acute

January 8, 2014

“But doctor, he’s vomiting blood!!!” – The NEJM GI Bleed article by Villanueva: Yup, time to reassess transfusion in GI bleed! @FOAMed, @FOAMcc

Screen Shot 2014-01-08 at 3.13.37 PM

Last january a highly anticipated paper came out in the NEJM (http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMoa1211801), which should be a game changer, given a few provisos.  Villanueva et al reported on their large (almost 1,000 patients) randomized study on liberal (<90 mg/dl) vs restrictive (<70 mg/dl) strategy.  Interestingly but no longer surprisingly, the patients in the restrictive strategy did better.

Hmmm…sound familiar?  By now everyone  accepts the TRICC trial threshold of 70 in ICU patients, but when it first came out, there were a fair bit of disbelievers and concerned health care workers.  At the time, they excluded GI bleeds and acute coronary syndromes, understandably,

So what do the numbers say?  First lets see if there was any difference in the actual treatment. Definitely. In the restrictive group, 51% of patients required transfusion, vs 86% in the liberal group.  Sizeable difference. Now in terms of outcomes:

a. rebleeding decreased: 10% vs 16%

b. 6 week survival was better: 95% vs 91%

c. less adverse events: 40% vs 48%

But you know what, even if we throw out all the above, the absence of any difference would result in the same conclusion: there is no advantage to a higher hemoglobin goal in GI bleed.

…except for this important proviso: in their institution, UGI endoscopy was performed within the first 6 hours.  Now I’m not necessarily suggesting that the results would have been any different with a real-life, “random” timing of endoscopy, but in the spirit of scientific rigour, it is important to note.

Now there are a few important points to make that are highly relevant in the whole transfusion issue.

Why is transfusion bad? For those who may not be aware, here are a couple of reasons why transfusion looks good on paper but not necessarily so good for the patients: (a) due to stored red cell loss of deformability, the capillary bed can suffer micro-occlusion, and (b) there seems to be some immune suppression related to receiving transfusion. And I don’t (yet) have a clue what it might do to the glycocalyx…

So this is the sort of situation (not uncommon even in other clinical scenarios) where the physicians and nurses breathe a sigh of relief when seeing a nice number on a paper or a screen following transfusion, but the patient’s microcirculation is actually worse off than it was.

How valid is a hemoglobin value in GI bleed?  The answer to this is why we have MD’s after our names, and hopefully live up to that. Let me give you a quick anecdote: sometime in the past year I was called on to help a sick patient in the OR, a young woman with some post-partum bleeding who remained unstable. So the anaesthetists are concerned, the OB’s are trying to fix things, and she’s pretty unstable. A quick CUSE (critical ultrasound examination) shows she has a tiny IVC (almost virtual) and a hyperdynamic LV/RV with a near-100% EFs.  They were concerned because they had already given her fluid, etc…might she have suffered an amniotic embolism? So we were reassured that her RV was fine but clearly she needed more fluid of some sort (SBP 60’s, HR 140’s).  Just at that moment a call comes thru and the OB resident declares with a smile “its ok, her hemoglobin is 105!” and for a split second, there seems to be a sense of relief in the room, which worries me even more. I remind the resident that if he bleeds fast enough, the very last drop of his blood will have a very similar hemoglobin to the one he had while quietly sipping coffee at starbucks… So although we tend to use hemoglobin as an answer to “how much blood does my patient have,” what it really says is what the concentration of red cells is in the blood that my patient has – hence a clinical assessment (preferably with ultrasound) is required to at least determine in our minds whether our patient is empty or full, and only then can a hemoglobin value be properly interpreted. I doubt I would treat the same was someone with only 2 liters of blood going around with a hemoglobin of 75 versus someone with 4 liters of that same blood going around.  In that exact moment their hemoglobins are the same, but in all likelihood, in the ensuing hours, the first will continue to drop as the intravascular volume seeks to replete itself from the interstitial space and from possible GI intake or IV fluids.  So consideration has to be given to what fluids the patient has been or is receiving.  This is why we have MDs. If it was just about using a number, the clerk could manage our patient off the computer census and consult GI. Yep, its the N=1 concept again.

GI bleed = Trauma?   Conceptually, GI bleed is not that different from trauma.  You have a breach in vascular integrity. What are the determinants of rate of bleeding? The size of the hole and the pressure gradient.  Our body will try to shrink the hole with a fibrin mesh and a platelet plug and some vasoconstriction, and hypotension will decrease the pressure gradient.  That’s why in major trauma we don’t want to “stay and play” but want to “scoop and run” to an OR while just maintaining life until someone can plug the hole surgically (just look up some of Karim Brohi’s great #FOAMed lectures), because all that medical resuscitation (big crystalloid boluses) will do is blow those fibrin meshes away and increase the pressure gradient!  So aggressive fluid resuscitation may not be the best idea in GI bleed either. And yes, I’ve used tranexamic acid in bad GI bleeders while waiting for intervention.

Philosophical rambling… 

I think most of us forget that phrase…what was it again? Primum…primum non nocere?  Oh yes, we all said it, know it, but do we really remember to apply it to everything we do, every day? And why not? Because, in our desire to help, we more often than not feel like we have to “do something.”  And in truth, so does staff, families and the patients themselves.

Conclusion:

So, how will this change my practice?  It will make me completely comfortable in allowing my hemodynamically stable and nearly euvolemic (IVC can be seen and LV/RV not just a tachycardic blur) GI bleeder to have a hemoglobin of 70. Will I insist on an endoscopy within 6 hours? Not necessarily, but I will be monitoring (as I usually do) for any deterioration to get on the phone and push a little or a lot.

What’s next…?   I’m thinking down the line we might just see small volume resuscitation (100 cc at a timewith a glycocalyx-friendly albumin), a bolus and infusion of tranexamic acid and a quick endoscopic intervention will be the way to go, while keeping a hemoglobin no greater than 70…cuz who knows, maybe 60 or 50 might be better…

love to hear what anyone has to say!

Philippe

Check out Ken and I discussing this on the SGEMs Podcast:

SGEM#61: Blood on Blood (Transfusion Strategies for Upper GI Bleeds)

January 2, 2014

CCUS 2014 – Ultrasound Enhanced Physical Examination: mark your calendars! #FOAMed, #FOAMcc

We’re in the final stretch of planning for this year’s conference, which will be totally awesome:

CCUS 2014 Master Programme

There are a couple of TBA lectures pending confirmation, as well as finalization of the pediatric side, but this should whet your appetites! Final one will be out by the end of the week!

Montreal (awesome spot to visit!) May 9th (pre-congress courses) 10th-11th (main symposium) filled with some really cool clinical lectures on how to integrate ultrasound in common and critical clinical scenarios.

The faculty is awesome:

Andre Denault, Haney Mallemat (@criticalcarenow), Vicki Noble (@nobleultrasound), Mike Stone (@bedsidesono), Edgar Hockmann, JF Lanctot and Maxime Valois (@EGLS_JFandMax), Robert Chen, Catherine Nix, Ashraf Fayad, Michael Woo and many more….

…and lots of intense workshops!

This isn’t just a “how to”, its a “how to really integrate in into daily practice.”  or maybe “how to take your game to a whole new level!”

Registration is open, and figure on the final programme to be out by the end of next week.

http://ccusinstitute.org/Symposium6.html

if you have any questions, feel free!

Hope to see you all there!

Philippe

January 1, 2014

The N=1 concept. #FOAMed, #FOAMcc

First of all, happy holidays to all and happy new year!

Following a few requests, I’m gonna put up a few words about the N=1 concept, as I think it comes up in every single therapeutic and diagnostic strategy.

We do not treat a thousand, a hundred or even ten patients at a time.  As clinicians, we deal with a single patient, with a certain pathology, and his own, unique physiological pattern of response to that pathology.

In a medical utopia, we would be able to have a precise biophysiological profile of our patient – probably including parameters that either don’t yet exist, or are on the verge of being found or invented.  We would know, for instance, the degree of glycocalyx damage, the nature of this damage, the degree of subsequent capillary leak, the specific inflammatory cytokine pattern, and thus be able to use a potential combination of agonists and antagonists to favor healing, and tailor fluid therapy to the “just right” amount, avoiding both under-resuscitation and tissue edema. This would be similar to antibiotic sensitivity testing. Who, in this century so far, would deliberately not order sensitivities, instead satisfying themselves with a positive result and happy with empiric therapy?

Just in terms of biological variability, it is impossible to believe that all patients would respond best to a single goal or therapy. How can an MAP of 65 be as good for a septic hypertensive patient as it is for a young septic woman who normally walks around with an SBP of 110? Not that I don’t use that number myself most of the time, but certainly food for thought, and something to keep in mind when treating either of those “types” of patients…

And the answer to the N=1 riddle isn’t just subgroup analysis. The questions have to be answered in prospective fashion, built into the study design. Not easy work, and especially since we don’t yet even know what the key variables/questions are… But personally, as mentioned in an earlier post, I do now suspect that the ubiquitous glycocalyx holds some of those answers.

Let’s look at the whole fluid debate through the N=1 lens: it makes no sense whatsoever to debate crystalloids versus colloids. This negates thinking and only encourages near-religious fervour amidst both camps. Rather, look at your patient. Is he truly dehydrated/volume depleted or just volume responsive on the basis of vasodilation. If we want to restore the ICF and the interstitium, then crystalloids are probably better, but if we want to restore effective circulatory volume, then some measure of colloid may help avoid excessive edema, though even this can be debated. Even more important is the composition of the resuscitation fluid. Much as we adjust our TPN, we should probably design our resuscitation fluids, rather than only using Ringer’s Lactate (I say only just to drive the point that NS should not be used as a resuscitation fluid, unless repleting chloride is specifically necessary).

Now this may sound like a rant against large trials, but it isn’t. Absolutely invaluable information can be derived from these, it is just a matter of thinking how that information can benefit the one patient you have in front of you. And this isn’t easy. You have to put together your history, physical exam, bedside ultrasound exam and labwork. You can’t just say  “sepsis? 2 litres,” or any other such recipe (aka protocols).

ok, enough for a january 1st!

 

Love to hear what anyone thinks!

 

Philippe

 

December 18, 2013

Ultrasound MedED at CCUS 2014: for educators! #FOAMed, #FOAMcc

This year, as part of the pre-congress courses being held prior to the main symposium (may 10th and 11th), we are introducing a half-day symposium entitled: “The Educators‘ Symposium: How to integrate Bedside Ultrasound into Ungergraduate and Graduate Programs,” coordinated by Dr. Catherine Nix of the University of Toronto who has been the driving force behind U of T’s implementation of an ultrasound program for undergraduates.

Here is the preliminary programme, really good stuff for anyone involved in education, whether at the institutional level or even at the departmental level.

Screen Shot 2013-12-18 at 3.53.07 PM

program subject to (minor) changes…

Attendants may register for this independently or as part of the whole symposium. You can register at:

http://www.ccusinstitute.org/Symposium6.html

Stay tuned for more updates, and the final programme of the main conference should be out by next week.  Guess what, it’ll be a great place to meet @criticalcarenow, @bedsidesono, @EGLS_JFandMax, @nobleultrasound, and many more not yet deep into the #FOAMed or twitter-verse, but soon to be.

See you there!

Philippe

November 30, 2013

Bedside Ultrasound Clip Quiz #4 – #FOAMed, #FOAMcc

So you’ve been doing ACLS for a few minutes in the ED on an elderly male who collapsed at a bus stop and shocked out of VF on the scene by EMS, and when you do a 3 second pause to assess the heart, just after an epi got flushed, this is what you see in the subxiphoid view:

 

Is this a case of tamponade?

Scroll below!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nope!  There’s no pericardial effusion, and the atria are huge!  What you do see is microbubbles from the flushed IV medication in the RA and RV, and severe LV dysfunction.   The severe LA dilation suggests at least a component of chronic overload (also supported by significant leg edema in this case). Note that you can have severe LV dysfunction (post-resuscitation myocardial dysfunction or PRMD) after cardiac arrest of ANY etiology and does not necessarily imply pre-existing LV dysfunction or predict eventual LV function.

 

 

 

 

November 29, 2013

Is it still cool to cool in cardiac arrest? The new TTM Hypothermia trial! #FOAMed, #FOAMcc

So the other dayI read the TTM trial (http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1310519?query=featured_home#t=article) with great interest, as cardiac arrest and the post-resuscitation phase have always been among my pet topics.

First of all this is a big trial.  Bigger that the previous ones that established hypothermia as a standard of care. Does it obviate those previous results?  Absolutely not. Those trials were not 32/33 vs 36 but 32/33 vs “whatever happens.”

Hypothermia makes a lot of sense physiologically, but of course that doesn’t mean that it might not have some harmful side effects that have not yet been clearly delineated (besides the current known hemodynamic ones and relatively benign electrolyte and renal alterations).

However, it is pretty clear that, compared to 33 degrees, 36 does just as well, which leans towards saying that all we have to do is avoid fever, or stay in a very mild hypothermia.

Avoiding secondary injury in brain pathology is key (no desat, no hypotension, and no fever), and in anoxic encephalopathy, it is no different.  The key thing is that in this trial, the temperature was controlled – ie it would not be acceptable to do no cooling, and just chase the fever (which is very common) with acetaminophen, which would invariably result in significant time spent above 36 (oops, tylenol didn’t really work, ok lets put the blanket, etc …this is gonna be hours).

So is this the end of aggressive cooling?  Not necessarily.

For anyone interested in the topic, I suggest reviewing Peter Safar‘s data on dogs and cold aortic flushes – it is absolutely unbelievable to see dogs who  had an arrest, got the cold aortic flush (brain temp below 10 degrees), are left stone cold dead for 45 minutes, then resuscitated and are then able to go around a few days later and do doggie things like run and bark and eat…  So I don’t think that cooler isn’t necessarily better, but that we haven’t yet delineated what are the pros and cons of each temperature range or how to get there practically and safely.

So what should we do?  Well, it would seem reasonable to do either at this point, and accepting a temp between 32-36 (I have usually preferred 33-34 as they rarely drift down into the 20’s as I’ve seen the 32’s do) as being adequate. This may make hemodynamics a bit easier to manage in certain cases.
Also check out Scott’s take at:
 http://emcrit.org/podcasts/emcrit-wee-targeted-temperature-trial-changes-everything/#comment-58635
And the RAGE Podcast addresses this topic at about 25 minutes:
…and of course, keep abreast of further data and subgrouping that may become available on this, and further trials. But for now, its definitely still cool to cool, maybe just a little less…
November 27, 2013

A Paradigm shift: re-thinking sepsis, and maybe shock in general… #FOAMed, #FOAMcc

Thomas Kuhn, physicist and philosopher, in his groundbreaking and science changing text, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, states that:

“Successive transition from one paradigm to another via revolution is the usual developmental pattern of a mature science.”

In other words, a science has growing pains and is bound to have a fair bit of debate and controversy, until a new paradigm becomes dominant.  I think that there is a current – in part prompted by the power of socio-professional media which has allowed minds to connect and knowledge to spread – that will see many of the things that are now “Standard of Care” out the door.

So first of all, the following are must-listens, the first a lecture by Paul Marik, whom I have had the chance to collaborate with in the last years and respect greatly, on knowledge, experience, and even more on his refusal to take anything for granted and being in a seemingly-constant quest for the improvement of medicine.

The second link is Scott Weingart’s take on it, which I think is equally awesome.

I think Paul is pushing the envelope in an essential way, and Scott does a fantastic job of seeing or putting it in perspective. Enjoy:

http://emcrit.org/podcasts/paul-marik-fluids-sepsis/

EMCrit 112 – A Response to the Marik Sepsis Fluids Lecture

My (very) humble opinion on this is a rather simple, almost philosophical one:  why are we seemingly obsessed with treating a predominantly vasodilatory pathology with large amounts of volume?  I’ve said this in previous posts and podcasts, but this, in my opinion, is largely cultural and dogmatic. “Levophed – Leave’em dead” is something I heard as a student and resident, and came to take for granted that I should give lots of fluid in hopes of avoiding pressors… But there’s no evidence at all to support this.  The common behavior of waiting until someone has clearly failed volume resuscitation before starting pressors befuddles me (think how long it takes to get two liters of fluid in most ERs…).  If I was in that bed, I’d much rather spend an hour a bit “hypertensive” (eg with a MAP above 70) than a bit hypotensive while awaiting final confirmation that I do, in fact, need pressors.

I strongly suspect that it’s just a matter of improving vascular tone, giving some volume (which may be that 3 liter mark), and ensuring that the microcirculation/glycocalyx is as undisturbed as possible. Now when I say it may be the 3 liters, I firmly believe this will not apply to everyone, and that it will be 1 liter in some, and 4 in others, and that a recipe approach will be better than nothing, but likely harm some.

I think that blind (eg no echo assessment) of shock is absurd, and for anyone to propose an algorithm that does not include point-of-care ultrasound is only acceptable if they are in the process of acquiring the skill with the intention of modifying their approach in the very near future.

The whole microcirculation/glycocalyx is absolutely fascinating stuff, and undoubtedly will come under scrutiny in the next few years, and it is definitely something I will focus on in upcoming posts & podcasts. Our resuscitation has been macro-focused, and certainly it is time to take a look at the little guys, who might turn out to have most of the answers. For instance, there is some remarkable data on HDAC inhibitors (common valproic acid) and their salutatory effects in a number of acute conditions such as hemorrhagic shock (Dr. Alam) which have nothing to do with macro-resuscitation, and everything to do with cell signaling and apoptosis. Hmmm…

please share your thoughts!

thanks

Philippe

November 18, 2013

Enough with the “Normal” Saline!!!!! #FOAMed, #FOAMcc

Enough with the “Normal” Saline!
So its been about a year since a JAMA article (http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1383234) finally showed that the downside of 0.9% saline isn’t just theoretical, but has some associated clinical morbidity (bad for the kidneys!).  Sadly enough, it still seems to be the routine fluid used for boluses. Whether the ER, hospitalist or intensivist, residents, students…it seems people are reluctant to let go.
Today, rounding in the ICU, I was changing an order for a bolus from another doc from NS to RL, and a nurse asked me why.  I gave her a capsule summary and she was in disbelief.  “Come on Phil, they wouldn’t call it normal saline if it wasn’t!”
I’m an internist by training, so naturally I grew up using NS, since that’s what all the attendings and residents used around me.  Ringer‘s was the stuff the surgeons used, so well, I guess it had to be wrong…no?
So forward to 2001 and John Kellum‘s lecture on acid-base I’ve previously mentioned, and my exploring Stewart’s Physicochemical Approach, and wait, I look at the back of a bag of NS, and find out, much to my dismay, that the stuff I’ve been using like holy water has a pH of 5.6.  And who have I been giving liters and liters of this stuff to?  Yup, mostly patients with acidosis. Hmmm. Interesting. So although I don’t necessarily advocate correcting metabolic acidosis for the sake of doing so (see my previous post on bicarb), I’m not a proponent of worsening acidosis either, even if by another mechanism.
I think there are a number of factors that have resulted in this situation.  For starters, there is the issue of false advertising – the “normal saline” monicker has been influencing subliminal thought for decades (think Malcolm Gladwell thin-slicing), making physicians feel they are giving and inherently “good” substance.  Then there’s the whole tribalism thing with the surgeons vs non-surgeons making all the non-surgeons polarize away from RL (not that RL is perfect, just a bit better, and certainly closer to “normal”). Finally, there’s this sad, sad factor that makes people, even (or maybe even more) smart people reluctant to accept that they have been doing something wrong (or, for those who are offended right now, not ideal) for a long time (I sure was) and prefer to fight it and rationalize it for a few more years until, eventually, the evidence becomes overwhelming or the changing of the guard has fully taken place.
I think what we should be hanging on to is not a drug or a fluid but rather what we learned in the first couple of years of med school: physiology.  Now mind you, at that point we (or most of us) didn’t have a clue how to use it for anything more that answering multiple choice questions, but at some point, we have to go back to it and realize that is what we should be basing our assessment of our therapeutic acts and decisions.
So…if I have a situation where I am low on chloride, I might want to use NS. But otherwise, let try to give something whose composition is a bit closer to our own than NS is.  So, for my students and residents, don’t let me see you prescribing boluses of NS.  If you really, really need to, wait until your next rotation please.
thanks!
Philippe
ps for a great review of the original aritcle, please see Matt’s on PulmCCM at :
Reply:  by Marco Vergano
Totally agree!
I have been struggling for years with the bad habit of some of my colleagues prescribing NS as the most harmless and physiologic replacement fluid. Here in Italy we don’t have such a clear separation between internists and surgeons about NS/RL choice: the bad habit of easily prescribing NS is ubiquitous.
Given the results you mentioned about the increased incidence of renal failure with NS, I am wondering if the ban on ALL starch solutions would have been necessary after the introduction of new balanced starch/electrolyte solutions.
What I really don’t like about RL is that it’s not only hypotonic, but also low in sodium. In our ICU we often have many ‘neuro’ patients (trauma or vascular) and sodium variations become a major issue. Also I prefer Ringer’s acetate over lactate on most of the patients who struggle to ‘manage’ their own lactate.
So my favorite solution remains our good old “Elettrolitica reidratante III” (very similar to Plasma-lyte).
November 14, 2013

Bedside Ultrasound: The Sluggish IVC – something to look for… #FOAMed, #FOAMcc

So take a look at this:

I’m sure most experienced bedside sonographers come across this all the time.  For those who are starting out, and until now have just been looking at size and variation, take a second to look at the flow.  You can actually see the flow stop and start, which tells you your cardiac output is bad.  It could be bad because of the RV, the LV, the pericardium, the tension pneumothorax, anything, but it’s bad.  So just in case you were only gonna look at the IVC, keep looking! You will find something abnormal downstream, perhaps that you can do something about (not fluids, though).

I have seen this disappear and clear up with – when possible – correction of the problem, back to the normally anechoic IVC we usually see.

thanks!

Philippe

ps note there is also a mirror artifact in the right lower portion of the field, making it look as though there are two beating hearts.

November 8, 2013

Beta-blockers in Sepsis? Interesting… #FOAMed, #FOAMcc

Very interesting article in JAMA: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleID=1752246

I’m curious as to whether this has been generating interest in the cc community.  I think it is one of those articles that – at least conceptually – shines light in an area we don’t spend much time reflecting on.

I know that as an IM resident, and a CC fellow, my understanding of vasopressor therapy was pretty basic: squeeze the vessels to bring up the pressure, and hope you don’t squeeze so hard the fingers and toes fall off. In truth, no one ever really pointed out that to some degree or other, the same process killing off the fingers is probably happening to a varying degree in all organs. But maybe I just nodded off and missed it.

Since then, however, I’ve had some time to  re-examine things, and my practice has slowly been evolving.  For one thing, bedside ultrasound allows a really good assessment of inotropy, so I started to ask myself why I was giving b-agonists to patients who clearly didn’t need any help with contractility (e.g. normal, and even more so, hyperdynamic RVs and LVs).  After all, I’m putting them at risk for arrhythmias, or at least tachycardia. So whereas levophed (norepinephrine) remains my reflex pressor, I routinely shift to phenylephrine when faced with arrhythmias (most commonly fast atrial fibrillation) or tachycardia (beyond 110-120) once adequate volume resuscitation has been done.  Why 110-120?  Its an absolute guess. Somewhat educated – or I try to convince myself of that – in figuring that at some point, the increased CO via HR will be offset by decreased filling time, and with the weak but recurring data showing an association between tachycardia over 90-100 and poor outcome.

So this study – counterintuitive as it may sound to some – is really about blunting the potentially unwanted effects of b-agonists.  They randomised 336 patients to IV esmolol to a HR <95 vs a control group of standard care. They found a reduced mortality of 60%… Obviously the massive benefit should be taken with a healthy dose of skepticism, but even just the fact that they didn’t make patients worse is very, very significant.

Read the paper. They do a great job of reviewing the concept and it’s worth going over their protocol.

Physiologically, we know that catecholamines can cause stress cardiomyopathy.  The question is, when cardiomyopathy is noted, how often do we think this is related to therapy?  More often, we figure it’s the disease process – septic cardiomyopathy. At the bedside, this is impossible to differentiate.

The concept of lusitropy – active relaxation – and its contribution to cardiac output – is often overlooked, and can be affected by catecholamines. In fact it can be the most important factor related to preload, despite getting much less attention than volume loading. Remember that preload is not a pressure (especially not a CVP!!!), but a volume, and physiologically it is the degree of myocardial stretch. The ventricle is not passive, and its compliance is highly related to the active relaxation phase. Fluids will not affect this.

In addition, the decreased filling time by tachycardia can also decrease output.

Fantastic study, even if only to open the door.  I would have liked (in typical N=1 fashion and as a bedside sonographer) to see a quick echo prior to initiation, and seeing if there would have been an association with baseline RV/LV function and response/outcome to esmolol. Intuitively and physiologically, it would seem that the hyperdynamic RVs and LVs would have benefitted most, since they didn’t need beta agonism to start with – but I can also entertain that those would be unaffected and that the worse ventricles could have been worsened by stress cardiomyopathy… So a critical question in my opinion.

So…bottom line?  Is this practice-changing? It might be.  For me, I might start looking at RV/LV and opting for a quicker conversion to neosynephrine if I see a hyperdynamic state or lowering my HR threshold to do so…100? 105? – maybe just a shift rather than a change in practice. I’m not sure I’ll start esmolol infusions yet, but it will be at the back of my mind and I might, given the right set of circumstances. What I would like to see is reproducibility, and if it does happen, I would be happy to get HR’s under 95.

Love to hear what anyone else has to say!

 

 

Philippe