Oral or IV Iron: Follow up from a previous #nephjc chat

A few months ago, we discussed this trial from Rajiv Agarwal and his team from Indiana, which found increased serious adverse vents with IV iron, in CKD patients. The latest issue of Kidney International now has some interesting correspondence, with two critical letters, and a substantive reply from Rajiv Agarwal.

Rajiv Agarwal

Rajiv Agarwal

Among the criticism is one from Iain Macdougall and Simon Rogers, questioning the methodology - and why these results are different from the FIND-CKD trial (free PMC link), which did test a different IV iron formulation (iron carboxymaltose in FIND-CKD, iron sucrose in REVOKE), against a lower dose of oral iron. The reply from Dr Agarwal is worth reading in full, but this table highlights the details.

 

#NephJC is now part of Altmetrics

Altmetrics is a company that tracks realtime references, reads and mentions of research articles across the web and social media. They give authors and institutions a sense of what research is moving the needle faster and more comprehensively than reference tracking could. The work NephJC does will now be part captured as part of this goal.

When I read the following on their website, I knew that NephJC and Altmetrics were natural partners:

Scientists are increasingly discussing papers online, but on social media sites, rather than on publisher’s sites. There’s huge value in being able to see what your peers - and people in other fields - have said about an article. Up until now, this has been difficult to achieve.

Our spotlight just got a little brighter.

#AmyloidosisJC on staging renal involvement in AL amyloidosis

You have a patient with 5 grams of proteinuria and normal renal function. The biopsy lights up with congo red like rudolph's nose

You check the serum free light chains and conclude your patient has AL amyloidosis. The family wants to know will he need dialysis? How long until he does?

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

The patient starts bortezomib and seems to be doing well. How do you know if his kidneys are improving? What do you look at?

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

These are the questions covered intonight's #AmyloidosisJC on:

A staging system for renal outcome and early markers of renal response to chemotherapy in AL amyloidosis

The amyloidosis nerds did a nice summary at Amyloid Planet.

 Hope you can join us for a spirited discussion.

The Neph-Twitterverse discovers Twitter polls

A few weeks ago, the folks at twitter announced they were rolling out Twitter polls. Previously, tweeps would use manually counting responses or the RT-if-you-agree Fav-if-you-don't approach. This is how the polls were supposed to work:

So what, you might say? A few users (notably @conradhackett from Pew research) played a lot with them, sample poll:

The ease of setting one up, and the option to just click and be done were some of the major selling points. But it wasn't clear if would be just a passing fad or something more. I used one at the #KidneyWk, but there were few responders

Then Matt decided to poll the #nephjc followers after the suPAR chat

And Thomas Hiemstra decided to design his next #DreamRCT on therapy for Membranous nephropathy with a series of tweets:

Second scenario

And it wasn't long before Graham Abra re-ran an older question on the utility of urine eosinophils in allergic interstitial nephritis

another one on the duration of steroids in SLE, in remission

So we guess polls on twitter are here to say. Nephrology tweeps find it awesome (and I can say so with confidence, backed by facts, or shall we say, a poll?)

Swapnil Hiremath

The Benefits of Nephro-Twitter. Or how I learned to stop fearing and love Twitter

Last week this tweet came across my feed and was widely and justifiably retweeted:

It became clear to me, that nephrology needed a similar essay:

Dr. Katie Kwon answered my call. Her essay:


My first foray into Twitter was about five years ago. Twitter was in the news a lot and I kept coming across online articles filled with viral tweets that were funny, pithy, and current. Those articles made Twitter seem like a virtual Algonquin Round Table. However, my first login didn’t look anything like that. Twitter asked for my email address book, then signed me up to follow people I already knew. I didn’t have the first idea how to go about seeing tweets from strangers on topics I found interesting. It was all too much work, and I quickly gave it up.

Then I attended ASN 2013. Since starting my nephrology training, I’ve tried to go every other year. I’m in private practice with two other colleagues, so ASN is my biannual chance to chat with other nephrologists. Slowly, painfully, I’ve grown my professional network. At first I would meet up with other alumni from my fellowship program and the faculty. Then, when our dialysis units were acquired by a small chain, I got to meet some other medical directors from around the country. It was nice to attend meetings knowing more than three people. But I knew I’d get a lot more out of ASN if I knew more people, and could learn their viewpoints on the presentations I was attending.

At the 2013 meeting, I had the opportunity to meet Joel Topf. He’s a nephrologist that I had long admired for his blog, and I had made comments on several of his posts that I particularly liked.  He sent me a message that he was presenting a poster at ASN, so I decided to stop by. His poster was about the use of social media in nephrology, an area where’s he’s an influential evangelist. After our conversation, I signed up for a new Twitter account.

This time, the experience made a little more sense. I learned that one’s Twitter feed is determined by who you follow. I started by following Joel and then anyone else he tweeted at. Pretty soon I had a nice stream of commentary from nephrologists from many different countries, most of it focused on the ongoing meeting. I began to notice the hashtags and how you could also search for those to pick up the threads of a conversation about a particular topic.

Using my iPhone, I carefully pecked out a few tweets about the presentations I attended. I tried to tweet pearls that normally I would have written down in a notebook, rarely to be seen again. I was delighted when these tweets got starred and retweeted by new followers. It was even more exciting when respected faculty members, whose names I knew from journal articles, would add their thoughts and provide links to additional material. It enhanced the learning from each session I attended. I wound up with a deeper understanding and different perspectives. I even made a few real-life acquaintances and met some for lunch. It was the most productive ASN meeting I’d ever attended.

Returning home, my Twitter use became much more sporadic. I had set up the app to send me a notification if a lot of the people I followed tweeted about a particular topic. In this way I learned about some breaking trials and other events in the broader field of medicine, including the MOC debate. I rarely tweeted my own content, but Twitter is very forgiving of long periods of inactivity. You won’t lose followers as you might if you took a break from blogging. When I did have something to contribute, or a question to ask, it was easy to jump right back in. I discussed a few tough cases on the Nephrology On Demand forum, which I learned about from Twitter.

I returned to ASN for the 2015 meeting. This time I was able to start tweeting  right away – thankfully, my phone remembered my Twitter password. I started by reading the comments from other people attending the plenary session. Their annotations and insights deepened my understanding of a topic that would otherwise be intimidatingly basic science in its orientation. I followed many more conference attendees who seemed to have valuable things to say. Then I realized that I could virtually attend multiple simultaneous sessions. This was great! I no longer had to miss talks that seemed interesting but conflicted with others I also wanted to see. I learned about great presentations on exciting topics as they unfolded in real time, and sometimes switched rooms midway through a session. The conference felt more dynamic and I was confident I was spending my time there wisely.

One session on Friday focused on the ongoing battle over MOC and the ABIM. This was a topic I had continued to follow for the past few years, and I was disappointed that it was so sparsely attended. However, the low turnout wound up having an unexpected benefit, which was a clear field for me to tweet about it. I tried to sum up each main point the speakers made, then highlight the comments from the audience. This was the first time my tweets seemed to resonate. My followers retweeted my reporting to their followers, and my audience grew. The instantaneous feedback that what I was doing had interest and value was fun and exciting.

I left ASN this year having met interesting colleagues across the country, both virtually and in real life. (Twitter is a great way to get people to visit your poster at ASN.) I picked up some tips to organize my feed, which made it easier to participate in the Nephrology Journal Club the next week. The discussion was about the SPRINT hypertension trial. It felt like being back in fellowship again, in a good way. I got to benefit from the analysis of hundreds of colleagues, both those who participated and through the links to commentary that they provided. I am in the process currently of writing a talk for our local primary care doctors about SPRINT, and the Twitter conversations I participated in are providing great material for my analysis.

Twitter has allowed me to connect with many more nephrologists than I would have managed to meet through more conventional means. Those relationships have real value, helping me stay current in my field and giving me varying perspectives on controversial topics.  While I love my practice in a small Midwestern town, Twitter has provided the discussions that I enjoyed during my training years in a big academic center. I feel more connected to my profession and my practice of medicine will only continue to improve as a result of my participation.

Quick start to Twitter as a nephrologist:

  1. Sign up. Keep your Twitter name short; 140 characters goes quick and a long name uses up more of them.
  2. Follow Nephrology Journal Club (@NephJC) and note the time of the upcoming discussion.
  3. Use tchat.io in your browser to follow the #NephJC discussion. Follow anyone who tweets something interesting. When you follow someone all of their Tweets show up in your feed. hand picking your feed will make Twitter more useful.
  4. Unfollowing is easy and it’s not fraught with emotion, unlike defriending on Facebook. Sometimes you’ll follow someone, only to find that the majority of their tweets are in a different language that you don’t understand. Unfollow them! If your feed is cluttered with irrelevant tweets, Twitter gets to be a slog.
  5. If someone is writing about an interesting topic marked with a #hashtag, just click on the hashtag to see other tweets with that hashtag. You can pick up more interesting people to follow.
  6. Start to tweet. Retweets are easy; bonus for adding your own viewpoint. Tweet about meetings or lectures you attend. You’ll get more out of it than jotting down notes you won’t read again. People will ask you questions or offer more resources. Your learning just doubled!
  7. It’s the internet; some people are weird, rude or hostile. Twitter has a block feature that prevents a person from reading your tweets or communicating with you. I don’t hesitate to block anyone who bothers me. I don’t want to use up any emotional energy worrying about a fleeting online interaction.
  8. Nephro-Twitter is a friendly place. If you start a message with someone’s username (i.e, @KatieKwonMD) your tweet will go directly to their feed, but not to your other followers.  If you include their username in the body of your tweet, all your followers can see it. Reach out to people, ask them questions, point them to links you think might interest them. That’s how interesting conversations start.

Kidney Week Wrap-up: How will we remember #KidneyWk 2015?

Kidney Week 2015 may be remembered for a number of different social media moments. The Tweet-Up was a raging success and finally broke through to become what Matt and I envisioned at the Denver Kidney Week in 2015. The success of the tweet-up was largely driven by Satellite Healthcare and their invaluable assistance with promotion and logistics. We can’t thank them enough. Additionally Kidney Week 2015 was marked by both a NephJC and NephMadness poster presentation. This Kidney Week, Matt was invited to give a talk on electronic medical education and he crushed it. But the biggest event, the one I hope we remember 2015 for, was the graduation of the first class of interns from the Nephrology Social Media Collective (NSMC).

Matt, Scherly and Chi with their diplomas and #DreamRCT mugs

Matt, Scherly and Chi with their diplomas and #DreamRCT mugs

We had four very different interns and they each had individually unique experiences with the internship:

Scherly Leon is in her last year of nephrology fellowship and is on a mission. She was already the ASN Public Policy Fellow when she started the Social Media internship. She is tuning her Twitter feed to be a carefully crafted curation of nephrology and social justice content. If you aren’t following Scherly (https://twitter.com/SLeonMD), you are doing it wrong. I think everyone is excited to see what she does with her growing skills as a public physician.

Chi Chu was the only intern who was not a nephrologist and we needed to apply more thought on how to make his experience particularly relevant for him. Chi participated in all of the events and his Which nephrotoxic antibiotic are you? was epic. Likewise his DreamRCT entry was equal parts creative and audacious. He will make an awesome nephrologist someday...if we are lucky enough to get him.

Hector Madariaga was a natural for the NSMC internship and did great work from day one. However, by June it was clear that we were under-utilizing him. So we brought him into NephJC in a more formal way. For the last six-months Hector has been NephJC’s chief archivist. He is in charge of creating the Storify’s from every chat. We hope he will continue to be a key member of the NephJC team. Future editor-in-chief?

Nikhil Shah is the intern who least needed the NSMC internship. He was doing great work before the internship and we just hitched our wagon to his shooting star. His SocialKidney project is an essential tool for tracking social media conversations online. His inspirational story on how he got hooked on nephrology was picked up by MedPage today.  It will be great to have his creativity on the NSMC team in the future.

There were several more interns in the inaugural class:

The fifth student was us. We learned a lot about what does and does not work in a social media internship. We are going to be better next year. We got lucky by requiring participation in NephJC, that turned out to be an exceptional learning tool. But only because the interns didn’t merely tune in and lurk, but actively participated and engaged in the chats. It was a great (if not accidental) flipped classroom experience.


With the graduation of our inaugural class we are excited to open the application period for the second class of NSMC interns. If you are interested or have questions, feel free to send us an e-mail. If you want to apply for a spot drop us an e-mail and explain:

  • Who you are 
  • Why you want to do the social media internship
  • What experience do you already have with social media (Do not be embarrassed to say none. Do not be embarrassed to say you are really good at Facebook quizes)

The due date for the application is January 24. We will make our decisions and start the program on February 1

 Send applications to NephrologyJC@gmail.com


Spironolactone primer

Resistant hypertension is an important clinical problem. It is commonly defined as inadequate blood pressure control despite use of three antihypertensive agents of different classes at optimal dosages; one of the three should be an appropriately dosed diuretic. About 10-15% of hypertensive patients have resistant hypertension.

The magical powers of aldosterone antagonists first started to be publicized in the late 90's and in 2003 Calhoun showed a dramatic effect among patients with resistant hypertension:

A total number of 76 subjects were included in the analysis, 34 of whom had biochemical primary aldosteronism. Low-dose spironolactone was associated with an additional mean decrease in BP of 21 ± 21 over 10 ± 14 mm Hg at 6 weeks and 25 ± 20 over 12 ± 12 mm Hg at 6-month follow-up. The BP reduction was similar in subjects with and without primary aldosteronism and was additive to the use of ACE inhibitors, ARBs, and diuretics.

This was backed up by additional observational data as part of the ASCOT trial experience. The investigators found dramatic efficacy from modest doses of spironolactone among the 1,411 patients that received spironolactone as a fourth line agent:

During spironolactone therapy, mean blood pressure fell from 156.9/85.3 mm Hg (SD: ±18.0/11.5 mm Hg) by 21.9/9.5 mm Hg (95% CI: 20.8 to 23.0/9.0 to 10.1 mm Hg; P<0.001); the BP reduction was largely unaffected by age, sex, smoking, and diabetic status.

The first randomized, placebo controlled trial in resistant hypertension was published in 2011. The ASPIRANT trial (PDF) showed a more modest, but still clinically significant reduction blood pressure.

An important caution when looking at spironolactone data is that it appears that black patients  are more sensitive to increases in aldosterone, so one could predict more modest blood pressure improvements with spironolactone in a European population. See Tu et al. (Full text).

Another critical aspect of resistant hypertension is addressing non-adherence. 

A mass spectrometry urine toxicology screening of antihypertensive drugs reported that 53% of patients with resistant hypertension were non-adherent to treatment. Of these, 70% were incompletely adherent and 30% were completely non-adherent. Reduced adherence was not attributed to a particular antihypertensive class. Another urine analysis study found that 23% of patients referred for renal denervation were completely non- adherent to their prescribed antihypertensive treatment.
— From Rossignol et al. The double challenge of resistant hypertension and chronic kidney disease.

This is why PATHWAY-2's attempt to measure minimize non-adherence is so important.

This week's chat on PATHWAY-2 represents the first randomized controlled trial against an active control group. The fact that aldosterone rises above other fourth line agents to provide meaningful advantages in the treatment of resistant hypertension is important.

We are coming to a new age in hypertension management. On November 9, at 2:00 PM at the AHA meeting in Orlando the SPRINT Trial results will be released. This will almost certainly result in a wave of more aggressive blood pressure control. Almost simultaneously we now have access to the first of the next generation potassium binders, patiromer. This brings the hope of avoiding the most frightening of the side effects from aldosterone antagonists, hyperkalemia. These three seemingly unrelated events are going to be major influences on the treatment of hypertension going forward.

AskASN chat tonight about organ allocation

Tonight the AskASN chat will include Michelle Josephson, director of kidney transplantation at the University of Chicago and Nicolae Leca, medical director of Kidney and Pancreas Transplantation at the University of Washington.

The old system's framework wwas established in 1988 and was built in a world with a smaller transplant system.

Waiting time was the focus of the old system and did not match organs to patients by considering the duration the kidney would be needed which results in wasted kidney years. 

The goals of the new system include:

 

  • increase the life-years gained by kidney transplantation
  • maintain access to transplantation across all age groups
  • maintain priority for pediatric patients
  • improve access for sensitized recipients and minorities
  • promote use and recovery of expanded criteria kidneys by expanding the geographic sharing of these organs

This chat will discuss:

Why did the system change?

How has the transition gone so far?

What unexpected events have occurred?

Have you seen any changes?

How has the KDPI worked out?

Any changes or tweaks in the future?

Please join us right now!

The IV versus PO iron conundrum for Tuesday and Wednesday

Joel said he would write the summary. Suzanne said she would write the summary and in the end wires got crossed and they both wrote the summary. Sigh. We are ardent conservationists and strongly believe that no part of the buffalo should go to waste so here is Dr. Norby's summary of this week's NephJC article:

A randomized trial of intravenous and oral iron in chronic kidney disease

Rajiv Agarwal, John W Kusek, and Maria K Pappas

Kidney International advance online publication 17 June 2015

doi: 10.1038/ki.2015.163

BACKGROUND

Anemia is common in patient with stages 3-5 chronic kidney disease (CKD) due to decreased erythropoietin production as well as iron deficiency, including the functional iron deficiency that can develop while using erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESA).

The KDIGO Clinical Practice Guideline for Anemia in CKD recommends (grade 2C) the use of IV iron in adult patients with CKD note yet on dialysis if 1) an increase in hemoglobin level is desired to avoid or minimize blood transfusions and ESA use and/or to alleviate symptoms potentially related to anemia and 2) TSAT is ≤30% and ferritin is ≤500 ng/ml. The Guideline also states that a 1-3 month trial of oral iron may be considered for patients not yet on dialysis.

Safety and risks of IV iron use in the non-dialysis CKD population are not fully understood although an author of the current study, Agarwal, along with other colleagues previously demonstrated that IV iron use can lead to increased oxidative stress, endothelial damage, and even renal injury.

The hypothesis of the current study, REVOKE (randomized trial to evaluate intravenous and oral iron in chronic kidney disease), was that IV iron would result in greater decrease in kidney function compared with oral iron in iron-deficient patients with moderate to severe CKD not yet on dialysis.

METHODS

Design: open-label, parallel-group, active-control, single-center randomized trial

Setting: A safety-net hospital and a VA Hospital, both in Indianapolis, IN; August 2008 – November 2014.

Inclusion criteria:

  • ≥18 years old
  • eGFR 21-60 ml/min/1.73 m2, not on dialysis
  • Hemoglobin <12 g/dl
  • Serum ferritin <100 ng/ml or serum transferring saturation <25%

Exclusion criteria:

  • Pregnant or breast feeding females
  • Known hypersensitivity to any intravenous iron, iothalamate meglumine (Conray 60, Malinckrodt) or iodine
  • Severe anemia that required imminent red blood cell (RBC) transfusion (Hgb <8 g/dL) or the potential need for imminent RBC transfusion (e.g., active bleeding) 
  • Persons with acute kidney injury
  • History of intravenous iron use within the month prior to screening
  • Iron overload (serum ferritin >800 ng/nl or transferrin saturation >50%)
  • Anemia not caused by iron deficiency (e.g., sickle cell anemia)
  • History of surgery or systemic or urinary tract infection within the past month
  • Organ transplant recipients
  • Persons currently being treated with immunosuppressive agents

Randomization and Blinding: 1:1 ratio, using computer generated permuted blocks, randomized to either oral iron or IV iron using concealed opaque envelopes

Primary outcome: 

  • Difference between treatment groups in slope of mGFR decline from baseline to 2 years adjusted for the log of baseline urinary protein/creatinine ratio compared with baseline at 8 weeks, 6 months, 12 months, and 24 months after randomization.  

Secondary outcomes:

  • further adjustment of the primary outcome for age, sex, race (Black vs. non-Black), angiotensin-converting enzyme/angiotensin receptor blocker use, and the presence or absence of cardiovascular disease (all determined at baseline)
  • between-group % change in proteinuria from baseline to 8 weeks
  • difference between hemoglobin response between treatment groups
  • change in KDQOL

Statistical analysis:

  • Intention-to-treat, if the participant received at least one dose of study medication
  • Linear mixed model with GFR as outcome variable
  • Assumptions: mean rate of decline in GFR of 4 ml/min per 1.73 m2 per year in the oral iron group and a 50% greater decline in the IV iron group and a cumulative rate of dropout of 25%
  • Recruitment target of 100 patients for each treatment group with a minimum duration of follow-up of 2 years to achieve 82% power to detect hypothesized difference in decline in kidney function at the 5% level of significance
  • 2-sided t-test considered significant for p<0.05

INTERVENTION

Participants were treated over 8 weeks beginning at the time of randomization. Those randomized to the IV iron group received iron sucrose 200 mg IV over 2 h at weeks 0, 2, 4, 6, and 8. Participants randomized to oral iron were counseled to take ferrous sulfate 325 mg three times daily for 8 weeks.

RESULTS

Trial was terminated early due to higher serious adverse event rate in IV iron group (199 per 100 patient years) compared with oral iron group (168.4 per 100 patient years); adjusted incidence rate ratio 1.60 (1.28–2.00), P<0.0001.  Statistically significant increases in infections and cardiovascular events were observed. In particular, the incidence of lung and skin infections was increased 3-4x and of hospitalization for heart failure was increased 2x in the IV iron group after adjusting for the more favorable baseline characteristics in that group.

Decrease in mGFR between groups was similar between both groups, -3.6 ml/min per 1.73 m2 per year for oral iron group and -4 ml/min per 1.73 m2 per year for IV iron group. 

Hemoglobin increase, change in proteinuria over time, ESA use, and need for blood transfusions were not significantly different in the 2 groups. KDQOL domain scores did not change over time in either group.

DISCUSSION

Since this study was limited to patients with stage 3-4 CKD not yet on dialysis, results cannot be generalized to patients already on dialysis. 

The primary outcome of comparing decline in mGFR between groups could not be evaluated due to early termination of the study due to safety concerns related to increased risk of infection and cardiovascular events.  While additional studies evaluating the long-term safety of IV iron use in this population are necessary, should the oral route be preferred when initiating iron supplementation in patients with stage 3-4 CKD?  Moreover, based on the time course of hemoglobin increase in patients in the oral iron group of this study, it would seem reasonable that a trial of oral iron be given to patients with CKD not yet on dialysis for a full 3 months, rather than at least 1 month and up to 3 months as suggested in the KDOQI guidelines.

The #nephJC #RIPC stats and @storify

Both the chats were quite stimulating, we saw quite a number of new voices (whom we hope to see again!)

Hector did a great job, again, of storify-ing. Thanks again to Preeti Malani, Ed Livingston and the rest of the JAMA staff for their support. Look forward to the #JAMbag next time!


The winners of the #JAMAcup

At every #NephJC chat I find myself delighted with the bits of Twitter wisdom that get funneled through the hashtag. We are going to try to do a better job of rewarding the best of these. Some of these awards will even have prizes. This week we are delighted to announce winners of a great looking JAMA coffee mug, named the JAMAcup in this pre-chat banter:

The winner of the #JAMAcup for the Tuesday night chat is Azra Bihorac (@AzraBihorac) who wrote this gem: 

We would also like to give honorable mention (but no mug) to Mike Walsh (@lastwalsh) who was the first to alert us to the negative results for RIPC in other large trials:

The Wednesday chat was great and picking a winner was difficult but we selected this dejavu all over again tweet by Graham Abra (@GrahamAbra):

Honorable mention to Michael Hultström (@mhulstrom) for this:

 

A hearty thanks to JAMA. We love working with them and appreciate their support of post-publication peer review.

#NephJC does #RIPC Tues Aug 11 and Wed Aug 12. And thanks to @jama_current

RIPC = Remote Ischemic PreConditioning

We hope to see many of you in one of these chats. Thanks again to Preeti Malani, and the folks at JAMA for supporting us - both with providing a toll-free access to the article (at this link), and for providing some prizes - cool JAMA swag! 

So for discussion, the topics will be

  • T0: Do you use a risk score to stratify patients pre-op for risk of AKI? The authors in this study used the Cleveland Clinic risk score, but there are others. If you use a risk score, which one do you use?
  • T1: Do you agree with the inclusion exclusion criteria? especially GFR < 30 as an exclusion? How about the particulars of doing the RIPC? 50 mm Hg > systolic or 200 mm Hg, whichever is lower for 5 minutes X 3. Is the sham acceptable? Lack of blinding the investigators an issue?
  • T2: Dive into the results. What do people make of the difference in secondary outcomes (less effect in mild AKI?). The biomarker outcomes are also intriguing, do you agree with the interpretation?
  • T3: What happens now? The authors think of this as a phase-2 study. What outcomes would you like to see in the next study? Intervention is simple and cheap - or is it? 

Cleveland Clinic Foundation score? What's up with that?

This week's NephJC is discussing JAMA's provocative paper on reversible ischemic preconditioning. The methods used The Cleveland Clinic Foundation ARF score to enroll high risk patients:

I had heard of this but was not facile with it. Some quick googling pulled up this Paganini paper about the derivation and validation of the score:

Here is the score they used to predict the risk of dialysis requiring acute renal failure after cardiac surgery:

Look at the score from a creatinine of just 2.1 mg/dl!

Here is the risk from the scores:

Those confidence intervals for scores above 9 are scary wide, but it looks pretty reliable below there.

This Cleveland Clinic Foundation Score was at the center of an interesting Twitter interaction last week. 

Here is the table in question with the strange Cleveland Clinic Score highlighted:

Ross got a quick response from the editors of JAMA. Color me impressed: