Chris Nickson is an Aussie, oops Kiwi, who is a lead author of a great blog: lifeinthefastlane.com and tweets under the moniker @precordialthump; check him out, he’s doing really good stuff. He wrote a comment about the last podcast–
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,
ED/ICU Registrar, Perth
So in this brief aside, I respond to Chris’ comments and tell you a bit about the EMCrit Podcast EBM philosophy.
Here are the links mentioned: