Tony Breu Profile picture
Jan 30 16 tweets 7 min read
1/16
Why do we use 100,000 CFU/mL as our cut-off for true bacteriuria?

This question was posed to me by @BryanCiccarelli. The answer has an interesting history so I thought I'd share it here.
2/
Much of the reliance on urine cultures grew out of the observation that many patients found to have pyelonephritis on autopsy were never diagnosed before death.

It seemed that using clinical findings alone wasn’t good enough.

t.ly/wEWg
3/
Enter the urine culture!

Maybe bacteria identified in voided urine could be used as a surrogate for bladder bacteriuria/infection and/or pyelonephritis.
4/
There is a problem, of course.

False-positive urine cultures (i.e., “contamination”), particularly with these voided urine samples.

It wasn’t enough to have bacteriuria. We needed a value above which contamination became less likely and infection became more likely.
5/
In the 1950s, Edward Kass performed a series of studies with the goal of determining what number of bacteria - in voided urine - provided a clue to the diagnosis of pyelonephritis.

Kass used clinical features as the “gold standard” for diagnosis.

t.ly/ACIO
6/
In 1956 Kass published a report in which he noted that:

➤ 95% of those in whom pyelonephritis was made or suspected had >10⁵ CFU per mL of urine

But notice:

➤ Some patients with pyelonephritis have counts as low as 10² CFU/mL.

t.ly/ACIO
7/
Nonetheless, the studies by Kass led to the practice of defining true bacteriuria as >10⁵ CFU/mL, both for pyelonephritis and cystitis.

Over the next few decades, additional evidence emerged that using >10⁵ CFU/mL is too insensitive.
8/
In 1982, Stamm et al published a study in which they compared urine obtained via suprapubic aspiration or a catheter to a voided sample.

The two former methods were used to represent a gold standard for true bladder bacteriuria.

t.ly/s5zc
9/
Stamm et al found that >10⁵ CFU/mL has a sensitivity of just 51%. When the value was lowered to 10², the sensitivity increased to 95%.

Important note: this study only assessed coliform bacteria (e.g., E. coli, the most common cause of UTI).

t.ly/s5zc
10/
Despite these results, in the intervening decades >10⁵ CFU/mL continued to be used by many as the cutoff for UTI.

I certainly did.
11/
More than 3 decades passed. In 2013 Hooton et al. looked at the question again.

They examined 236 episodes of cystitis and compared urine obtained via a catheter to a midstream voided sample.

t.ly/qcnv
12/
As with prior studies, a cut-off of >10⁵ CFU/mL missed many infections (sensitivity 60%).

This may lead to undertreatment of symptomatic patients.

And as with Stamm, when the value was lowered to 10², the sensitivity increased, this time to 94%.

t.ly/qcnv
13/
So the original studies by Kass and follow-up studies by Stamm then Hooton all agree:

Using >10⁵ CFU/mL leads to missed cases of true bacteriuria in symptomatic patients.
14/
One place you continue to see reference to >10⁵ CFU/mL?

Asymptomtic bacteriuria. And the original studies by Kass are used as support for this cut-off.

t.ly/9x7M
15/
It's worth noting that most guidance doesn't require urine culture in women with typical symptoms.

And if cultures are obtained resources such as UpToDate suggest 10³ CFU/mL as the cut-off.

t.ly/vGRvA
16/16
📌The search for a level of bacteriuria consistent with UTI emerged from a desire to avoid missed pyelonephritis
📌Though >10⁵ CFU/mL has long been associated with true positive bacteriuria, in those who are symptomatic this value has low sensitivity

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Tony Breu

Tony Breu Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @tony_breu

Jan 10
1/
Why does cold air make my kids' noses runny?

A weekend of playing in the snow made me wonder. I didn't do a deep dive but thought I'd share what I learned.
2/
One of the earliest studies providing an explanation for cold-induced rhinorrhea came in 1985.

Subjects performed nasal breathing of cold/dry air (CDA) and warm/moist air.

🔑Only the CDA caused symptoms
🔑AND a rise in mast-cell mediators

t.ly/Y65a
3/
What's triggering the mast cell response? Is it the fact that the air is COLD or that it is DRY?

Unsurprisingly, both probably play a role.

🔑When DRY air meets the nasal mucosa, water evaporation leads to an increase in the osmolarity of the extracellular fluid.
Read 12 tweets
Jan 6
1/15
Why is torsemide my preferred loop diuretic when treating heart failure?

As a follow-up to a recent tweetorial on furosemide and gut edema, let me offer a 3-part ode to torsemide.
2/
It's worth noting up-front that torsemide is NOT the most commonly used loop diuretic.

In a study of 274,515 patients diagnosed with heart failure, the discharge loop diuretics were:

➤ Furosemide 87%
➤ Bumetanide 3%
➤ Torsemide 0.4%
➤ Combo 10%

t.ly/7qZo
3/
A more recent poll (conducted today!) confirms the dominance of furosemide.

So there is a lot of work needed to convert folks to torsemide. My argument has 3 parts.

Read 18 tweets
Dec 31, 2021
1/17
[Why] is furosemide susceptible to malabsorption from "gut edema"?

When a patient with heart failure is hospitalized with congestion I often hear "let's use IV furosemide; they're probably not absorbing the PO."

It's a comment unique to furosemide.

But is it accurate?
2/
In order to understand what happens in heart failure, we must first understand what happens under normal conditions.

🔑Furosemide absorption is in the small intestine and stomach
🔑Some data suggest greater absorption in the duodenum than stomach

t.ly/JjdK
3/
Regarding oral bioavailability:

🔑 It is highly variable (ranging from 11-100%) even in those without heart failure
🔑 This variability is both between patients and within the same patient

t.ly/a0CU
Read 18 tweets
Nov 27, 2021
1/13
Why does adrenal insufficiency (particularly adrenal crisis) lead to hypotension?

I don't think of glucocorticoids as "pressors" and yet when they're lacking patients are at great risk for shock.

Let's have a look.
2/
Hypotension has long been associated with adrenal insufficiency.

For example, one report of 108 cases of Addison's Disease (i.e., primary adrenal insufficiency) found that:

⚡️88% of patients presented with hypotension

PDF: t.ly/aDzv
3/
In primary adrenal insufficiency (PAI), hypotension is partly due to volume depletion related to mineralocorticoid deficiency.

But even in PAI the hemodynamic profile isn't simply ↓cardiac output from ↓venous return (i.e., volume depletion).

PDF: t.ly/Ooej
Read 13 tweets
Oct 31, 2021
1/15
Why are statins administered at night?

In this tweetorial I'll discuss the mechanistic and historical reasons for the frequently used QHS dosing schedule. And why it's often unnecessary.

But before we get there, I'm curious: when do you prescribe/order/take statins?
2/
Early studies suggested that evening administration of statins led to a greater reduction in cholesterol when compared with morning dosing.

Two notes on the linked study:
➤It is small
➤The differences in LDL reduction weren't as clear

PDF: t.ly/6wfc Image
3/
As a result of this early data, the package insert for lovastatin, the first FDA-approved statin, suggested evening dosing.

And the landmark 4S trial did the same, administered simvastatin in the evening.

Insert: t.ly/GsOy
4S: t.ly/9mqS ImageImage
Read 15 tweets
Aug 14, 2021
As I noted in a recent tweetorial, Raymond Pearl reported a lower frequency of cancer in those with evidence of tuberculosis.

This finding led Pearl and others to treat patients with tuberculin.

Unfortunately, Pearl's original study methods suffered from bias.
More specifically, Pearl's study sample contained an overrepresentation of exposed controls (i.e., control subjects who had died from tuberculosis).

This led to an incorrect conclusion that tuberculosis is associated with decreased rates of cancer.
Pearl published a "retraction" in Science.

While arguing that "any serious student of the matter" would agree that TB and cancer are rarely found together in the same person, he admits that concluding a mechanistic connection "may have been erroneous".

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17777405/
Read 5 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(