CCUS Institute Bedside Ultrasound Mini-Fellowships. #POCUS #CME

The personalized CCUS Institute’s Mini-Fellowships (CME-eligible) are focused on bedside ultrasound and designed to take clinicians with some degree of proficiency in basic ultrasound to a whole other level. The opportunity to follow a seasoned clinical ER/ICU sonographer and see actual cases, learn the clinical integration of ultrasound data into decision-making is a unique one, outside of a handful of residency programs whose faculty includes experienced bedside sonographers. Basic how-to courses are great, and certainly the first step for those clinicians adding ultrasound to their armamentarium, but what we have seen, sadly, is after initial enthusiasm, many don’t really pick up the probe because the confidence to “make the call” simply isn’t there. Yet.

In a sense, it’s almost as if, as medical students, we’d read Bates, practiced physical exam on each (more or less normal ) other, and were then set out to make diagnoses and treat without having residents and attendings around to confirm our findings a few times, until we got the hang of it. Hmm. That would be rough.

Some physicians are fortunate enough to practice in a center where there are a few “veterans” of bedside ultrasound and can gain some acumen that way, but others may be the ones spearheading their institution into the 21st century, and it is from the comments of several of those, attending the CCUS Symposium (2008-2014 – perhaps a return in 2017) asking for the possibility of shadowing some of us, that the Mini-Fellowships came to be.

Mini-Fellowship Structure

Montreal Mini-Fellowship: Participants shadow one of our instructors (ICU attending) during the regular working days and discuss the cases and ultrasound-relevant aspect of each case (more often than not the case in entirety), and are able to practice their ultrasound skills. The duration is flexible although we generally suggest a minimum of two or three days. Each day would usually be about 6-8 hours, some may be more.

Toronto Mini-Fellowship: Participants get a dedicated and highly experienced preceptor (Dr. Edgar Hockmann) who is not on clinical service but with access to the ICU patients, and will provide a structured and dynamic session adapted to the participant’s needs and abilities.

The case exposure will be mainly ICU as well as ER and ward patients. The focus will be on acute care issues. After two days, participants who had a basic ability in ultrasound should be fairly comfortable with assessing volume status, cardiac function, perform lung ultrasound, be able to identify and assess intrathoracic and intr-abdominal fluid collections, assess the kidneys, bladder and gall bladder, measure optic nerve sheath, assess carotid flow and some may have exposure to trans-cranial doppler. The focus may be shifted depending on a participant’s interest.

This takes place in Montreal, Quebec or Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Participants will have the opportunity to work with handhelds, midrange and high-end ultrasound devices.

Space is limited as we can generally only accommodate 1-3 participants per month.

 

CME

So, great news, finally went thru the CME process and lo and behold, the Mini-Fellowships qualify for 25 Section 2 credits (regardless of the length) and 3 hours of Section 3 credits (per day of fellowship). For you americans:

Through an agreement between the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada and the American Medical Association, physicians may convert Royal College MOC credits to AMA PRA Category 1 Credits™. 

Bonus!

Upcoming participants will also receive a copy of the forthcoming handbook:

covercover-back

Requirements 

Please have basic experience in bedside ultrasound. We don’t want to teach you about depth and gain. We’re happy to fine tune your views but not to introduce you to the main cardiac views. It would just be wasting your clinical time. We’re here to show you how to assess pathology and integrate your findings into clinical decision-making. Take the basic group course to learn the views, or be self-taught from youtube/iphone and practicing on your patients. You don’t have to be great, but to get the most out of this experience it shouldn’t be your first time holding a probe.

Registration

email me at philipperola@gmail.com or reach out on twitter @ThinkingCC

Tuition

Montreal Mini-Fellowships: 550$ CAN / 450$ USD per day for 1 physician, 450$ CAN / 375$ USD per person per day for 2, and 375$ CAN / 325$ USD per person per day for 3 physicians (maximum)

Toronto Mini-Fellowships: 800$ per half day (4h).

100% refundable until you start. Even if you don’t show up. Really. We’re not in it for the business. We get to go home earlier if you don’t come.

Testimonials:

« I have had the chance to participate in a shadowing experience with Dr Rola at the Scarborough General Hospital ICU during two days in 2013. As a general internist and assistant program director, this experience really opened my eyes regarding the use of bedside ultrasound in general internal medicine and for IM residents. I think I would have benefited more of this experience if I had done more training previously, and I encourage future participants to do so. However, I came back from this experience with a very clear idea of the benefit of CUSE for my patients and for our residency training program. I really saw how ultrasound was used ‘in action’, in a much more realistic way than what is usually shown in CPD meetings. I also saw its limitations and the skills I needed to develop to generate good images (not something you can learn over the weekend!). Since then, I participated in formal trainings and licensing activities (more than 250 supervised US on acute care patients) and now practice bedside ultrasound autonomously. We now offer a bedside ultrasound training for our residents with the help of the emergency medicine department and an ultrasound-guided procedural simulation lab. Nothing in CPD has improved my practice and benefited the health of my patients as much as bedside ultrasound training. »

Alexandre Lafleur, MD, MSc (Ed.), FRCPC
Spécialiste en médecine interne
CHU de Québec – CHUL
alexandre.lafleur.1@ulaval.ca

“Thank you very much for the exposure and teaching offered via the CCUS “Mini-Fellowship.”  These few days allowed me to enormously improve my mastery of bedside ultrasound in clinical decision-making in critical care. I recommend the experience to clinicians already having experience in bedside ultrasound, but who feel they could benefit from the expertise of an instructor to attain a level beyond basic courses and available textbooks.”

Mathieu Brunet, MD, GP/ER/ICU, Magdalen Islands, Quebec, Canada

“The CCUS Mini Fellowship In House training is very essential in to experience the echo skills that we get from the courses,being supervised in ICU will offer the chance to be corrected and get real live practice/exposure by being at the bedside and learn what is priority in echo for the best of patient care. The in-house experience is very helpful, practical, I recommend this training to any physician involved in ER, ICU, CCU, Anesthesia and rapid response team.”

Joe Choufani, MD, Internal Medicine/Cardiology, St-Lawrence Health Association, NY

“Thanks for everything. I really appreciate you sharing your vast fund of knowledge with me.”

Sean Sue, MD, ER, Philadelphia

CME

So, great news, finally went thru the CME process and lo and behold, the Mini-Fellowships qualify for 25 Section 2 credits (regardless of the length) and 3 hours of Section 3 credits (per day of fellowship). For you americans:

Through an agreement between the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada and the American Medical Association, physicians may convert Royal College MOC credits to AMA PRA Category 1 Credits™., #CME

Enteral Fluid Resuscitation (EFR): Third-world medicine in the modern ED/ICU? (ORT part 2) – #FOAMed, #FOAMcc, #FOAMer

Screen Shot 2015-02-10 at 7.15.16 PM Enteral Fluid Resuscitation in the ER/ICU? For those who did’t come across it, part 1 of this series can be found here: http://wp.me/p1avUV-e8 So back to bringing the basics back to our ultra-tech world… Can I actually use this field technique in my bright and shiny ICU? Can I use oral hydration as a cutting edge therapy in my life-and-death patients? Sounds strange. Sounds like I should be using a precise device which lets me know exactly how much fluid has gone into my vascular space, because that’s where I want it to go, and I want to control exactly the composition of my serum electrolytes, etc, etc.  We like to control. But do we really? We actually have absolutely no idea how much of a fluid bolus remains intravascularly, in any one patient.  It will depend on his/her pre-existing venous filling, his serum protein levels, the integrity of the glycocalyx, and probably a few more things we don’t even know yet.  And as I rapidly distend atria, I release ANP which damages my glycocalyx further. Hmmm… As I mentioned in the last post, the only way fluid enters our vascular space is via the endothelial cells at the level of the GI tract for the most part. All “venous access” is iatrogenic. I do believe that the endothelial cells, by and large, will do a better job – in concert with the kidneys and rest of the blood cells – of controlling the plasma than we will, if given the chance. What logically follows is that, in the presence of a functional gut, I can consider using Enteral Fluid Resuscitation – that is, giving fluid for hemodynamic purposes, not just “maintenance,” by an enteral tube of some sort. So what could I give?   What’s in it? The current reduced osmolarity WHO/UNICEF formula contains approximately the following: Screen Shot 2015-02-10 at 7.24.28 PM So, lets take a closer look at the players: 75 mmol/l of sodium, 75 mmol/l glucose, some potassium and the rest basically to balance the electroneutrality. The whole thing hinges on the glucose-sodium cotransporter, which drags sodium and water in along with the “desired” glucose.  Optimal water absorption takes place with Na between 40-90 mmol/l, glucose 110-140 mmol/l, and an osmolality around 290.  A higher Na may cause some hypernatremia, and a higher osmolality may result in water loss. Here is our friend the enterocyte illustrating just how this kind of solution will allow sodium absorption: Screen Shot 2015-02-10 at 7.31.54 PM   Do-it-Yourself Enteral Fluid Resuscitation Solution: So I’ve got a neat DIY option if I don’t want to break out the powder and start mixing in the middle of my unit: 0.45% or 1/2 NS plus 30 ml of of D50 would give us Na 77, Cl 77 and glucose 74, with an osmolality of 228. Pretty close. That’s what I’ve been using. How much? Well, I like the slow and gradual. Some of the rehydration data out there supports some pretty huge amount of fluids, but this has been done mostly in healthy but dehydrated athletes – not the case for most of our patients. I’ve been going with 250ml every 1-2h, as – for now – an adjunct to IV fluid therapy. This is conservative and completely arbitrary, but essentially a glass every hour or two certainly doesn’t seem excessively taxing. Who can I give this to? You do need a functional gut, so for now, my criteria are (1) essentially normal abdominal exam, (2) obviously no recent bowel surgery, (3) a patent and functional gut as far as I know, (4) no ultrasound evidence of ileus or gastric distension. But how can I be sure it’s going in the right place?  I can’t. Just like I can’t be sure my IV fluids are staying in the right place. But I do check – IVC ultrasound (gross but better than skin turgor!), urine output, HR, BP, etc. None of those are perfect as they are all multifactorial, but that is the nature of the game. The other thing I check is gastric distension by bedside ultrasound every couple of hours – obviously, if I’m just getting a fluid filled stomach, there’s no point, and eventually harm may ensue. When should I stop? Whenever you clinically decide you don’t need/want any further fluid resuscitation. As far as I am concerned, might as well stop the IV infusions first and have the enteral going after – in the end, you are hoping your patient will go back to drinking and not require a PICC line for discharge, aren’t you?  So you stop when the patient does it on his or her own. I’d really like to know if anyone out there is doing something like this. It would be great to compare notes and evolution. Drop a line!   cheers, Philippe

Musings with Jon-Emile & Philippe – Fluid Resuscitation: Physiology and Philosophy! #FOAMed, #FOAMcc, #FOAMer

So here, Jon-Emile and I explore a topic I’ve posted about before (http://wp.me/p1avUV-bd) so I can see if a master physiologist agrees with my rationale (…not just my rationale but supported by a ton of literature many choose to overlook!).

Please visit http://www.heart-lung.org for Jon’s awesome physiology tutorials!

Love to hear listeners’ thoughts!

cheers

 

Philippe

Enteral Fluid Resuscitation? The WHO to the rescue in the ED/ICU? (ORT part 1) #FOAMed, #FOAMcc, #FOAMer

So something has been trotting around my head for a few months, and it actually stems from a small and not-so-proud moment I experienced during a conversation with my wife, while she was still a resident.

She was telling me some of the stories of the day, and how one of her supervisors who had a mixed outpatient and ED practice, always pushed them to use PO fluids, get rid of IVs and get the patients home.  I kind of scoffed, in a sadly typical acute care physician mode, saying how you had to be a bit more aggressive and give them IV fluids to revert their dehydration a bit faster.

Then I caught myself. Hmmm. What exactly am I saying this (con brio) on the basis of. Knowledge, or belief?    I tried to find knowledge but came up woefully short. It seems I’m doing this out of habit, what I’ve seen/learned/believed in the two decades since someone handed me an MD degree. Damn.

So, I do believe in evolution. We have evolved platelets to stop bleeding, fibroblasts and osteoblasts that can fix bones, white cells that go mop up the messes, and all kinds of other good stuff.  One thing we do NOT have is small openings in vascular structures that allow unprocessed, man-made fluids directly into the bloodstream. We make these. We insert tubing into normally sterile environment and infuse a vast number of medications directly into this fragile matrix of cells and organic colloid – with the best of intentions.

In our physiology, however, the ONLY way fluid ever enters the vascular spaces is by diffusion from the outside of the endothelial cell into the lumen, molecule by molecule and ion by ion.

So let me seemingly diverge for a bit…

Screen Shot 2015-02-09 at 12.05.58 PM

Prior to the 1970’s, restricting oral intake was a “cornerstone” therapy of diarrheal illness, due to the pervasive belief that the GI tract needed time to heal and recover before resuming normal function. This was felt to be crucial. Hence, only IV therapy was used (in developed countries), and in the underdeveloped world, the death toll was appalling – especially among children.   In the 40’s, Dr. Darrow of Yale started actually studying the GI tract fluid and electrolyte issue, and advocating oral rehydration with mixed fluids. He was able to bring infant mortality radically down in his practice, but it would take over twenty years before a groups started to formally look at this in the 60’s.  Finally, in the late 70’s, the WHO pushed this out into the field, and the childhood worldwide mortality from acute diarrheal illness dropped by over 70%, from over 5 million deaths a year to a bit over 1 million – at that time.

Oral Rehydration Therapy (ORT) is now felt to be one of the most significant advances in modern medicine. Compared to that impact, all the critical care and cardiology trials are about as significant as a drop in a bucket. We’re not talking about composite end points and subgroup odds ratios of 0.85…

For a great review on this check out The History of Oral Rehydration Therapy by Joshua Nalibow Ruxin (google it).  A great story of science and humanity, good and bad.

So, back to 2015 ED/ICU’s.

Screen Shot 2015-02-09 at 12.06.26 PM

The question now becomes the following: why – in the presence of a functional gut – do I choose to entirely rely on non-physiological IV fluid resuscitation?

I can already hear the roars and the outrage and the cries of heresy.  And heresy is certainly what this is (Heresy is any provocative belief or theory that is strongly at variance with established beliefs or customs – Wikipedia). But that doesn’t make it wrong.

So I would ask everyone – particularly the naysayers, to examine their knowledge and see if they actually have any at all that supports the strong conviction that IV fluids are the way to go in ALL cases (my N=1  principle precludes going for the one-size-fits-all therapeutic approach).

Now everyone agrees that, once patients are better, they should be on feeds with little maintenance fluids. I don’t think many will debate that. So that should be the basis to wonder whether, in the presence of a functional gut, a variable proportion of fluid resuscitation in acute illness should be enteral…

I’ll let everyone digest that.

Comments more than welcome.

More to come in Part 2.

 

 

cheers!

Philippe

Limited EGDT in Zambia Study: Salt Water Drowning Syndrome… #FOAMed, #FOAMcc

So in this month’s issue of Critical Care Medicine, an interesting article was published, where investigators took a (necessarily) simplified version of EGDT to Zambia and applied it to septic patients. It turned out they had to stop it early due to an excessive number of cases of respiratory failure in the treatment group.  The difference was – you guessed it – they got “aggressive” volume resuscitation – up to 4l in the first 6 hours – guided by JVP assessment, and blood and dopamine if needed.

Simplified_Severe_Sepsis_Protocol___A_Randomized.1

The amounts received by 6, 24 and 72h were 2.9, 3.9 and 5.6 l for the treatment group vs 1.6, 3.0 and 4.3 l.

Now lets keep in mind that the patients, for the most part, did not have access to critical care, so the limited resources for ventilatory support made stopping the trial a bit early the only reasonable thing to do. Mortality in the treatment group was 64% and control 60%. High numbers, but this is explained in part by the prevalence of HIV (80%) and TB (37% of the HIV positive patients), so this data can’t necessarily be extrapolated to all populations, but to me, this is physiological support for the concept that aggressive fluid resuscitation – as I have stated in prior posts/podcasts – is most dangerous in those patients where the septic source – presumably “leaky” is ill-equipped to handle extra-physiological fluid.  In these patients, as Myburgh states in a sepsis talk, “noradrenaline is the fluid of choice,” and although perhaps a bit tongue in cheek, this certainly speaks to my beliefs of resuscitating to euvolemia rather than to the lack of volume responsiveness (http://intensivecarenetwork.com/myburgh-john-beta-blockers-and-sepsis/).

Additionally, these patients were not hypotensive, and lactate was not available – local limitations of medical system. Hence the definition of severe sepsis triggering aggressive fluid resuscitation was based  on SIRS type criteria, rather than some form of volume assessment.

 

Bottom line?

Be cautious in aggressive fluid administration in pulmonary sepsis. What, I really dislike when people say “be careful” or “be cautious,” because let’s face it, that doesn’t really mean anything, does it?  It doesn’t tell you what to actually do… We are frontline clinicians, so I’ll say to limit fluid resuscitation in pulmonary sepsis.  2 litres up front?  Probably ok so long as I have a varying, mid-size IVC (maybe 10-15mm – arbitrary and chronic pulmonary disease and hypertension have to be factored in) and a decent heart, but I don’t want to get to the point of no longer being fluid-responsive. Rather, go to pressors a bit earlier, perhaps, and no need for ongoing “maintenance” fluids at 100-150 cc’s an hour – remember that 80% of this wonderful therapy ends up where we don’t want it to.

 

cheers!

 

Philippe

PS for awesome talks by amazing speakers, don’t forget to register for CCUS 2015!!! For more info: http://wp.me/p1avUV-aU and register at http://www.ccusinstitute.org

Fluid Responsiveness: Getting the right answer to the wrong question. #FOAMed, #FOAMcc, #FOAMus

Let me start with a clinical scenario: you have a 68 year old male in front of you who is intubated, has bilateral pleural effusions, pulmonary edema, a bit of ascites, significant peripheral edema, elevated CVP/JVP/large IVC, and a moderately depressed cardiac function.  What is the diagnosis?

If you said CHF, you might be right. If you said post-resuscitation state in a septic patient, you might equally be right. Hmmm….

So as any self-respecting FOAMite knows, there is an ongoing and endless debate about fluid responsiveness, how best to detect it, what exact percentage of some variation represents it – is it 9% or 13% – and everyone has the way they swear by.

Well, I think the entire premise behind this is essentially flawed.

The fact that this is the first question implies that the answer should radically change management (eg giving or not giving fluids “generously” – yes, the quotes imply facetiousness).  Basically, that you should stop giving fluids when your patient is no longer fluid-responsive. The implication is that fluids is a better, safer, healthier, more naturopathic, eco-friendly and politically correct therapy than any other option.

I think we should reflect on that a little.

If you put some faith into normal physiology, you have to acknowledge that the only situations in which our cardiopulmonary system finds itself nearly or no longer fluid responsive are pathological: CHF, renal failure, etc. None of those are healthy. None of those are a bridge to healing.

What do we do when we are hypovolemic?  We vasoconstrict, stop peeing, try to drink a bit (if at all possible) and slowly replete our intravascular space via the portal system. We might build up a little lactic acid (helps feed the heart and brain – yup, nothing toxic about it), but we get over it.  Of course, if we lose too much, the system fails and we head to meet our maker.

Now, having remembered that, why do we feel (and I say feel because the evidence isn’t there to back it up) like we have to get to pathological levels of intravascular venous pressure to fix the problem?  Especially when the problem at hand isn’t primarily hypovolemia, but mostly vasodilation, with possibly a relative hypovolemia in part related to increased venous capacitance.

The real question is: does my patient really, truly need a lot of fluid?

And here is the catch: just because someone is fluid responsive doesn’t mean that they need any, or that it is the best thing for them. Whoa… Heretic… I thought “aggressive fluid resuscitation is the cornerstone of resuscitation in sepsis.

I think that answer is relatively simple.

No matter which method you are using (mine is IVC ultrasound: -https://thinkingcriticalcare.com/2014/04/01/the-ivc-assessment-by-bedside-ultrasound-lets-apply-some-common-sense-foamed-foamcc/), if you are deciding based on a millimetre of diameter, or a couple of percentage points of variation whether or not to give liters of crystalloids to your patient, there is no truth to that in the individual patient. Trying to figure out the tiniest of differences to decide our therapeutic options is, in my opinion, a huge waste of time with no scientific basis in the one single patient you are treating.   It’s like haggling for a dollar on a hundred dollar item in a flea market: you’re missing the boat.

“85% of patients with a IVC/SVV/SPV/PLR of …. are volume responsive” or something of the sort does NOT apply to the one patient you have in front of you as a recommendation for fluids. You have to make a complete clinical picture of it – feel the belly, look at the inspiratory effort, examine the tissues for edema, etc.

Grey zone it. The best we can do is a gross categorization of truly hypovolemic (need a lot), full (please don’t give me any), and “normal” which may need maybe a little, but probably not “generous” amounts. You’ll end up generously feeding the interstitial space and making things worse – and later maybe saying “oh well, I guess he/she was just so sick…”

Even if my patient is fluid-tolerant, why to we want to push him into near-pathological states? Is it just the old adage of “You have to swell to get well?”  In the light of much of our literature, I’m not sure that old wives’ tale holds a lot of water.

Are vasopressors that bad?  Not according to what we know…

At least, avoid actually reaching the point of no longer being fluid responsive. You can’t tell me you think that CHF is actually a good thing, can you?

 

Love to hear your thoughts!

 

Philippe

PS, if you like to think out of the box and rather be on the cutting edge, make sure to mark your calendar for the coolest conference in Canada: #CCUS2015….http://wp.me/p1avUV-bh

 

 

COMMENTS

SQS Replies:

Philippe,
I think your logic is sound enough, but the moat that makes it currently unassailable is that you are working in an area with no or very little data. There is clearly a reasonably well developed and continuing to develop literature around the mortality effects of excess volume. There is an older literature that suggests that our vasopressors are actually having their effect on the more normally functioning arterioles and may shunt well oxygenated blood from the well functioning cells of a tissue and to the ones that are shocked and can’t use the oxygen, anyway. At this juncture, your guess is as good as mine, as to which of these is the greater evil. Ergo, your argument is as good as any.

One thing I will say is that the patients who concern us are those in whom endotoxin, blood loss, or other factors have resulted in a shock state wherein cells and even large parts of tissues have both inadequate oxygen supply and inadequate ability to use whatever oxygen is supplied them. Any tool we have to alter this pathological state is blunt. Blood pressure? CVP? IVC size and behavior? SVI? What do any of these say about how well we are doing at the tissue and cellular level? Even the interesting markers of lactate, ScvO2, CV CO2, etc. are blunt instruments. As is our bag of fluid and as are our vasopressors. And think about our end result – “hemodynamic stability”, “better mental functioning”, “good urine output”, “feeling better”, “walking around”, “able to go back to work”. Things that are important to us and to our patient, but barely even measurable. How blunt are they?

My own approach, which I suspect to be yours, too, is to recognize that the new onset shock patient is momentarily different from the chronic CHF patient/”chronic” shock patient you describe above. We know there is an oxygen deficit, and it behooves us to correctly that as quickly as we can. We believe, with some data to back us up, that rapid correction of that deficit, to the extent that we can, can prevent the ugly chronic state. I use the blunt measures of fluid responsiveness in the first hour or two of resuscitation to ensure that the CO component of oxygen delivery is not deficient, and then I stop giving fluid. Early in the course, I am prone to rechecking “volume responsiveness” in some hours, because I know that fluid is leaching out of the vascular space and the patient has not stabilized, yet. All the while, I am highly aware that I am hoping this makes a difference, not knowing that it does. I am aware that it is rather circular to check SVI or IVC, give fluid, see a change and say, “See? Volume responsive.” And all the while knowing that every patient has his or her own line, beyond which more fluid will not be helpful but harmful. And all the while knowing that I can’t see that line, nor measure it with any tool that currently exists.

I think perhaps that we are like Phoenicians, navigating our way across the ocean by the North Star and trying to keep land in sight. We do a pretty good job of getting where we’re going a lot of the time. But won’t it be nice when we come up with GPS? Or even the astrolabe?

SQS

 

Fantastic points!

I can’t agree more. I do check for fluid responsiveness, and I do believe in rapid intervention – just perhaps not quite a vigorous and generous as medical marketing would have us buy. There isn’t more data for that than for a somewhat more conservative approach, in my opinion. Even the rate of administration is rarely looked at, just the totals. There is good animal data showing that, for instance, a more rapid rate of albumin infusion results in greater leak and less intravascular albumin at 6, 12 and 24 hours.  Little reason to think it would be any different in humans.  There is also data showing that the oxygen deficit in sepsis is not as ubiquitous as we think.

Our understanding of the septic disease state is minimal at best, and our tools exceedingly blunt, as you point out.  

GPS or astrolabe would be amazing. I’ve had a few discussions with people working on cytochrome spectroscopy – a possibility to assess mitochondrial “happiness,” which could give us an oxygenation endpoint. Then we could have a trial that might end up showing which degree of mitochondrial oxygenation is optimal, if any.

I know I am playing a bit of a devil’s advocate and that, in strict numbers, I probably don’t give a lot less fluid or a lot slower than most, but I think it is important to keep our minds open to change rather than keep a clenched fist around the ideas we have. 

When we have two docs debating whether IVC, SVV, carotid flow time (I do like Vicki’s stuff a lot) or something else, I think we are mostly in the grey zone, and the good thing is that either way, we are dealing with two docs who are aware and conscientious and doing the rest of the right things. But keep in mind there are a lot of docs out there who are in the acute care front lines who believe that bicarb “buffers” lactate. And by buffers they understand “neutralizes.”

I just hope that when the GPS comes along, we don’t lose ten years of knowledge translation time because we are still clinging to (at that point) outdated ideas like the IVC ultrasound… 😉

cheers and thanks so much for contributing fantastic material!

Philippe

Marco says:

Philippe, I really feel like being on your same wavelength when I read your posts about fluid responsiveness. I think it’s obviously easy to agree that a bleeding hypovolemic patient is fluid responsive AND needs fluids, but the more accurately I think about the physiology of fluid resuscitation when a nurse is asking me “should we give him some fluids?” the more I realise that the “grey zone” is large and its upper limit is not easily detectable. Probably if you fill your patients to the point where they are no more fluid responsive, you are sure that no more fluid is needed, but you should be able to stop a bit earlier.
Blunt instruments and measures are an issue, and integration of the data is a possible solution (at least until a GPS comes along), but critical thinking is always a valuable resource.
The more I grow old the more I become minimalist in my approach to the “chronic acute ill” patient (90% of the patients on an ordinary day in my ICU). If a patient is in the grey zone, with a reasonably good hemodynamic stability, some vasopressor support, low dose diuretics and his urine output decreases, probably the decision of giving him fluids OR diuretics would be equally harmful. When a patient is in the grey zone and your instruments are not so accurate, it’s better to keep him safely in the grey zone. When you are in the mountains, you are caught in a snowstorm and cannot find your tracks, the safest decision is to stop and wait.. or follow your GPS 😉

Marco

thanks!

You hit the nail on the head with “integration is key.

Philippe

Revisiting our beliefs about Fluid Resuscitation: An N=1 Podcast. #FOAMed, #FOAMcc

So if you keep abreast of the fluid literature, you’ll note that more and more logical voices are bringing up very, very valid points against the powerful cultural backdrop of aggressive fluid resuscitation in various pathologies. Paul Marik’s recent publication, a great SMACC 2013 lecture by John Myburgh, not to mention several studies and analyses (VISEP, SOAP) illustrating consequences of overzealous fluid resuscitation. On the other side of the fence, you have the guidelines of various associations proclaiming loudly that fluids are “critically important” that there is a need to be “aggressive” and “generous.”  However, scratch a little beneath the surface and find…very little besides opinion and history. Zip. Nothing.

So my aim isn’t to make anyone stop giving fluids, but instead to treat fluids as any other therapy. Carefully given and assessed rather than in hyped-up frenzy.

I invite every physician reading or listening to, for a few minutes, put pre-concieved notions aside and approach the problem from a neutral and educated point of view, and come to your own conclusion, as unbiased as possible.

So here is my little podcast.

 

cheers

 

Philippe

 

ps just as I was uploading, checked my twitter and noted a great addition to the body of analysis by Josh Farkas, check it out:

http://www.pulmcrit.org/2014/08/the-myth-of-large-volume-resuscitation.html?m=1