(1/x) When you trying to decongest patients in the ICU, there are lots of drugs available... not just lasix
Here are some tips for diuresing patients🧵
Furosemide - backbone of diuresis. Start at a higher than you think and back off if diuresis achieved.
Metolazone (or other thiazides). Use when Na on the higher side as helps prevent distal Na resorption. You get more naturesis.
Acetazolamide. Use to prevent metabolic alkalosis. Aids in decongestion.
Spironolactone. Use to prevent K+ wasting and to achieve more natriuresis.
3% saline. Consider in diuretic resistant heart failure with hypochloremia.
(2/x) Tip: Goal of diuresis is not just to produce lots of urine... its to produce lots of salty (high Na) urine.
This is because natriuresis (salt) > aquaresis (water) for decongesting patients.
Ways to achieve more natriuresis: 1. Multi-modal diuresis 2. Check urine Na during diuresis (ideally random urine Na > 100).. add more multi-modal diuresis if not achieving.
(3/x) If you have a patient with venous congestion (e.g. objective congestion on ultrasound) expect an increase in Cr with diuresis... ride that out and treat the patients venous congestion / overload.. it will come down once the patients high venous pressures improve.
(4/x) Hypernatremia and metabolic alkalosis due not reflect intravascular volume, but rather, your diuretic choices.
Furosemide monotherapy routinely causes high Na and high HCO3.
Add Acetazolamide and/or Metolazone from the get-go to attenuate this so you can guide diuresis clinically (e.g. overload, edema, effusions, VeXUS congestion etc.) and NOT be limited by side effects of the medications.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The intervention used Cap Refill Time as a surrogate of end-organ perfusion, and if abnormal, did physiology informed maneuvers (fluids, vasopressors, inotropes) to improve perfusion.
They found "there were 131 131 wins (48.9%) in the CRT-PHR group vs 112 787 (42.1%) in the usual care group for the hierarchical composite primary outcome, with a win ratio of 1.16 (95% CI, 1.02-1.33; P = .04)."
Most of this was driven by lower organ support in the phenotyped (intervention) arm.
Patients in the intervention arm received 1) less fluids 2) more inotropes 3) had improved SOFA/lactates 4) and less organ support (vasopressors primarily).
So is this patient important?
(3/x) It is important to contextualize this in the broader sepsis research landscape.
EGDT in 2001 --> 46.5 vs. 30.5% mortality
ARISE in 2014 --> ~19%
PROCESS in 2014 --> ~21%
PROMISE in 2015 --> ~29%
ANDROMEDA-SHOCK in 2019 ~43% vs 35% (intervention)
Why a higher mortality for Andromeda-Shock than the older ARISE/PROCESS/PROMISE?
It may be related to patient demographics, particularly recruiting patients from more low-middle income countries where sepsis mortalities are higher.
In Andromeda-Shock 2, mortality was only 26%, 10-15% lower than the previous study (and lower than expected) likely reflecting improved sepsis care globally.
The truth is, for any septic shock study, an outcome like mortality is only modifiable for a subset of patients.
Some are too sick and will die regardless of resuscitation.
Some are well enough that they will live despite what we do.
There is a window of patients in the middle whose mortality is modifiable... but as baseline mortality decreases and overall sepsis care improves, this mortality modifiable group becomes smaller.
(1/9) Here’s how to become the best doctor you can in 2025…
Some advice (e.g. learn from your pts) is timeless but some thing are different than when Osler trained.
🧵
(2/9) Learn from your patients
Learning ~= cases seen × learning extracted per case
Maximizing both is key.
Volume exposes you to varied presentations, and reflection deepens your understanding.
There’s no substitute for either. Perhaps in the coming years AI simulated presentations may assist in pattern recognition (e.g. high exposure to simulated pathology) but not quite there yet.
(3/9) Develop skills beyond knowledge
Knowledge matters, but communication, listening, problem-solving, studying, and teamwork matter more in practice.
When trainees struggle, it’s often these skills, not medical knowledge, that hold them back.
(1/x) In fellowship, I managed a peri-arrest patient in the middle of the night who changed my understanding and appreciation for hemodynamics, ultrasound, and TEE.
I've seen similar cases dozens of times now, yet this commonly gets missed, even at top institutions worldwide.
A 🧵
(2/x) When I met this pt. they had a HR of 170 and a blood pressure on arterial line of 50/30. They were mottled head to toe, ashen, and looked like they were seconds away from arresting.
They had a recent NSTEMI and my first thought was cardiogenic shock or a mechanical complication of their MI --> VSD, tamponade, free wall rupture etc.
No transthoracic views on echo.
(3/x) I started the usually therapy, phenylephrine pushes, levophed, vaso pushes, and epi infusion.
No response.
I started bolusing aliquots of 20-50mcg of epinephrine ... no response. We intubated while this was going on.
(0/x) How do I approach the first 2 minutes of meeting a new critically ill pt?
My approach has been forged from my learnings as a paramedic.
Here's my approach as an ICU doc 🧵
(1/x) I start with a scene survey.
I want to understand who's in the room and what are their roles. Is someone currently leading the resuscitation? What monitors are on the patient? What drugs are hooked up to the patient?
In EMS, one of the first things we are taught is to not rush to the patient.
This is for your own safety in case there's a hazard, but also because you can learn so much about what's going on by observing your environment as you approach the patient.
This gets missed in the hospitals.
Take some time and even by understanding what pumps they're on, you can often learn a lot about what might be going on in this very moment. You can also learn what help you might have if 💩🪭
(2/x) Next, I start perform a very quick (<15 seconds) scan of the patient
Essentially quickly checking the ABCs
This involves:
Reviewing the monitor for current vitals
Looking at the patient's skin colour
Looking for mottling
Looking at the Work of Breathing
Looking for LOC
Approaching the patient and briefly feeling their feet or hands for temperature and pulse characteristics
My goal here is to determine whether we need to go straight into resuscitation within seconds (cardiac arrest) or peri-arrest, or whether I can take a bit more detailed handover from the team that's already caring for the patient.
(0/x) For the past 2 years I have worked in our chronic ICU helping wean difficult to wean patients with neurological weakness.
Here are some of the things I’ve learned from my vastly expert multi-disciplinary team 🧵
Really these are just great practices for weaning ALL ICU pts. off ventilators...
(1/x) Deeming a patient impossible to wean should only be done by groups of clinicians with extensive experience in this.
In fact, evidence suggests that physicians are often poor at predicting weaning failure.
We've had patients with neuromuscular weakness who have been ventilated for close to a year or longer who have successfully weaned entirely from mechanical ventilation with thoughtful, deliberate weaning strategies.
(2/x) Optimizing volume status is crucial to weaning patients.
For neuromuscular weakness patients, even having 500 mL of pleural effusion adds a pound of weight onto each diaphragm.
When multiplied over the thousands of breaths per day, this significantly contributes to weaning failure.
Optimize your patient's volume status to help them wean!