welcome redditors!to snoo-finity ... and beyond!
Welcome to atbangura's page.
Contributor score: 0
School:





Subcomments ...

The disease here is fructose bisphosphatase deficiency. In it, IV glycerol or fructose doesn’t help because both enter the gluconeogenesis pathway below fructose bisphophatase. Galactose on the other hand enters above it. I don’t think you really need to know this to choose the correct answer since the clinical picture of fasting hypoglycemia that is corrected w/ some sort of sugar that can enter the gluconeogenesis pathway should clue you into the right answer.

neonem  I don't think you could have *totally* ruled out the other answers - I picked glycogen breakdown because it sounded kind of like Von Gierke disease (glucose-6-phosphatase) to me: characterized by fasting hypoglycemia, lactic acidosis, and hepatomegaly since you're not able to get that final step of exporting glucose into the blood. However, I guess in this case you wouldn't see that problem of glycerol/fructose infusion not increasing blood glucose. Nice catch. +8  
vshummy  I think you were super smart to catch Von Gierke! Just to refine your answer b/c I had to look this up after reading your explanation, von gierke has a problem with gluconeogenesis as well as glycogenolysis. So they’d have a problem with glycerol and fructose but also galactose since they all feed into gluconeogenesis before glucose-6-phosphatase. Great thought process! +10  
drmomo  glycerol and fructose both enter the pathway thru DHAP and glyceraldehyde-3-ph. Galactose enters thru Gal-1-ph to glu-1-ph conversion +1  
linwanrun1357  In this cause (fructose bisphosphatase deficiency.,),fructose should help to increase serum glucose, bcz it can become into glucose-6-P by hexokinase. Therefore, this question makes me confused.... +  
krewfoo99  According to uworld, fructose infusion will not increase blood glucose levels in Von Gierkes Disease as well +  
atbangura  I believe Von Gierke is not a plausible answer choice because a galactose infusion would still not see an elevation in glucose levels. Remember, galactose could be converted to galactose 6 phosphate, but in order to complete gluconeogenesis and allow glucose to leave the Liver for an increase of its concentration in the blood, the patient would still need glucose 6 phosphatase which is eliminated in Von Gierke. +  


submitted by wired-in(31),

Maintenance dose formula is (CssCltau)/F where Css is steady-state target plasma conc. of drug, Cl is clearance, tau is dosage interval & F is bioavailability.

Neither dosage interval nor bioavailability is given, so ignoring those & plugging in the numbers (careful to convert units to mg/kg/day): (12 ug/mL * 1 mg/1000 ug) * (0.09 L/hr/kg * 1000 mL/1 L * 24 hr/1 day) = 25.92 mg/kg/day

...which isn't any of the answer choices listed. They must have rounded 0.09 L/hr/kg to 0.1 L/hr/kg, and doing so gives exactly 28.8 mg/kg/day (choice C)

lispectedwumbologist  That's so infuriating I stared at this question for 20 minutes thinking I did something wrong +21  
hyoid  ^^^^^ +2  
seagull  lol..my math never worked either. I also just chose the closest number. also, screw this question author for doing that. +2  
praderwilli  Big mad +4  
ht3  this is why you never waste 7 minutes on a question.... because of shit like this +5  
yotsubato  Why the FUCK did they not just give us a clearance of 0.1 if they're going to fuckin round it anyways... +6  
bigjimbo  JOKES +  
cr  in ur maths, why did u put 24h/1day and not 1day/24h? if the given Cl was 0.09L/hr/kg. I know it just is a math question, but i´d appreciate if someone could explain it. +  
d_holles  LMAO games NBME plays +  
hyperfukus  magic math!!!!! how TF r we supposed to know when they round and when they don't like wtf im so pissed someone please tell me step isn't like this...with such precise decimal answers and a calculator fxn you would assume they wanted an actual answer! +  
jean_young2019  OMG, I've got the 25.92 mg/kg/day, which isn't any of the answer choices listed. So I chose the D 51.8, because 51.8 is double of 25.9......I thought I must have make a mistake during the calculation ...... +  
atbangura  They purposely did that so if you made a mistake with your conversion like I did, you might end up with 2.5 which was one of the answer choices. SMH +  
titanesxvi  I did well, but I thought that my mistake was something to do with the conversion and end up choosing 2.5 because it is similar to 25.92 +  


Skin provides insulation and prevents heat loss. This patient's body will compensate for increased rate of heat loss by increasing metabolic rate.

davidw  This is directly from Goljan I) Hypovolemic shock may occur due to loss of plasma from the burn surface (refer to Chapter 5). • Loss of protein from the plasma loss may result in generalized pitting edema. II) Infection of the wound site and sepsis may occur. (a) Sepsis due to Pseudomonas aeruginosa is the most common cause of infection in burn patients. (b) Other pathogens include methicillin-resistant S. aureus and Candida species. (3) Curling ulcers may occur in the proximal duodenum (refer to Chapter 18). (4) Hypermetabolic syndrome may occur if >40% of the body surface is burned. +4  
yex  Can someone explain why is it not increased ECF? +  
charcot_bouchard  i picked same. Increased ECF but cant remember why. Can you explain WHY it is increased ECF? what was ur reasoning +1  
isotopes  Burns would lead to a decrease in ECF because the protection from fluid loss is absent; it can lead to shock. :) +  
tinydoc  My reasoning behind picking ↑ ECV was that your losing fluid but not electrolytes with the burn ⇒ the ecv would have increased osmolarity, so the fluid from the ICV would be pushed the the ECV. It made sense to me at the time. I guess technically its wrong because the loss of fluids and the gain of fluids would amount to pretty much the same thing. But the insulation and heat loss thing makes sense I guess. +  
yex  Increased ECF, bc I was thinking about the edema formation.... :-/ +  
atbangura  I picked increased ECF because burns increase the capillary permeability coefficient, but now that I am going over it I realized that increasing the permeability would only transfer plasma volume to the interstitial volume, which are both a part of the ECF so therefore ECF would not change. SMH +