EMCrit Podcast 14 – EGDT Tirade

Hi all–Sorry for the delayed posting, but I just moved to a new apt.

In this episode I rant and rave about why for the most part Emergency Medicine has disappointed me by not doing something about our sick septic patients.

If you are offering aggressive therapy in the ED, then good on you.

Of course everything in this talk stems from River’s seminal work: EGDT Study

…but there is more. Don’t forget to check out a brief aside (PodCast 14.5), in which I respond to Chris Nickson‘s experience of EGDT in Australia and tell you a bit about the EMCrit Podcast EBM philosophy

Play

You finished the 'cast,
Now get CME credit

Already an EMCrit CME Subscriber?
Click Here to Get CME Credit for the Episode


Not a subcriber yet? Why the heck not?
By subscribing, you can...

  • Get CME hours
  • Support the show
  • Write it off on your taxes or get reimbursed by your department

Sign Up Today!

.

Subscribe Now

If you enjoyed this post, you will almost certainly enjoy our others. Subscribe to our email list to keep informed on all of the ED Critical Care goodness.

This Post was by , MD, published 5 years ago. We never spam; we hate spammers! Spammers probably work for the Joint Commission.

Comments

  1. Hey Scott,

    Great to hear your views and approach to EGDT. I agree with the need for aggressive resuscitation of the septic patient – with fluid, antibiotics, vasopressors (we’re a ‘norad/ norepi shop’ too) and adequate oxygen delivery being the mainstays – and, if nothing else, the Rivers paper deserves credit for bringing this into the spotlight.

    However, the Rivers study itself is still a cause of concern for me – a single center study that has never been repeated as an RCT, with a very high mortality in the control arm (mid-40s%), and more recently the WSJ allegations about about methodological ‘dodginess’ behind the scenes and concerns about conflicting financial interests (of which I’m not sure what to make).

    Most ICUs in Australia don’t use CV02 monitoring, yet our mortality rates are substantially better than the Rivers study (ICU sepsis mortality around 20% these days, down from 34% in 1997) – different populations or something else? I’m also uneasy about the blood transfusion phase of the Rivers protocol. Hopefully trials like ARISE and ProCESS will help clear up what actually works. In the mean time, I heed your call to resuscitate!

    Cheers,
    Chris Nickson
    ED/ICU Registrar, Perth

Speak Your Mind (Along with your name, job, and affiliation)