Without evidence of benefit, an intervention should not be presumed to be beneficial or safe.

- Rogue Medic

Does the parachute study prove that research doesn’t matter? Part III

Also to be posted on ResearchBlogging.org when they relaunch the site.
 

Continuing from Part II, which looked at the way the satirical parachute paper misrepresents EBM (Evidence-Based Medicine), but that is expected from satire. You could also provide a great defense of blood-letting as the best medicine using satire.

In the comments to Does the parachute study prove that research doesn’t matter? Part I is the following from Kevin –
 

After claiming to know what he is writing about, Kevin finishes with this –
 

As a reminder, there is not level 1 evidence that oxygen works during an acute heart attack either. That is because we do not withhold it from anyone to study it in randomized fashion due to ethical concerns and assumptions made from non-level 1 evidence.

 

What does Kevin mean by level 1?

There have been some studies of oxygen. It is unethical to not study the drug oxygen.
 

3D Isolated Oxygen Tank


Image credit.
 

For example, there was a study of One hundred percent oxygen in the treatment of acute myocardial infarction and severe angina pectoris in JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association) way back in 1950.

If oxygen is so much better than room air for heart attack patients, the patients receiving 100% oxygen should have dramatically better outcomes than patients receiving room air by mask in this double-blinded study. The results were not statistically significant, but patients receiving 100% oxygen did not do as well as the patients receiving room air by mask.[1]

Hypoxic patients were treated with oxygen, rather than enrolled in the study, because the study looked at treating heart attack, rather than treating hypoxia. Whether we should treat hypoxia without symptoms is also a different question.

Kevin’s comment was written in September, which is ironically when the paper Oxygen Therapy in Suspected Acute Myocardial Infarction was published. We have stopped using blood-letting to treat patients, even though withholding blood-letting used to be considered just as unethical.
 

CONCLUSIONS: Routine use of supplemental oxygen in patients with suspected myocardial infarction who did not have hypoxemia was not found to reduce 1-year all-cause mortality.[2]

 

The evil scientists did not uphold dogma? Burn the heretics.

The acronym for the study reflects the addiction to continuing questionable treatments, which must not be questioned. DETO2X.

Have competent people condemned this research as unethical?

I have not looked at any of the other medical research blogs, but you should go ahead and read them (listen to the podcasts, watch the videos) and see what they write. Tell me if anyone condemns the research. Don’t quote Gwyneth Paltrow or Dr. Oz, but competent science bloggers.

The actual dogma was to give oxygen to heart attack patients, so is routine oxygen for heart attack just another case of harming patients with tradition?

What does Cochrane tell us?
 

Authors’ conclusions There is no evidence from randomised controlled trials to support the routine use of inhaled oxygen in people with AMI, and we cannot rule out a harmful effect. Given the uncertainty surrounding the effect of oxygen therapy on all-cause mortality and on other outcomes critical for clinical decision, well-conducted, high quality randomised controlled trials are urgently required to inform guidelines in order to give definitive recommendations about the routine use of oxygen in AMI.[3]

 

well-conducted, high quality randomised controlled trials are urgently required

The purpose of research is to learn what is effective and what is safe. We should only be using treatments that are both effective and safe outside of well-controlled trials.

We have been harming too many patients with treatments that should never have been used outside of well-controlled trials.

We need to stop trying to make treatments look better than they are.

We need to stop coming up with rationalizations for hurting patients.

We need higher standards.

 

I have also written about EBM and the parachute paper in these posts –

Does the parachute study prove that research doesn’t matter? Part I – Wed, 22 Aug 2012

Common Sense vs. Evidence – Thu, 28 Mar 2013

The Parachute Study as an Objection to Studying Ventilations in Cardiac Arrest – Mon, 08 Apr 2013

Do we know that these treatments do not help? – Mon, 15 Apr 2013

Why Ignoring Evidence Based Medicine Kills Patients – Fri, 28 Jun 2013

JAMA Opinion Article in Support of Anecdote-Based Medicine – Thu, 28 Nov 2013

Why US EMS will never get to sit at the adult table – The Appeal to Authority – Sun, 04 May 2014

Natural Alternatives to the EpiPen, Because We Believe in Parachutes – Wed, 23 Dec 2015

Does the parachute study prove that research doesn’t matter? Part II – Thu, 30 Nov 2017

Footnotes:

[1] One hundred percent oxygen in the treatment of acute myocardial infarction and severe angina pectoris.
RUSSEK HI, REGAN FD, NAEGELE CF.
J Am Med Assoc. 1950 Sep 30;144(5):373-5. No abstract available.
PMID: 14774103 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

[2] Oxygen Therapy in Suspected Acute Myocardial Infarction.
Hofmann R, James SK, Jernberg T, Lindahl B, Erlinge D, Witt N, Arefalk G, Frick M, Alfredsson J, Nilsson L, Ravn-Fischer A, Omerovic E, Kellerth T, Sparv D, Ekelund U, Linder R, Ekström M, Lauermann J, Haaga U, Pernow J, Östlund O, Herlitz J, Svensson L; DETO2X–SWEDEHEART Investigators.
N Engl J Med. 2017 Sep 28;377(13):1240-1249. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1706222. Epub 2017 Aug 28.
PMID: 28844200

[3] Oxygen therapy for acute myocardial infarction.
Cabello JB, Burls A, Emparanza JI, Bayliss SE, Quinn T.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Dec 19;12:CD007160. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD007160.pub4. Review.
PMID: 27991651

.

Does the parachute study prove that research doesn’t matter? Part II

 
I have finally written Part II. Part III will be next week

In the comments to Does the parachute study prove that research doesn’t matter? Part I is the following from Kevin –
 

The parachute study is meant to address persons who regard only level 1 evidence as evidence. It does not mean to suggest that one should proceed with zero evidence. In fact, we have great evidence that parachutes do indeed work, just not level 1 evidence (that’s why we divide them into various levels–some are better than others, but the lower levels may still be good and adequate). That is why the authors wrote the tongue in cheek article.

 

The authors of the parachute paper were using an extreme position – a straw man – for the purpose of satire. There may be some people who insist on only randomized, placebo controlled, double-blinded, studies of every treatment, but even they should know that a meta-analysis of these would be higher level evidence than what your comment seems to suggest is level 1 evidence.
 

Evidence Pyramid

Evidence Pyramid


Image credit.
 

What does Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM) actually require?

If only there were a paper to clearly and concisely state what EBM actually is and what EBM is not. It might be called, Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn’t.

That paper does exist. The paper is over 20 years old. The full text of the paper is available for free from PubMed Central, so there is no valid reason for anyone examining EBM to be unfamiliar with the paper.
 

Evidence based medicine is not restricted to randomised trials and meta-analyses. It involves tracking down the best external evidence with which to answer our clinical questions.[1]

 

Why the confusion?

Is it because a lot of people just do not understand science?

Science requires humility and a lot of people are just not good at putting aside their assumptions in order to find out if those prejudices are true.

The truth is more important than our egos.

It is much more important to protect patients from harmful treatments, than to protect treatments that do not provide more benefit than harm. We have to learn from our mistakes.
 

Evidence based medicine is the conscientious, explicit, and judicious use of current best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients. The practice of evidence based medicine means integrating individual clinical expertise with the best available external clinical evidence from systematic research.[1]

 

What is the objection to EBM?

The use of evidence appears to hurt the feelings of some people.

We have been harming too many patients with treatments that should never have been used outside of well-controlled trials.

We need to stop trying to make treatments look better than they are.

We need to stop coming up with rationalizations for hurting patients.
 
 
 

I have also written about EBM and the parachute paper in these posts –

Does the parachute study prove that research doesn’t matter? Part I – Wed, 22 Aug 2012

Common Sense vs. Evidence – Thu, 28 Mar 2013

The Parachute Study as an Objection to Studying Ventilations in Cardiac Arrest – Mon, 08 Apr 2013

Do we know that these treatments do not help? – Mon, 15 Apr 2013

Why Ignoring Evidence Based Medicine Kills Patients – Fri, 28 Jun 2013

JAMA Opinion Article in Support of Anecdote-Based Medicine – Thu, 28 Nov 2013

Why US EMS will never get to sit at the adult table – The Appeal to Authority – Sun, 04 May 2014

Natural Alternatives to the EpiPen, Because We Believe in Parachutes – Wed, 23 Dec 2015

Footnotes:

[1] Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn’t.
Sackett DL, Rosenberg WM, Gray JA, Haynes RB, Richardson WS.
BMJ. 1996 Jan 13;312(7023):71-2.
PMID: 8555924 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

Free Full Text from PubMed Central.

.

Is placebo better than aggressive medical treatment for patients NOT having a heart attack?

Also to be posted on ResearchBlogging.org when they relaunch the site.
 

Is cardiac catheterization placebo better than aggressive medical treatment for patients not having a heart attack?

No.
 

The answer is not really different from before. This should not be surprising for anyone who pays attention to EBM (Evidence-Based Medicine). We should all pay attention to EBM, because it is the best way to find out what works.

Many routine treatments are not beneficial to patients, but are considered to be standards of care. We continue to give these treatments out of unreasonable optimism, a fear of litigation, or fear of criticism for not following orders. The difference between the banality of evil and the banality of incompetence does not appear to be significant in any way that matters.

PCI (Percutaneous Coronary Intervention) treatment does not add any benefit – unless you are having a heart attack.

The placebo group received sham PCI in addition to optimized medical treatment. this did not provide any benefit over actual PCI in addition to optimized medical treatment. The patients in the placebo group received all of the same medications that the patients in the PCI group received.

Why is this news today?

A recent article in The Lancet is encouraging snake oil salesmen and snake oil saleswomen to claim that it shows the miracle healing power of placebos, but this is not true.

Apparently, Big Placebo (the multi-billion dollar alternative medicine industry) is trying to use this to promote their scams (homeopathy, acupuncture, Reiki, naturopathy, prayer, . . . ).

Big Placebo seems to think that this study shows that placebo is better than medical treatment. A placebo is an inactive intervention that is undetectable when compared with the active treatment. The placebo group received the same aggressive medications that the treatment group received.
 

All patients were pretreated with dual antiplatelet therapy. In both groups, the duration of dual antiplatelet therapy was the same and continued until the fial (unblinding) visit. Coronary angiography was done via a radial or femoral arterial approach with auditory isolation achieved by placing over-the-ear headphones playing music on the patient throughout the procedure.[1]

 

What is new about this?

A much larger study a decade ago showed that aggressive medical therapy was as good as PCI and aggressive medical therapy. The difference is the use of sham PCI to create a placebo group for comparison, rather than using a No PCI group for comparison.
 

CONCLUSIONS:
As an initial management strategy in patients with stable coronary artery disease, PCI did not reduce the risk of death, myocardial infarction, or other major cardiovascular events when added to optimal medical therapy.
[2]

 

Compare that with the conclusion (interpretation) of the new paper.
 

INTERPRETATION:
In patients with medically treated angina and severe coronary stenosis, PCI did not increase exercise time by more than the effect of a placebo procedure. The efficacy of invasive procedures can be assessed with a placebo control, as is standard for pharmacotherapy.
[1]

 

The unfortunate outcome is that we will have fewer hospitals providing PCI, so patients with heart attacks (STEMI – ST segment Elevation Myocardial Infarctions) may have to wait longer for emergency PCI, which really does improve outcomes.
 

What other Standards Of Care are NOT supported by valid evidence?

Amiodarone is effective for cardiac arrest, whether unwitnessed, witnessed, or witnessed by EMS.

Kayexalate (Sodium Polystyrene) is a good treatment for hyperkalemia. Anything that causes diarrhea will lower your potassium level, but that does not make it a good treatment, unless you are in an austere environment (in other words – not in a real hospital).

Amiodarone is effective for VT (Ventricular Tachycardia).

Backboards are effective to protect against spinal injury while transporting patients.

Blood-letting is effective for anything except hemochromatosis (and some rare disorders).

More paramedics are better for the patient.

Prehospital intravenous lines save lives.

IV fluid saves lives in hemorrhagic shock.

Oxygen should be given to everyone having a heart attack.

The Golden Hour is important.

Driving fast saves lives. For only some rare conditions, it probably does – and that depends on traffic.

Flying people to the hospital saves lives. Again, for only some rare conditions, it probably does – and that depends on traffic and distance.

Tourniquets are dangerous. As with anything else, if used inappropriately, they are dangerous, but tourniquets save lives.

Prehospital intubation saves lives.

Ventilation in cardiac arrest improves outcomes (other than for respiratory causes of cardiac arrest, which are easy to identify).

Epinephrine improves outcomes in cardiac arrest. It does produce a pulse more often, but at what cost to the long-term survival of the patient and the patient’s brain? PARAMEDIC2 should help us to identify which patients benefit from epinephrine, since it is clear that many patients are harmed by epinephrine in cardiac arrest. If we limit treatment to patients reasonably expected to benefit from the treatment, we can improve long-term survival.

And there are many more.

Footnotes:

[1] Percutaneous coronary intervention in stable angina (ORBITA): a double-blind, randomised controlled trial.
Al-Lamee R, Thompson D, Dehbi HM, Sen S, Tang K, Davies J, Keeble T, Mielewczik M, Kaprielian R, Malik IS, Nijjer SS, Petraco R, Cook C, Ahmad Y, Howard J, Baker C, Sharp A, Gerber R, Talwar S, Assomull R, Mayet J, Wensel R, Collier D, Shun-Shin M, Thom SA, Davies JE, Francis DP; ORBITA investigators.
Lancet. 2017 Nov 1. pii: S0140-6736(17)32714-9. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32714-9. [Epub ahead of print]
PMID: 29103656

[2] Optimal medical therapy with or without PCI for stable coronary disease.
Boden WE, O’Rourke RA, Teo KK, Hartigan PM, Maron DJ, Kostuk WJ, Knudtson M, Dada M, Casperson P, Harris CL, Chaitman BR, Shaw L, Gosselin G, Nawaz S, Title LM, Gau G, Blaustein AS, Booth DC, Bates ER, Spertus JA, Berman DS, Mancini GB, Weintraub WS; COURAGE Trial Research Group.
N Engl J Med. 2007 Apr 12;356(15):1503-16. Epub 2007 Mar 26.
PMID: 17387127

Free Full Text from N Engl J Med.

.

Have a Slow, Quiet Friday the Thirteenth

Also to be posted on ResearchBlogging.org when they relaunch the site.
 

 

Superstitious appears to be common among medical people, so this may be seen as offensive. If you doubt me, comment that it is slow or quiet and see how many respond negatively, while they do not receive any criticism for their superstition-based complaints. Rather, people will make excuses for coddling the superstitions of those who are entrusted with the lives of patients.

The evidence does not support their superstitions.

One study did appear to show that women die in motor vehicle collisions more often on Friday the 13th, but that appears to be due to a lack of understanding of statistics by many who cite the article.
 

An additional factor is anxiolytic medication, used by significantly more women than men in Finland (7), which has been reported to reduce attention span and worsen driving performance (8). . . . Why this phenomenon exists in women but not in men remains unknown, but perhaps the twice-as-high prevalence of neurotic disorders and anxiety symptoms in women (7) makes them more susceptible to superstition and worsening of driving performance.[1]

 

The author suspects that those people with conditions that could be diagnosed as neuroses or anxiety disorders may be disproportionately affected by superstition.

In other words, superstition is not an external force affecting you. You are doing it to yourself.

The sample size was national, but still small, and was not able to adjust for many possible confounding variables, so the study would need to be replicated using a much larger data base to be useful.

In other superstition news – the next apocalypse, in a long line of predicted apocalypses, is going to be this Sunday – the 15 of October, 2017, according to David Meade. Meade twice previously predicted that a magical planet would hit the Earth and kill us all. This time he claims that his calculations are accurate, because that was the problem with his previous calculations – inaccuracy, not that they were a superstition deserving of derision.

If you are superstitious, and feel that your neuroses/anxieties will cause you to harm others, or yourself, you may want to stay home today and Sunday – perhaps even until you are capable of grasping reality.

Of course, we would never base treatment on superstition in medicine.

Amiodarone is the go to antiarrhythmic drug for cardiac arrest and ventricular tachycardia, but there are much safer much more effective drugs available. We have our own prophets misrepresenting research results to make it seem that using amiodarone for these is a good idea. The research says these preachers are wrong. The next guidelines will probably promote the superstition and reject the science.[2],[3]

Ventilation during cardiac arrest has been shown to be a good idea only for patients who arrested for respiratory reasons. We do a great job of identifying these patients. We have our own prophets misrepresenting research results to make it seem that providing ventilations for these is a good idea. The research says these preachers are wrong. The next guidelines will probably promote the superstition and reject the science.[4]

Medicine is full of superstition and superstitious people.

Why?

Too many of us believe the lie that, I’ve seen it work.

I have also written about the superstition of Friday the 13th here –

Acute coronary syndrome on Friday the 13th: a case for re-organising services? – Fri, 13 Jan 2017

The Magical Nonsense of Friday the 13th – Fri, 13 May 2016

Happy Friday the 13th – New and Improved with Space Debris – Fri, 13 Nov 2015

Friday the 13th and full-moon – the ‘worst case scenario’ or only superstition? – Fri, 13 Jun 2014

Blue Moon 2012 – Except parts of Oceanea – Fri, 31 Aug 2012

2009’s Top Threat To Science In Medicine – Fri, 01 Jan 2010

T G I Friday the 13th – Fri, 13 Nov 2009

Happy Equinox! – Thu, 20 Mar 2008

Footnotes:

[1] Traffic deaths and superstition on Friday the 13th.
Näyhä S.
Am J Psychiatry. 2002 Dec;159(12):2110-1.
PMID: 12450968

Free Full Text from Am J Psychiatry.

[2] The PROCAMIO Trial – IV Procainamide vs IV Amiodarone for the Acute Treatment of Stable Wide Complex Tachycardia
Wed, 17 Aug 2016
Rogue Medic
Article

There are a dozen links to the research in the footnotes to that article. There are also links to other articles on the failure of amiodarone to live up to its hype.

[3] Dr. Kudenchuk is Misrepresenting ALPS as ‘Significant’
Tue, 12 Apr 2016
Rogue Medic
Article

[4] Cardiac Arrest Management is an EMT-Basic Skill – The Hands Only Evidence
Fri, 09 Dec 2011
Rogue Medic
Article

.

Comment on Irresponsibility and Intubation – The EMS Standard Of Care

 

I wrote about the petition to protect paramedic incompetence in Irresponsibility and Intubation – The EMS Standard Of Care

Nathan Boone responded with the following comment
 

You’re forgetting about the rural medic out there.

 

No. I am not.

Are you suggesting that bad airway management for a longer period of time is less harmful than bad airway management for a shorter period of time?
 


 

Where we are with our patients for more then a hour, not 5 mintues.

 

The harm from incompetent airway management does not depend on distance from the hospital. Intubation even kills patients in the hospital.

You may believe that the efficacy of voodoo is directly related to the distance from the hospital, but it appears to be only your belief that increases.

Voodoo does not work, regardless of the distance from the hospital.

If the paramedic cannot manage an airway, the paramedic should not be permitted to intubate.
 

Sometimes air- craft isn’t available if its raining or on another call.. You want us to use a bvm and take chance of filling the patients stomic up for over a hour.. Yes we can be extremely careful and do everything in our power not to fill the stomic but there’s some patients out there who have difficult airways where bagging can be extremely difficult and or impossible.

 

Give incompetent paramedics dangerous tools to try to manage difficult airways because of distance? Wouldn’t it be better to try to make them competent – or to limit intubation to competent paramedics?

Intubation and BVM (Bag Valve Mask) are not the only forms of ventilation.
 

Rsi does save patients in rural areas, we need intubations..

 

Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe RSI kills more patients than it saves.

Actually, what I mean to write is, Maybe paramedics using RSI kill more patients than they save.

If you want to claim otherwise, prove it with high-quality research.

Unless you can provide high-quality research, your plastic airway religion is just another alt-med scam.

If your patients are important, then you need to demand that we find out what is best for the patients.
 

Do I believe that Rsi is risky and their is some medics out there who would rather make the patient more hypoxic then before until they give up and go to a secondary airway..absolutely.. But to take it away from Rural Medics when we can have anything to burn patients to anaphylactic reactions and to take our ONLY definitive airway;away from us..

 

You seem to think that RSI (Rapid Sequence Induction of anesthesia) becomes less risky the farther you are from the hospital.

Why?

Incompetence for a longer period will be expected to cause more harm.

Sometimes the incompetence of the paramedic doesn’t kill the patient.
 

Trauma patients were significantly more likely to have misplaced ETTs than medical patients (37% versus 14%, P<.01). With one exception, all the patients found to have esophageal tube placement exhibited the absence of ETCO2 on patient arrival. In the exception, the patient was found to be breathing spontaneously despite a nasotracheal tube placed in the esophagus.[1]

 

The patient clearly did not need intubation.

As with the crash of Trooper 2 in Maryland, the survival of the patient for hours in the woods, in the rain, following the helicopter crash that killed all of the other healthy people on board, was clear evidence that there was no reason to send this patient to the trauma center by air.

The same argument was provided by people, including Dr. Thomas Scalea, the head of Shock Trauma – If you don’t let us have our toys, people will die![2]

The rate of helicopter transport of trauma patients was dramatically cut.

That was almost a decade ago and we are still waiting for the dead bodies.

I expect that the same failure of prophesy will occur, when incompetent paramedics are prevented from intubating.

I expect that the fatality rate will decrease, when incompetent paramedics are prevented from intubating.
 

I think you’re out of your mind.

 

Many religious fanatics do.
 

In the city, I can maybe defend you. But the studies need to be done out in the sticks as well. I believe that we should have to go outpatient surgery every year or 2 or have number set of how many we need in that time period successfully to keep our skills sharp..

 

Every year or two?

WTF?

You don’t want to be taken seriously, do you?

This is something that requires a lot of skill and practice, so I get just a tiny bit, every other year. Trust me with your life.
 

After a Rsi and I have no one in the back but myself for over an hour.., I can place the patient on a vent and care for my patient. If RSI is taken away. I loose the capability to monitor my patient, and would be more focused on bagging my patient, or making sure the secondary away isn’t failing and I’m filling the stomic on the vent, because it can happen.

 

It is just a staffing issue.

That is different.

Competence isn’t needed when you are in the back by yourself.

Why are you opposed to competence?

Where is a single reasonable argument that intubation improves outcomes?

Where is a single reasonable argument that rural paramedics have an intubation success rate that is above 95%?

Even 95% means that some of your patients don’t end up with a properly placed endotracheal tube. What do you think happens to them?

Does your EMS agency have a better than 95% intubation success rate?

If you can’t manage at least 95%, why do you believe you can manage intubation?

Is each intubation on video, or do they just believe whatever you tell them?

If you want to be taken seriously, these are just some of the essential points to address.
 

This is not a new topic. You might also read the series below:

In Defense of Intubation Incompetence – Part I

In Defense of Intubation Incompetence – Part II

In Defense of Intubation Incompetence – Part III

How Accurate are We at Rapid Sequence Intubation for Pediatric Emergency Patients – Part I

How Accurate are We at Rapid Sequence Intubation for Pediatric Emergency Patients – Part II

Footnotes:

[1] Misplaced endotracheal tubes by paramedics in an urban emergency medical services system.
Katz SH, Falk JL.
Ann Emerg Med. 2001 Jan;37(1):32-7.
PMID: 11145768 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

Free Full Text PDF

[2] Helicopters and Bad Science
Thu, 09 Oct 2008
Rogue Medic
Article

.

Irresponsibility and Intubation – The EMS Standard Of Care

 

There is a petition to save EMS intubation, but it claims to be a petition to save patients. The petition is not to save patients.
 


Image source
Details here and here.
 

The petition states that its intent is to protect patients, but it does not provide any evidence. It only makes the same claims that every other quack makes to promote his snake oil.

We are worse than homeopaths, because homeopaths do not actively harm patients by depriving patients of oxygen, as we do when we intubate.
 

 
We are the quack, witch doctor, homeopath, horseshit peddlers Dara O’Briain is describing.

 

Today we are possibly facing the removal of the most effective airway intervention at our disposal as paramedics, endotracheal intubation.[1]

 

Most effective?

There is some evidence that intubation can be – in limited situations, by highly trained, competent people – beneficial. There is also plenty of evidence that intubation is harmful. It is easy to kill someone by taking away the patient’s airway.

Most effective?

No.

This petition does not mention evidence, so it has no credibility when it comes to claims of whether intubation is effective. This petition expects us to believe in a faerie tale of magical improvement with intubation. This petition wants us to clap for Tinkerbell, because If we believe hard enough, it just might come true. Grow up.
 

Please sign this petition so that these patients have a chance to live[1]

 

Prove that requiring higher standards for intubation would take away a patient’s chance to live.

Prove that intubation improves outcomes.

This is a petition to keep standards low for paramedics.

This petition does not mention competence, or even what is involved in competence, because this petition is opposition to competence.

This is the Protect Incompetent Paramedics from Responsibility Petition.

Responsibility is for professionals. In EMS, we reject responsibility.

We are more concerned with whether our shoes are shiny, than whether we are harming, or helping, our patients. The reason EMS exists is to improve outcomes for patients.

We don’t deliver competent care, but only the appearance of competence. We are medical theater, putting on a fancy show. The TSA (Transportation Security Administration) is the same – all appearance and no substance.

Most effective? Maybe intubation is the most effective theater.

The outcomes of our patients are affected, but we refuse to learn if we are helping, harming, or doing equal amounts of harm and help.

We actually oppose learning. We are willfully ignorant – and proud of our defiant stand for ignorance.

How much hypoxia do we cause in our attempts to place the so called gold standard? The actual gold standard is helping the patient to protect his own airway, but who cares what’s best for the patient? Not those who sign the petition.

How much vomiting, and aspiration, do we cause?

How much airway swelling do we cause?

How many airway infections do we cause?

How much harm do we cause?

We don’t know. We don’t care. We oppose attempts to find out.

We are EMS and we believe that our actions should be protected from examination, because we are beautiful and unique snowflakes who demand our participation trophies without doing real work required to be competent.

Go ahead, snowflakes, demonstrate your incompetence by signing the petition, because this protect intubation petition is really a protect incompetence petition.

If we want to continue to intubate, and we want to improve outcomes for our patients, we need to demonstrate that intubation by EMS provides significant benefit and which patients are most likely to benefit. We can’t do that because we don’t care enough about our patients.
 

Brian Behn has a different reason for not signing the petition for low standards – Why I am Not Signing The Petition About Intubation.

Dave Konig also comments on the petition for low standards – Is ET Intubation Joining Backboards In Protocol?

Footnotes:

[1] Allow paramedics to continue to save lives with endotracheal intubation!
Anthony Gantenbein United States
Petition site

.

The Medical Journal of Australia is Scammed by Acupuncturists

Also to be posted on ResearchBlogging.org when they relaunch the site.
 

Acupuncture has been thoroughly studied in high quality studies. The result is that we know, yes we know, that acupuncture is just an elaborate placebo – a scam. A reputable journal is claiming that low quality evidence contradicts what we know and we should ignore the high quality evidence.[1]

So why did the Medical Journal of Australia fall for this? Are their reviewers incompetent, dishonest, or is there some other reason for misleading their readers with bad research?

What is acupuncture?

You stick special needles into magic qi spots on the patient’s body, in order to affect the body’s magic energy. Not mitochondrial energy. Not any real measurable energy, but some psychic powers, some Stephen King kind of energy.

Any competent/honest researcher would compare acupuncture with a valid placebo. What is a valid placebo? A valid placebo is one that the patient believes is the treatment being studied. If the treatment comes in a pill, you provide a pill that is indistinguishable from the pill, but without the active ingredient. If the treatment is to jab you with needles, you provide an experience that is indistinguishable from the needles, but without influencing any mechanism of action the proponents claim makes the needles work.
 


 

How do we get people to believe they are being stabbed with needles in magic qi spots, without actually stabbing them with needles in magic qi spots? Use toothpicks at spots that acupuncture specialists specify are definitely not magic qi spots.

Every study of acupuncture that has used a valid placebo has failed to show benefit over placebo.[2],[3],[4],[5],[6],[7],[8]

Does this study use a valid placebo?

No. This study uses jargon and misdirection to distract us from the only important part of this study.

This study is just propaganda.

It doesn’t matter where you put the needles.

It doesn’t matter if you use needles.

All that matters is that you believe in voodoo.

We already knew that acupuncture is merely fancy voodoo, with the needles going into the patient, rather than the doll. These researchers want us to ignore the high quality evidence and pretend that the man behind the curtain is as great and powerful as he initially claims to be.

Footnotes:

[1] Acupuncture for analgesia in the emergency department: a multicentre, randomised, equivalence and non-inferiority trial
Marc M Cohen, De Villiers Smit, Nick Andrianopoulos, Michael Ben-Meir, David McD Taylor, Shefton J Parker, Chalie C Xue and Peter A Cameron
Med J Aust 2017; 206 (11): 494-499. || doi: 10.5694/mja16.00771
Abstract from MJA

Free Full Text in PDF format from MJA

[2] A randomized trial comparing acupuncture, simulated acupuncture, and usual care for chronic low back pain.
Cherkin DC, Sherman KJ, Avins AL, Erro JH, Ichikawa L, Barlow WE, Delaney K, Hawkes R, Hamilton L, Pressman A, Khalsa PS, Deyo RA.
Arch Intern Med. 2009 May 11;169(9):858-66. doi: 10.1001/archinternmed.2009.65.
PMID: 19433697

Free Full Text from PubMed Central

[3] Acupuncture for treatment of persistent arm pain due to repetitive use: a randomized controlled clinical trial.
Goldman RH, Stason WB, Park SK, Kim R, Schnyer RN, Davis RB, Legedza AT, Kaptchuk TJ.
Clin J Pain. 2008 Mar-Apr;24(3):211-8.
PMID: 18287826 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

[4] Sham device v inert pill: randomised controlled trial of two placebo treatments.
Kaptchuk TJ, Stason WB, Davis RB, Legedza AR, Schnyer RN, Kerr CE, Stone DA, Nam BH, Kirsch I, Goldman RH.
BMJ. 2006 Feb 18;332(7538):391-7. Epub 2006 Feb 1.
PMID: 16452103 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

Free Full Text from PubMed Central.

[5] Another acupuncture study misinterpreted
Science Blogs – Respectful Insolence
Orac
May 13, 2009
Article

[6] Acupuncture in the ED
Steven Novella
Neurologica
Article

[7] Emergency acupuncture! (2017 edition)
Science Blogs – Respectful Insolence
Orac
June 20, 2017
Article

[8] On the pointlessness of acupuncture in the emergency room…or anywhere else
David Gorski
Science-Based Medicine
July 25, 2016
Article

.

D10 in the Treatment of Prehospital Hypoglycemia: A 24 Month Observational Cohort Study

ResearchBlogging.org
 

Why treat hypoglycemia with 10% dextrose (D10), rather than the more expensive, potentially more harmful, and less available, but traditional treatment of 50% dextrose (D50)? Why not? The only benefit of 50% dextrose appears to be that it is what people are used to using, but aren’t we used to starting IVs (IntraVenous lines) and running fluids through the IVs?

We should be much more familiar with running in fluid, than in pushing boluses of syrup.

What happens when we have temporary shortages of 50% dextrose? Do we stop treating hypoglycemia? Are we supposed to panic, because we can no longer follow tradition? No. We give the more appropriate, and lower, dose of the much lower concentration of dextrose. We provide better care because of our need.
 

Despite the traditional use of D50, there is a minimal amount of data to support it as the standard of care.[1]

 

Is 10% dextrose the perfect treatment for hypoglycemia? No, but it does appear to be less likely to cause harm than the current overtreatment with 50% dextrose.
 

Seven patients had a drop in blood glucose after D10 administration, all of 10 mg/dL or less except for one patient with a drop of 19 mg/dL who had an insulin pump infusing that was not removed by EMS personnel during D10 infusion.[1]

 

Is that any different from what happens with 50% dextrose? If this is different from D50, how does the potential harm from giving too much dextrose to most hypoglycemic patients compare to the potential harm of giving a first that is too small to fewer than 1% of hypoglycemia patients?
 

There were no reported adverse events related to dextrose infusion. Six patients who received intravenous D10 were pronounced dead in the field during the period of study. On investigator review, all patients had altered level of arousal or were in cardiac arrest prior to arrival of EMS personnel and their deaths were deemed to be unrelated to dextrose administration.[1]

 

Dextrose does not reverse death, so there is no reason to expect a better outcome for dead patients with a higher concentration of a drug that does not reverse death. Go read the excellent review of the evidence on hypoglycemia, death, and the potential of dextrose to improve outcomes from death.[2]

But is 10% really better? We don’t have any good research, but is there any good reason to give all 25 grams of dextrose in a syringe of 50% dextrose if the patient wakes up before the full dose has been administered? Would we continue to give the entire syringe of morphine, or fentanyl, or most of the other drugs that we give, if our assessment shows that the patient no longer meets the protocol criteria for administration of the drug?
 


 

76% of patients received only 10 grams of dextrose, rather than the usual 25 grams. While it is not known if any of these patients required any further dextrose, or oral glucose, while in the hospital, they should have been awake enough to take any further dextrose orally, as they would the rest of the time.

23% of patients received only 20 grams of dextrose, rather than the usual 25 grams.

Fewer than 1% of hypoglycemia patients received a dose as large as we traditionally give.
 

We do not appear to be concerned with harm from administering more aggressive treatment than is justified by the evidence.

We do appear to be concerned about our anxiety of deviating from the traditional too much is not enough approach to hypoglycemia.

Footnotes:

[1] D10 in the Treatment of Prehospital Hypoglycemia: A 24 Month Observational Cohort Study.
Hern HG, Kiefer M, Louie D, Barger J, Alter HJ.
Prehosp Emerg Care. 2017 Jan-Feb;21(1):63-67. doi: 10.1080/10903127.2016.1189637. Epub 2016 Dec 5.
PMID: 27918858
 

Of the 1,323 patients administered D10 during the study period, the 452 patients excluded from the study cohort for the aforementioned reasons were similar demographically to the study cohort. The median initial blood glucose was the same at 37 mg/dL and the median age was also 66. There were slightly more women at 229 (51%) in the excluded group compared to the cohort.

 

[2] Using Dextrose in Cardiac Arrest
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
Mill Hill Ave Command
Dr. Brooks Walsh
Article

Hern, H., Kiefer, M., Louie, D., Barger, J., & Alter, H. (2016). D10 in the Treatment of Prehospital Hypoglycemia: A 24 Month Observational Cohort Study Prehospital Emergency Care, 21 (1), 63-67 DOI: 10.1080/10903127.2016.1189637

.