimer U, et al. Beta-blockers in liver cirrhosis. Ann Gastroenterol 2014;27:20-26. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24714633
  6. Facciorusso A, Roy S, Livadas S, et al. Nonselective beta-blockers do not affect survival in cirrhotic patients with ascites. Digest Dis Sci 2018;63:1737-46. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10620-018-5092-6
  7. Njei B, McCarty TR, Garcia-Tsao G. Beta-blockers in patients with cirrhosis and ascites: type of betablocker matters. Gut 206;65:1393-4. https://gut.bmj.com/content/gutjnl/65/8/1393.full.pdf
  8. De Franchis R. Expanding consensus in portal hypertension. Report of the Baveno VI Consensus Workshop: stratifying risk and individualizing care for portal hypertension.  J Hepatol 2015;63:743-52.  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26047908  

If you like this post, sign up under MENU and get future pearls straight into your mailbox! 

Should I continue nadolol in my patient with cirrhosis and refractory ascites?

Should I avoid intravenous furosemide for management of ascites in my patient with cirrhosis?

Generally, yes! IV furosemide for treatment of ascites in patients with cirrhosis should be avoided for couple of reasons.

First, in contrast to patients with congestive heart failure in whom the absorption of oral furosemide may be impaired due to bowel wall edema, patients with cirrhosis and ascites appear to absorb oral furosemide efficiently, similarly to that of control patients.1   Another reason for avoiding IV furosemide in this setting is the possibility of a significant drop in the GFR with its attendant rise in BUN and serum creatinine, clinically resembling a picture of hepatorenal syndrome.2

Although the mechanism of the adverse effect of IV furosemide on the renal function of patients with cirrhosis is not totally clear, furosemide-induced vasoconstriction, not intrasvascular volume depletion due to sodium wasting, seems to play an important role.3

Nevertheless, certain situations may necessitate the use of IV furosemide in patients with cirrhosis and ascites, such as in single doses to help identify patients who will be responsive to diuretics, and in patients in need of prompt diuresis such as those with concurrent pulmonary edema. In a somewhat reassuring study, a single dose of 80 mg IV furosemide reliably identified cirrhotic patients with ascites responsive to diuretics, without a significant risk of deteriorating renal function.3

Liked this post? Download the app on your smart phone and sign up below to catch future pearls right into your inbox, all for free!

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

References

  1. Sawhney VK, Gregory PB, Swezey SE, et al. Furosemide disposition in cirrhotic patients. Gastroenterology 1981; 81: 1012-16. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7286579
  2. Daskalopoulos G, Laffi G, Morgan T, et al. Immediate effects of furosemide on renal hemodynamics in chronic liver disease with ascites. Gastroenterology 1987;92:1859-1863. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3569760
  3. Spahr, L., Villeneuve, J., Tran, H. K., & Pomier-Layrargues, G. Furosemide-induced natriuresis as a test to identify cirrhotic patients with refractory ascites. Hepatology 2001;33:28-31. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11124817

 

Contributed by Sam Miller, MD, Mass General Hospital, Boston, MA.

 

Should I avoid intravenous furosemide for management of ascites in my patient with cirrhosis?

Could constipation contribute to hyperkalemia in my patient with chronic kidney disease?

Yes! Constipation may be an important contributor to hyperkalemia in some patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD).

 Under normal conditions, 80-90% of excess dietary potassium (K+) is excreted by the kidneys, with the remainder excreted through the GI tract.1 However, in advanced CKD, particularly in the setting of end-stage kidney disease (ESKD), the GI tract assumes a much more important role in maintaining K+ balance. 

As early as 1960’s, the daily fecal excretion of K+ was found to be directly related to the wet stool weight, irrespective of creatinine clearance. Furthermore, K+ excretion in stool was as high as ~80% of dietary intake (average 37%) in some hemodialysis (HD) patients compared to normal controls (average 12%). 2

Such increase in K+ excretion in the GI tract of patients with CKD was later found to be primarily the result of K+ secretion into the colon/rectum rather than reduced dietary K+ absorption in the small intestine 1,3, was inversely related to residual kidney function, and as a consequence could serve as the main route of K+ excretion in patients with ESKD. 4

Collectively, these findings suggest that in addition to non-dietary factors such as medications, we may need to routinely consider constipation as a potential cause of hyperkalemia in patients with advanced CKD or ESKD. 1

Bonus Pearl: Did you know that secretion of K+ by the apical surface of colonic epithelial is mediated in part by aldosterone-dependent mechanisms? 5

References

  1. St-Jules DE, Goldfarb DS, Sevick MA. Nutrient non-equivalence: does restricting high-potassium plant foods help to prevent hyperkalemia in hemodialysis patients? J Ren. Nutr 2016;26: 282-87. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26975777
  2. Hayes CP, McLeod ME, Robinson RR. An extrarenal mechanism for the maintenance of potassium balance in severe chronic renal failure. Trans Assoc Am Physicians 1967;80:207-16.
  3. Martin RS, Panese S, Virginillo M, et al. Increased secretion of potassium in the rectum of humans with chronic renal failure. Am J Kidney Dis 1986;8:105-10. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3740056
  4. Cupisti A, Kovesdy CP, D’Alessandro C, et al. Dietary approach to recurrent or chronic hyperkalemia in patients with decreased kidney function. Nutrients 2018, 10, 261;doi:10.3390/nu10030261. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5872679/
  5. Battle D, Boobes K, Manjee KG. The colon as the potassium target: entering the colonic age of hyperkalemia treatment. EBioMedicine 2015;2: 1562-1563. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4740340/pdf/main.pdf

 

Contributed in part by Alex Blair, MD, Mass General Hospital, Boston, MA.

If you liked this post, sign up under Menu and receive future pearls right into your mailbox!

Could constipation contribute to hyperkalemia in my patient with chronic kidney disease?

Is neurotoxicity caused by cefepime common?

The incidence of cefepime-induced neurotoxicity (CIN) has varied from 1% to 15%.1 Potential clinical manifestations of CIN include delirium, impaired level of consciousness, disorientation/agitation, myoclonus, non-convulsive status epilepticus, seizures, and aphasia.1  Many of these signs and symptoms (eg, delirium) are common among hospitalized patients.

Although renal dysfunction and inadequately adjusted dosages are often cited as risk factors, one-half of patients develop suspected CIN despite apparently proper adjustment for renal function.In addition,  several case reports of CIN have involved patients with normal renal function. 2  A study of 1120 patients receiving cefepime found epileptiform discharges in 14 cases, most having normal renal function.3 Of interest, in the same study, the prevalence of epileptiform discharges was 6-fold higher than that of meropenem!

Proposed mechanisms for CIN include its avidity for central nervous system GABA-A receptors (higher than that of many beta-lactam antibiotics) combined with its high concentration in brain tissue.1 Renal impairment, decreased protein binding, and increased organic acid accumulation can increase transfer of cefepime across the blood brain barrier from an expected 10% to up to 45% of its serum concentration, further contributing to its neurotoxicity.4

 

References

  1. Appa AA, Jain R, Rakita RM, et al. Characterizing cefepime neurotoxicity: a systematic review. Open Forum Infectious Diseases 2017 Oct 10;4(4):ofx170. doi: 10.1093/ofid/ofx170. eCollection 2017 Fall. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29071284
  2. Meillier A, Rahimian D. Cefepime-induced encephalopathy with normal renal function. Oxford Medical Case Reports, 2016;6, 118-120. https://academic.oup.com/omcr/article/2016/6/118/2362353
  3. Naeije G, Lorent S, Vincent JL, et al. Continuous epileptiform discharges in patients treated with cefpime or meropenem Arch Neurol 2011;68:1303-7. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21987544
  4. Payne LE, Gaganon DJ, Riker RR, et al. Cefepime-induced neurotoxicity: a systematic review. Critical Care 017;21:276. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29137682

 

If you liked this pearl, sign up under menu and receive future posts right into your mailbox!

Is neurotoxicity caused by cefepime common?

My hypertensive patient needs hemodialysis. How dialyzable are common antihypertensives?

Among antihypertensives, most commonly used angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACE-Is) such as captopril, enalapril, lisinopril, and benazepril are at least partially removed by hemodialysis; ramipril and fosinopril are not appreciably removed.1,2

In contrast, none of the commonly used angiotensin receptor blockers such as losartan, valsartan, and irbesartan are removed by hemodialysis.

Among β-blockers and combined α- and β-blockers, atenolol and metoprolol are removed by hemodialysis while carvedilol, bisoprolol, propranolol and labetalol are not.

Many other antihypertensives such as calcium channel blockers, α-blockers, clonidine, and hydralazine are not appreciably removed by hemodialysis, while isosorbide dinitrate appears to be.

Of interest, a 2015 retrospective cohort study found that initiation of high- dialyzability β-blockers (atenolol, acebutolol, or metoprolol) was associated with a higher risk of death in the following 180 days compared to that of low-dialyzability  β-blockers (bisoprolol or propranolol), suggesting that perhaps we should be more selective in our choice of β-blockers in this patient population.2 In contrast, no significant difference in all-cause mortality was noted among older patients receiving ACE-Is with high vs low dialyzability potential.3

 

References

  1. Inrig JK, Antihypertensive agents in hemodialysis patients: A current perspective. Semin dial 2010;23:290-7. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3061334/pdf/nihms206964.pdf
  2. β-Blocker dialyzability and mortality in older patients receiving hemodialysis. J Am Soc Nephrol 2015;26:987-96. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25359874
  3. Weir MA, Fleet JL, Dixon SN, et al. Angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor dialyzability and outcomes in older patients receiving hemodialysis. Blood Purif 2015;40:232-42.  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26382240   

Contributed in part by Andrew Lundquist, MD, PhD, Mass General Hospital, Boston, MA.

If you like this pearl, sign up on P4P’s home page and get future pearls delivered right into your mailbox!

My hypertensive patient needs hemodialysis. How dialyzable are common antihypertensives?

Can my patient with renal insufficiency safely undergo gadolinium-based contrast MRI?

It may be possible for patients with renal insufficiency, including those with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD), to undergo MRI using potentially safer preparations of gadolinium-based contrast agents (GBCAs) with “very low, if any” risk of the feared nephrogenic systemic sclerosis (NSF). 1

In contrast to the so called “linear” chelates of gadolinium (eg, gadodiamide, gadopentetate), “cyclic” GBCA’s (eg, gadoteridol) have not been clearly associated with NSF. 2 A Veterans Administration study involving gadoteridol identified no cases of NSF among the 141 patients on hemodialysis following 198 exposures. 2 In fact, the 2017 American College of Radiology (ACR) Manual on Contrast Media reports the risk of NSF with cyclic chelates as “very low, if any”. 1 Even when a cyclic GBCA is used in patients with ESKD, however, hemodialysis is recommended as soon as possible after MRI. 3

GBCAs are chelates with 2 major components: gadolinium and either a linear or cyclic ligand. Cyclic ligands bind to gadolinium more avidly, resulting in lower probability of circulating renally-cleared free gadolinium which when deposited in tissue is thought to potentially trigger NSF.2

Although NSF is characterized by progressive fibrosis of skin and soft tissue, it may involve multiple organs with an estimated 30% mortality rate. 4

 Bonus Pearl: Did you know NSF is really a new disease, with no evidence of its existence before 1997?

References

  1. “Nephrogenic Systemic Fibrosis”. In ACR Manual on Contrast Media; Version 10.3; May 31, 2017. https://www.acr.org/-/media/ACR/Files/Clinical-Resources/Contrast_Media.pdf
  2. Reilly RF. Risk for nephrogenic systemic fibrosis with gadoteridol (ProHance) in patients who are on long-term hemodialysis. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2008;3:747-51. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18287249
  3. Wang Y, Alkasab TK, Nari O, et al. Incidence of nephrogenic systemic fibrosis after adoption of restrictive gadolinium-based contrast agent guidelines. Radiology 2011;260:105-111.  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21586680
  4. Schlaudecker JD, Bernheisel CR. Gadolinium-associated nephrogenic systemic fibrosis. Am Fam Physician 2009;80:711-14. https://www.aafp.org/afp/2009/1001/p711.pdf

 

Contributed by Richard Newcomb, MD, Mass General Hospital, Boston, MA.

Can my patient with renal insufficiency safely undergo gadolinium-based contrast MRI?