Tuesday, September 2, 2014

Sodium, in the spotlight for next week's #NephJC, part 2

The second article in the NEJM package was Urinary Sodium and Potassium Excretion, Mortality, and Cardiovascular Events.

This is an interesting study because so much of the arguments based on salt focus on the intermediate end-point of blood pressure, one can lose sight on the big daddy, total mortality. Previous studies have shown that low sodium diets have paradoxically been associated with higher rates of cardiovascular disease and death. These studies have often been dismissed by sodium puritans by pointing out that including patients with pre-existing cardiovascular disease will pollute the results because these, obviously, high risk patients are told to maintain a low sodium diet.

This study was performed using the same international cohort as the previous trial, The PURE study. This study enrolled 101,945 patients and analyzed early-morning fasting urine samples. They used the same Kawasaki formula that over estimated sodium excretion as in the other PURE study.

They used multiple models to analyze the data.

Patients with pre-existing cardiovascular disease, cancer or events in the first two years of follow-up were excluded from the analysis. They also did an additional analysis using propensity scoring to further reduce imbalanced confounders.

The most important letter in the PURE acronym is P for prospective. In this case it allowed them to match the cross sectional sodium excretion data with long-term follow data. Mean follow-up was 3.7 years. The primary outcome was death or a major cardiovascular event. Over the period covered by the study they recorded 3,317 outcomes. The risk from changes of sodium intake was seen at the edges of intake:
Increased mortality at sodium excretion over 7 grams and below 3 grams

Green indicates an association with sodium excretion. Red indicates no significant association.
The U-Shaped curve seen with sodium was not seen with potassium. The more potassium excretion the lower the risk of the primary outcome.


The results were essentially the same in the propensity-score-matched analysis.

I found this paragraph from the discussion to be particularly salient:
Current guidelines, which recommend a maximum sodium intake of 1.5 to 2.4 g per day, are based on evidence from largely short-term clinical trials showing that reducing sodium intake from a moderate to a low level results in modest reductions in blood pressure. The projected benefits of low sodium intake with respect to cardiovascular disease are derived from models of data from these blood-pressure trials that assume a linear relationship between sodium intake and blood pressure and between blood pressure and cardiovascular events. Implicit in these guidelines is the assumption that there is no unsafe lower limit of sodium intake. However, sodium is known to play a critical role in normal human physiology, and activation of the renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system occurs when sodium intake falls below approximately 3.0 g per day.
The authors make it clear that an epidemiologic association between mortality and sodium excretion is not the same as finding increased mortality or lack of benefit from patients lowering their sodium intake. Advice that the authors of the third study should have taken the time to internalize.
Finally, our study provides an epidemiologic comparison of groups that consume different levels of sodium, and it does not provide information on the effect on clinical outcomes of reducing sodium intake. Therefore, our findings should not be interpreted as evidence that the intentional reduction of sodium intake would alter the risk of death or cardiovascular disease. 

Sodium, in the spotlight for next week's #NephJC, part 3

The last article in NEJM's remarkable sodium package is an extraordinary analysis attempting to estimate the number of deaths that can be attributed to excess sodium intake.

Global Sodium Consumption and Death from Cardiovascular Causes.

The authors reviewed 205 studies of dietary sodium consumption:
  • 142 studies that used 24-hour urine collections
  • 91 with estimates of dietary intake
  • 28 with both methods
These studies came from 66 countries representing 74.1% of the adult population. It is appropriate to whistle and say wow, at this point.

Inorder to translate the sodium intake into mortality the authors first needed to estimate sodium's effect on blood pressure. They employed two Cochrane meta-analysis looking at the effect of reduced sodium intake on blood pressure (Meta 1, Meta 2). They used these meta-analysis to discover sources for there own meta-analysis. They needed age and gender specific effects of sodium on blood pressure which is why they needed to do their own analysis.

After estimating the effect of sodium on blood pressure, they then used the blood pressure data to estimate cardiovascular mortality based on the work done in two large studies (Study 1, Study 2).

Estimated global sodium intake was 3.95 g per day, quite a bit lower than the 4.4 grams measured in the PURE studies. They pointed out that 99.2% of the countries surveyed had mean sodium intakes higher than the WHO level of 2 grams a day. An astounding 88% of the world had sodium intake more than 50% over the WHO recommendation.

Their meta-analysis found that systolic blood pressure fell 3.8 mm Hg for every 2.3 grams sodium intake was reduced. This translates to a more interpretable 1.6 mm Hg for every gram reduction in sodium. This is quite close to the 1.5 mm Hg found in the PURE analysis. They used 2.3 grams because that is equal to 100 mmol of sodium, for people who like to speak like a chemist.

They then ran the blood pressure data into the mortality data from blood pressure and concluded that consuming more than 2 grams of sodium a day results in 1.65 million deaths from cardiovascular disease a year. This is 9.5% of all cardiovascular deaths in the world and nearly 20% of all premature deaths.

However, despite a very through analysis this is an exercise in somewhat meaningless statistical gymnastics. The authors fail to consider the possibility that lowering the blood pressure too far could have negative consequences, (Hello ACCORD Trial. Nice to meet you.) Or the possibility that low sodium diets could be harmful.

Note that, these figures come from a 2011 prospective trial published in a little known journal called JAMA. This signal that low sodium diets may not be beneficial is not new or unknown. It was picked up by the Institute of Medicine in their summary and recommendations to avoid very low sodium diets:
However, the evidence on health outcomes is not consistent with efforts that encourage lowering of dietary sodium in the general population to 1,500 mg/day. Further research may shed more light on the association between lower—1,500 to 2,300 mg—levels of sodium and health outcomes.
This becomes even more concerning when looked at through the lens of the PURE studies in the same issue of The Journal that show average sodium intake to be associated with the lowest mortality and danger rising on either side of the sodium consumption curve.

This is a study best taken with a grain of salt. Couldn't resist.

Monday, August 25, 2014

OUWB Acid base question

The e-mail:

Hi Dr. Topf,
We were going through the acid-base study guide and Prince Harry has us all out of sorts. His scenario is this: 
Your first mistake. It is Prince William not Harry. Know your Royals. (Though I do not think royal genealogy is a board eligible topic.)
7.42 | 32 | 76
Na - 148
Cl - 98
K - 5.8
HCO3 - 28 
For the primary acid-base disturbance, I would think it is respiratory alkalosis because the pH is elevated, the PCO2 is decreased, and the HCO3 is elevated.  
You are correct
Then for the second acid base disturbance, I thought it would be metabolic alkalosis. His PCO2 is 32, which is down about 10. So, his bicarb should go down either 2 if acute or 4 if chronic, to either 22 or 20. Instead it is 28 which means he has excess HCO3 (base) and so has an additional alkalosis. 
Correct again
I tried doing the anion gap (22) and the bicarb before (38) but my understanding is that a bicarb before of 38 would also be metabolic alkalosis.  
Yes
In the answers, it says that if you have an AG with alkalosis or a primary acid-base disorder, that it would be an acidosis.  
If you have time, can you help me understand why his primary disorder is metabolic alkalosis, and how to apply the anion gap and bicarb before formulas to this case?  
Thanks for your time. 
Best regards,
This refers to this question in the handout:


There is an error in the ABG. Using the Henderson Hasselbalch equation it is obvious that this ABG is impossible, as pointed out by +MedCalc on twitter:



So the actual pH should be 7.51. But that doesn't change the rest of the answer or the calculations.

To get this problem right, it breaks one of the rules I established and uses another rule that was not discussed. This is failure on my part and I will fix this.

The rule that it breaks is the rule that compensation is always in the same direction as the primary disorder. Obviously with a pCO2 of 32 and bicarbonate of 28 the two independent Henderson-Hasselbalch variables are moving in discordant directions.

This is a great guideline, it just isn't always true. In cases where patients have two primary disorders the pCO2 and bicarbonate can move in opposite directions. This is not the typical finding but when it occurs it is simple to interpret:


If the pCO2 falls it is respiratory alkalosis and if it rises it is respiratory acidosis. If the bicarbonate falls it is metabolic acidosis and if it rises it is metabolic alkalosis. So in the case of Prince William, his bicarb is up and pCO2 is down so he has both a metabolic and respiratory alkalosis. The reason I do not include this is that it is an additional complexity that if you follow the algorithm that I taught you will get the right answer without knowing this exception. I choose to streamline the teaching rather than teach this shortcut.

The rule that was not discussed is in regards to the anion gap. In my booklet I never discuss that the presence of an anion gap regardless of the pH or serum bicarbonate always indicates a metabolic acidosis. The hierarchy of acid interpretation that I showed in the booklet should include that right at the top and has been updated to reflect that:



So Prince William is rocking an anion gap of 22, this means he has an anion gap metabolic acidosis. If you use the bicarbonate before formula you see that his bicarbonate was 38 excluding his anion gap metabolic acidosis indicating a truly wicked metabolic alkalosis.

Tuesday, August 19, 2014

OUWB School of Medicine Materials 2014

The Potassium and Metabolic Alkalosis lecture:

The Acid Base Lecture
  • Keynote (480 MB)
  • PDF (51 MB)
  • Extra lecture only about non-anion gap metabolic acidosis

The Potassium lecture (on your own)

The Sodium and Water Handout

The Electrolyte and Acid Base Companion

Acid Base Workshop
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...