A Discussion on Fluid Management Protocols with Rory Spiegel. #FOAMed, #FOAMcc, #POCUS

 

So Rory (@EMnerd) is in the process of building a fluid resus protocol for Shock-Trauma, and asked me if we could have a chat about it, which I feel very honored for – and had a brief impostor syndrome crisis – but it’s always great to chat with people who are really bright, really physiological and after the same goal, to make patients better. Always a pleasure to chat with Rory, so here it is.

I really can’t wait to see their protocol, because I think this is a huge and complex endeavor, but has to be done.  I will try to put pen to paper (probably really pixels to a screen but that doesn’t sound as good) and put what I try to do for fluid resus on a diagram of sorts.

Love to hear comments and questions.

 

cheers!

Philippe

 

 

Twittercase: Fouled urine and #POCUS discussion. #FOAMed, #FOAMcc, #FOAMer

So I admitted a patient to the ICU yesterday from the ED.  He’s an 80-something gentleman from a nursing home with an indwelling catheter, and presented with stupor, hypotension, fever, leukocytosis and clearly infected urine.  His labwork showed a lactate of 5.3, a double-normal creatinine and, after 3 liters or so of crystalloid, he was started on norpeinephrine and hence came to the ICU. His extremities were fairly warm, and his cerebral saturation was 62%.

Before seeing the POCUS info, however, consider a clearly septic patient with AKI and elevated lactate. He did get 3 liters of fluids, but i’ve seen these patients get more fluids, whether for hemodynamics, lactate, AKI or any combination of the aforementioned.

Below is the clip, a quick POCUS sequence going from IVC (with hepatic vein flows), subxiphoid cardiac views, both lung views.

So here, we see a plethoric and fixed IVC (sorry I didn’t include the short axis but it was round and full, so in this case the LAX is reliable) with biphasic hepatic flow. Cardiac views show normal ratios and a poor LV function. Chest views show bilateral effusions and consolidations.

So what did I do?

  1. stopped fluids (I do not believe in routine maintenance fluids any more than in maintenance antibiotics or vasopressors).
  2. gave lasix (given that he is on the flat part of FS curve, I was unconcerned with some diuresis decreasing his preload, vasopressors and lactate notwithstanding, and with the goal to decongest his kidneys, likely suffering from congestive insult on top of the septic one).
  3. did not try to chase his lactate with increasing cardiac output (lactate being a great alarm bell and prognosticator, but little else, and because he was worm and with a decent cerebral saturation, I did not feel that there was a major cardiogenic component to his shock).

So what happened?

This morning, after a negative balance of 1,500 cc in 24 hours, his levophed dose has dropped by half, his lactate is normal and his creatinine is decreasing. A decade ago, I would have chased down the last ounce of volume responsiveness with fluids, aggressively trying to drive down the lactate and creatinine, and maybe, 24 hours later, he would have developed “ARDS” because he was “so sick.”  😉

cheers

 

Philippe

 

Wicked Clinical Case: POCUS & Prone save the day! #FOAMed, #FOAMcc, #FOAMer

So I get a call from a colleague in the ED at about 2am, telling me about a 39 yr old woman post-arrest. So I start putting on my boots and warming up the car (it’s January in Montreal folks).  Apparently she had presented earlier in severe acidosis, the diagnosis is unclear, but she apparently got 2 units for an Hb of 49, then went into respiratory failure and got intubated. She arrested about 30 minutes later, cause unknown.

I tell the ICU to prepare a bed but I want to see her in the ED first. Twenty minutes later I put probe to patient and see a full IVC with spontaneous echo contrast. On that I tell the nurse to hold the fluids – there was a bag and tubing and a pump with 100ml/hr on it – and turn into a subxiphoid view to see a normal RV and a hypokinetic LV with some WMAs. She has marked consolidations  in both posterior lung fields and B lines laterally, with small effusions and dynamic air bronchograms (indicating patent airways). At this point she has a HR of about 120, but there is neither perceptible BP (by NIBP) nor saturation. She’s on levophed at 20mcg. She’s about an hour post arrest which was witnessed and brief (<10min to ROSC).

The theories about the arrest are possible hyperkalemia: she was intubated with succinylcholine before the K of 6.1 was back from the lab, and her pre-intubation pH was 7.0, and post-intubation she was only ventilated at 400 x 18, possibly precipitating a drop in pH and a rise in K. Her EKG had some nonspecific signs at this point, but also a poor anterior R wave.

So we head to the ICU, as instrumentation was needed. Cerebral saturation (SctO2) is 42% and ETCO2 is 20mmhg, which reassures me that the BP is probably in the measurable range (normal SctO2 is >60% and varies, but 47% is certainly viable)…  A jugular CVC with continuous ScVo2 and a femoral arterial line goes in:

screen-shot-2017-01-05-at-10-44-50-pm

So with a BP of 59/44 (ignore the 100/46, not sure whose arm that was on!) I start epinephrine, as the POCUS is similar, as I want some added beta-agonism. ScVO2 matches SctO2 in the 40’s. We get the BP up the the 90-1oo range, the ETCO2 goes to 30, the SctO2 and ScVo2 go up into the high 40’s, which is very reassuring, because with this I know that my epi drip is improving perfusion and NOT over-vasoconstricting. Without looking at a real-time tissue perfusion index of some sort or other, it is nearly impossible to know rapidly whether your therapy is helping or harming (will discuss tissue saturation & resuscitation monitoring in more detail in another post sometime soon).

screen-shot-2017-01-05-at-10-46-31-pm

So now the sat finally starts to record in the low 60’s. We have a PEEP of 5, so start bringing it up. We hit 16 before the BP starts to drop, and that only gets us to the mid 70’s sat%. She actually squeezes my hand to command.

screen-shot-2017-01-05-at-10-45-21-pm

At this point I take a few seconds to recap in my mind. I’d spoken to the husband briefly and she had had recurrent episodes of feeling unwell with headache, nausea and diaphoresis, and that had been out for dinner earlier and she felt fine until later in the evening when this came on and eventually brought her to hospital. There was also a notion of hypertension at an ER visit a couple of weeks ago. Her history was otherwise not significant. Nonsmoker.

Pheo? Maybe, but shock?  I repeat the EKG, and now, in I and AVL, there is perhaps a 1mm ST elevation. She’s 39 and essentially dying. Lactate comes back >15, pH 6.9.  I give her a few more amps of NaHCO3. You can see the BP respond to each amp. I decide we need to go to the cath lab and get the cardiologist on call to get on the horn with the interventional team at a nearby hospital with a cath lab and ECMO, which is what I think she needs. Hb comes back at 116, making that initial 49 that prompted 2 PRBCs probably a technical or lab error…very unfortunate. There are no visible signs of significant bleeding.

But back to the patient, because this isn’t really a transferrable case.

Recap: a 39yr old woman in cardiogenic shock AND in severe congestive heart failure exacerbated by fluids and packed red cells, with a PO2 in the 40’s and sat in the 70’s.

So I decide to prone her.

screen-shot-2017-01-05-at-10-47-44-pm

Along with draining tamponades, this had to be one of the most rapid and rewarding maneuvers I’ve done. There was a scry drop of sat to the 40’s for a few seconds (may have been a technical thing), but then within a few minutes: BP to the 130’s, SctO2 to 59% and sat 100%!

screen-shot-2017-01-05-at-10-46-46-pmscreen-shot-2017-01-05-at-10-47-31-pm

screen-shot-2017-01-06-at-12-08-05-am

 

We dropped the vasopressors, the FiO2, and all breathed a collective sigh of relief. Now for the novices out there, prone ventilation improves VQ mismatch by moving perfusion from diseased, posterior lung fields to now-dependant, relatively healthy, anterior lung fields.

So transfer at this point was in the works. I planned to leave her prone until the last minute. The miraculous effect started to slowly wane within about 30 minutes, with sat and BP creeping down. At the time of transfer, we were back up to 80% FiO2.

So why is this?  Simple enough, this being simple pulmonary edema – rather than consolidated pneumonia – it migrated to dependent areas  relatively quickly. This was confirmed by a quick POCUS check:screen-shot-2017-01-05-at-10-48-06-pmscreen-shot-2017-01-05-at-10-48-26-pm

So in the still shots, you see a pristine “A” profile (normal, no edema) from the patient’s back, and a severe consolidation or “C” profile with ultrasound bronchograms in the antero-lateral (now dependant) chest. Impressive. (for those wanting some POCUS pearls see other posts and here). This is the reverse of her initial POCUS exam.

So we flipped her back and transported her – lights & sirens – the the cath lab, where they were waiting with ECMO cannulae. As an aside, it was quite refreshing to speak to the ICU fellow who spoke POCUS as well as french and english – it’s not usually the case, but I’m glad to see the change. I do believe it to be a direct effect of the influence of my friend and mentor, Dr. Andre Denault, one of the POCUS deities.

So she turned out to have a normal cath and a large adrenal mass. She did well on ECMO, being weaned off it today, and is now alpha-blocked and waiting for surgery, neurologically intact for all intents and purposes. A big thanks to the interventionists and the ICU team at the Montreal Heart Institute. Puts a smile on my face.

 

Take Home Points:

  1. don’t resuscitate without POCUS. I wouldn’t want anyone guessing with my life on the line, would you?
  2. keep pheo in mind as a cause of “acute MI” and shock
  3. if you’re not using some form of realtime monitor of perfusion (continuous CO, SctO2, ETCO2, ScvO2) then all you’ve got is looking at the skin and mentation, so you are essentially flying blind. Lactate and urine output are not realtime in real life.
  4. get ECMO in the house, it’ll come in handy. I’m working on it.

 

Love to hear some comments!

cheers

 

Philippe

 

ps I’ll try to add more ultrasound clips from this case in the next few days.

Volume responsiveness and volume tolerance: a conceptual diagram. #FOAMed, #FOAMcc, #FOAMus

So I know I’ve belaboured the point about the difference between volume responsiveness (i.e. will there be significant increase in cardiac output with volume infusion) and volume tolerance (is the volume I am considering giving going to have nefarious consequences), because in my opinion, the focus has been – rightly so to some degree – to look for an accurate way of discerning responsive patients from non. Of course this is absolutely necessary, as one does not want to give volume if it will not have any benefit, but the too-common corollary to that is to automatically give volume to those who are responsive.  Here is an earlier post about this:

https://thinkingcriticalcare.com/2014/10/06/fluid-responsiveness-getting-the-right-answer-to-the-wrong-question-foamed-foamcc-foamus/

So in discussing with a bright young colleague yesterday, Dr. St-Arnaud (@phil_star_sail), I realized that there may be a common conception that physiologically, the relationship between the two may be the following:

Screen Shot 2016-02-21 at 9.03.01 AM

This would mean that it is safe to give volume until a patient is no longer volume responsive, and even perhaps a bit more. Alternately, the two may be closer:

Screen Shot 2016-02-21 at 9.02.27 AM

This would mean that once can go just till the point where the patient is no longer volume responsive.

Either one of these scenarios would be awesome. That would mean that by using any of the flow or volume variation techniques, arterial or venous, we could pretty much remain safe.

However…

While the above may hold true for healthy subjects, I would contend that in sick people (which is who I tend to deal with, especially when resuscitating shock), that the more likely physiological relationship is the following:

Screen Shot 2016-02-21 at 9.03.28 AM

Hmmm… That would mean that assessing for volume responsiveness would only tell you that there would be an increase in cardiac output, but absolutely nothing about whether it would be safe to do so.

This concept is not a new one by any stretch of the imagination. It’s inferred in the diagnosis of “non-cardiogenic pulmonary oedema.” So what causes this shift? Here:

Screen Shot 2016-02-21 at 9.25.50 AM

So, how do we figure out where the point is? Sorry to say there is no answer that I know of. My friend Daniel Lichtenstein uses the FALLS Protocol (identifying the appearance of B lines during resuscitation) which is the least we should do, but I suspect that at that point, we have already overshot the mark. My adopted mentor Dr. Andre Denault (@Ad12andre, in addition to IVC, has identified portal vein characteristics including pulsatility (lots of stuff in press) to show that the viscera are at risk, but as of yet there is no simple answer. CVP value? Please. CVP tracing morphology? Maybe.

No simple answer. No one-size-fits-all velue to look for. Clinical integration.

In my opinion, one should not, in sick patients, seek to volume resuscitate until the point of no-volume-responsiveness. The old adage of “you have to swell to get well” likely kills a few additional patients along the way, just as much as under-resuscitation. I plead guilty for over-resuscitating patients for years before realizing that being on the flat part of Frank-Starling is 100% a pathological state.

Love to hear your ideas and comments!

 

Jon-Emile Kenny says:

I like your graphics, it makes the concepts tangible. I think we should try to integrate ‘volume status’ into this framework as well. A physiological purist might say that as soon as you are ‘hypervolemic’, you are volume intolerant, because hypervolemia is an abnormal state which should always be avoided. A functionalist might say that you become volume intolerant as soon as you have physiological embarrassment of any organ system – but how is this determined? My gut is that by the time there are B-lines in the lung, you’ve gone too far. By the time there is abnormality of splanchnic venous return, you’ve already gone too far. I am more of a purist, so in my perfect ICU, I would perform q4-6 hour radio-labeled albumin studies to determine the patient’s true plasma volume. In health, the normal blood volume is about 80 mL/kg [thus, once you’ve given a 70kg man 5 L of NS, you’ve almost certainly replenished his vascular volume]. The moment that the blood volume becomes > 95% the norm, I would call the patient volume intolerant and stop volume expansion and focus on venous tone with pressors, cardiac function with inotropes, etc. To me, this makes the most sense in the pure Guytonian world; if you keep flogging a patient with litre after litre of fluid and the patient’s BP remains low, you are missing something – volume is not the answer – regardless of what an ultrasound shows you:
1. trouble shoot the venous return curve [i.e. too little blood volume, too little venous tone, too high resistance to venous return]
2. trouble shoot the cardiac function [i.e. poor rate, rhythm, contractility, valve function, biventricular afterload]
If you need some objective measure of blood volume before you can call volume status optimized before moving onto the next problem to fix – that’s a radio-labeled albumin.
Maybe I’m crazy.cheers

Jon

Thanks for commenting Jon!

I totally agree, if we knew each patient’s normal blood volume, that would be a starting point.  And of course, that would prevent the over resuscitation of a very dilated and compliant venous system (small IVC on ultrasound). Let us know if you figure out a practical way to do that!

It’s too bad that extravascular lung water doesn’t seem to have panned out – not sure why exactly.

 

 

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

The Great Septic Debate (Part 2): Resolution? #FOAMed, #FOAMcc

So, echoing my thoughts form the end of the debate, Steven adds:

Well, I didn’t expect to see my name in a headline, but I suppose it’s a hazard one should expect when they go spreading their arguments across the interwebs!

In truth, I don’t think that Dr. Lynn and I really think that much differently on these issues. We both desire for the science of sepsis to continue developing and to be better than it is. I, personally, would love to be a part of the clinical trials that use genome-based data to determine which treatment arm a patient belongs in. We both deplore any “old guard” attempting to prevent the onward march of discoveries that make our knowledge and abilities more complete. I am actually sorry that some young scientists feel intimidated and that there is anything less than civility and scientific curiosity in our community. Period.

Likewise, I would be shocked if Dr. Lynn did not at least use the observation of infection, SIRS, and organ dysfunction as physical markers of sepsis and warning signs that intervention is necessary. It will be true for a very long time that it is going to be an interaction between two human beings that initiates the diagnosis and treatment of sepsis. A physician will recognize a patient in distress by some means and start the process. For now, these findings are the best we have, and they should prompt us to intervene before the completely diagnostic test results are available. Even when we have the tricorder, something is going to trigger the doc to pull it out of a pocket and use it.

OK, so I have to admit that Dr. Lynn stung me a little with his characterization of TNF-alpha as a “biomarker”. I would rather say that TNF is one of the heavy hitters in the proteomics of sepsis, and I’ll bet that I can get him to concede that point! It stimulates receptors and causes other actions to take place, it’s synthesis and release are regulated and dysregulated; it’s more than just a marker! And I ABSOLUTELY agree that the failure of TNF-directed therapies stems from the fact that they were given both to patients who could benefit from them and patients who, with better characterization, we would have known had no chance of benefitting. The same goes for high dose corticosteroids, anti-endotoxin antibodies, IL-1 directed therapies, and coagulation based therapies. In fact, that’s what I’ve been teaching my trainees for years – if you can call bemoaning the fact that we can’t yet recognize and separate responders from non-responders teaching. We have a desperate need for understanding better, and the science MUST be encouraged. Again, period. Or full stop, for those of you who have that bent! That is, I think, Dr. Lynn’s argument in a nutshell.

I REALLY appreciate the interchange. It is healthy and necessary. The two of us are aiming at the same thing – fewer people dying from sepsis. I haven’t met Dr. Lynn (though I hope to), but I suspect that he spends more hours in his day formulating and doing the new science, while I spend more hours in my day pushing people who think that it isn’t sepsis until it’s shock and multiple organ failure to do something about it before it gets that far. Those are both important parts of the war, but in the end, it is the same war. And we are allies in it.

Steven Q Simpson

And, soon after, Lawrence reaches for that handshake:

I agree completely with Dr. Simpson. We all teach that a good history, physical, basic lab, and a high degree of vigilance for subtle signs of sepsis are pivotal. This includes the use of awareness campaigns which simplify sepsis to something easily understood and screening protocols to assure vigilance. These are great advances.

I also share Dr. Simpson’s concern about empowerment of naysayers who may use the promulgation of the imperfections of sepsis science as a reason not to move forward with early action based detection protocols.

Relevant TNF-alpga, I have to agree that it likely has a fundamental role in some phenotypes of sepsis including the sepsis-like syndrome generated in Ebola patients.

So Dr. Simpson and I probably agree on most sepsis related issues.

To explain a little further, many years ago our research team applied for an NIH grant to define the dynamic relational patterns of all the lab and vitals over time in infected patients. The reviewers did not seem to comprehend why we wanted to do that since a standard for a single unified phenotype of sepsis was already widely accepted. Yet had they realized the need for these types of complete data sets, the entire time time series matrix of vitals, lab, biomarkers, and treatment for each case would have been acquired in PROcess , ARISE, and Promise. This would have occurred if the entire field of scientists had not convinced themselves they already knew that “sepsis/septic shock ” comprised a unified phenotype, “an entity” “a single condition” “a thing or object” definable by a few static thresholds.

So this is why we say the young should call for reform ASAP of sepsis science (not sepsis awareness) and at the upcoming SCCM. Imagine a mult-center trial where these complete time matrices are generated and we define the phenotypes. We can define the phenotypic subtypes and then examine treatments in relation to these.

One might think of sepsis syndrome as analogous to the syndrome of CHF where there is systolic failure, diastolic failure, hypertensive failure, and valvular failure defined phenotypes of CHF.

Perhaps we might have sepsis with capillary membrane failure phenotype and/or, vascular muscle failure phenotype, coagulation control failure , neutrophilic control failure, TNF-alpha mediated immune control failure.

These are simply general gross simplistic considerations, Discussion points.

However the final conclusion of my original post is that, beginning at this SCCM, we must stop trying to explain away the anomalies caused by the past sepsis dogma and accept that these anomalies ARE counter instances. We must accept that we cannot rely on research which uses billing codes as data or by using retrospective controls at the same time the denominator balloons as a function of awareness.

Then we can finally assure that we do not fool ourselves because the world depends only on us. There is no back up. We must accept that we need a new surge of sepsis research ASAP, and…..in a new direction.

This, along with the effort and dedication of Dr. Simpson team, the Sepsis Alliance, and the SSC (now gathering the entire time series matrix of all the diagnostic and treatment data and not just thresholds) will produce an exciting future. If this happens, it would be great to be a young sepsis scientist in 2015.

So yes Dr. Simpson and I actually agree. We are simply fighting the war on sepsis from different fronts.

Most Respectfully
Lawrence Lynn

Thanks again Steven and Lawrence for what I think was both a really informative AND formative discussion.

Philippe

Is medicine approaching a philosophical crossroads? Critically important meanderings by Dr. Lynn! #FOAMed, #FOAMcc

So I feel really honoured that some fantastically bright and forward-thinking people take precious time out of their days to read my rants, and even more so to leave some comments.  I sometimes feel that the message contained in these is actually more important than what I spewed out in the first place, so here is quite an essay by Dr. Lawrence Lynn:

Excellent. This may be the Critical Care Quote of 2014.

“The N=1 principle: remember that we are never treating hundreds of patients at once, and we do not have to decide what is best for most (which is what an RCT generally answers) but what is best for the one patient we are treating.”

In fact when RCTs use a simplistic unified guessed phenotype as a surrogate of a complex disease (e.g. sepsis) in a highly heterogeneous population of critically ill subjects, one cannot even say that the RCT tells what is best for “most” since the first question a scientist trying to understand the validity of the “true state” under test would say is “most of what”, Of course when a free (unboxed) scientist learns that the true state was defined by a guess the discussion is over.

This SCCM will be the 25th anniversary of the guessed sepsis and septic shock criteria. It marks 25 years of failed and non-reproducible sepsis trials using the guessed criteria as standards. The beribboned SCCM speakers will rise to the podium and speculate on and on about what all of these studies might mean. None of them will formally call for reform of the science. Thomas Kuhn shows us that they cannot call for reform any more than those holding the guessed geocentric model could call for reform. “Though they may lose faith.. they will not abandon the dogma which led them to crisis” .

So it is up to you, the young women and men to speak up and demand reform. 25 years if failure is enough. How long will you sit silently in the audience and listen to P values responsive to guesses from a few well meaning docs from another era.

Stand up as a group at this SCCM and demand reform. Let this anniversary ring in a new chapter in critical care research.

If you have not read this editorial below, read it before the SCCM. No one argues that this is not the true history of sepsis science but no one has the courage to stand up and demand reform.

Maybe the 25 year anniversary of failure as a function of using guesses as gold standards could provide the impetus. The world depends on you. There is no backup.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24383420

 

Here is the solution for a scientific revolution. First read this guide to Dr. Kuhn’s book “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”. (especially chapter 4)

http://philosophy.wisc.edu/forster/220/kuhn.htm

Then the young docs (and any of the old guard willing to break from the 25 year old dogma) should move together at the SCCM meeting, and plan to do so before the meeting in social media to collectedly call for reform of the science.

If only one calls for reform, of course grants, promotions, etc can dry up for that person. That is of course what those on academic tenure tracks are afraid of. Young academics are taught to rub elbows with the thought leaders, not to formally and publically question the leaders fundamental dogma. Sure you can go your own way a little off the path, for example, questioning whether or not a given threshold is the right one. However this freedom is a façade, as one cannot question whether there actually is a unified phenotype of “sepsis” definable by simple thresholds without risking much.

However, as Dr. Kuhn teaches, with any reform movement in science, once critical mass is reached there will be no repercussions because the old guard will actually join and move with the paradigm shift. They will even try to lead the shift as they see that leading with the old dogma is not possible and they desire to remain thought leaders and certainly do not wish to be among the last clinging to the old dogma.

The crisis Dr. Kun describes in chapter 4 is upon us. Look around. Do you see that the public cannot help save themselves. It is up to us to begin this revolution. Don’t let this crisis go to waste. Again, it is up to us. There is no back up.

I feel sorry for the Arise team. How much time was wasted? How many man hours? How much time, resources, and good data, which could have been acquired to determine the many actual phenotypes of sepsis was lost. Yet, it was known by some that the unified phenotype of sepsis/septic shock was guessed. Why didn’t anyone tell the ARISE team their “true state” was a guess. Wouldn’t ARISE have been performed differently if that was know to the statisticians.

Why didn’t anyone tell those in Zambia before they treated infected HIV patients with EGDT? Did anyone who came through the supra normal values era really think that Rivers treatment group was representative of the broad population of severely infected patients? One size fits all in sepsis? Really? That doesn’t even work for socks …phenotypes of feet differ.

You men and women are very smart. This blog.. Ollie’s, Scott’s. These are awesome for an old trench warrior – who spent his life at the critical care beside – to read. You understand the complexity. One day you will see that I am one of your greatest allies. You will see that you have been working in a well meaning paternal science and Dr. Kuhn warns of the loss derived from well meaning paternal science. .

I know I cannot expect all of you to rise up and call for reform. Dr. Kuhn says you cannot. He says that cannot happen until another fundamental pathway upon which the science can rest is found. That will not happen until the science moves to identify the varied phenotypes of sepsis.

Once I thought (many years ago) that armed with his teachings we might not be doomed to make the same mistakes. I have learned over the past decades that, while science changes…scientists do not.

One thing I lament is the loss of a good tool like SVcO2. I wrote about the complexity of SVO2 and how to consider these complexities when using SVO2 as a physiologic marker (a tool) in 1985s, This is long before anyone thought one could select a SVO2 value and write a protocol. No one thought in those simple terms in those days. Now, in the era of threshold science, it’s “guess the threshold, come to a consensus on the guess, apply for a grant and…. study it in a RCT (without telling the statistician that the “true state” is a guess)..

All I can say is, don’t let them study bedside ultrasound with the simplistic thresholds and a guessed unified (one size fits all) phenotype or that tool like the SVcO2 might be quickly discredited also..

If you let leaders define their own guessed protocols and control them from a central authority you will wind up using only the tools which they think, as a function of their simplistic “true state” threshold world, are proven..

Respectfully

Lawrence Lynn

 

Now that’s certainly food for thought at a deeper level!

Lawrence, we will certainly have to discuss SCVO2 at some point – I also agree that, well integrated with other modalities, it can provide insight into hemodynamic optimization.

cheers

 

Philippe