Jump to content

important sepsis paper


Recommended Posts

  • Moderator

recent NEJM article briefly dissected by Mel Herbert, one of the deities in EM education:

http://blog.hippoem.com/?utm_source=EM%3ARAP+Newsletter&utm_campaign=978b1d849b-2014-03-18_weekly&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_de71b4780c-978b1d849b-288759933

 

honestly, I kind of figured this as well. does it really matter if you get 3 liters of IV fluid through a central or peripheral line? apparently not.

what really matters is early recognition, fluids, abx, and pressors if needed. fancy monitors are no better than common sense. score 1 for the rural ICUs with save to d/c rates similar to the academic tertiary care medical centers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

have you seen the aussie study showing no benefit for any acls drug? they actually did a double blind study a few years ago: cpr+defib+ acls drugs vs cpr+defib +placebo(saline). double blinded. well done study. no difference in outcomes.

at my primary job we are part of an antiarrhythmic study: lido vs amiodarone vs saline in cardiac arrest. double blinded. still in progress but I imagine they will show no differences there either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know you're old when you've seen drugs disproven in the past and now they go back and do it again just to find the same thing. Another should've been a HOG rule: "It's hard to reverse death". I need to build me a Dr. Jung mirror and put it back on the market... BTW, if the end point is STD and neuro intact, I vote for saline. Another case of it looks good on paper but real world doesn't bear it out. Seriously, why do we keep asking the same RCT questions if we keep getting the same supposed answers?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to the Physician Assistant Forum! This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Learn More