First chat of 2019 - showcasing again the honest brokers of nephrology trials with another negative trial. Also note we will be having a NephJC Asia chat starting this week!
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:
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.
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?