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

- Rogue Medic

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

.

2016 – Amiodarone is Useless, but Ketamine Gets Another Use

amiodarone-edit-1
 

I didn’t write a lot in 2016, but 2016 may have been the year we put the final nail in the coffin of amiodarone. Two major studies were published and both were very negative for amiodarone.

If we give enough amiodarone to have an effect on ventricular tachycardia, it will usually be a negative effect.[1]

Only 38% of ventricular tachycardia patients improved after amiodarone, but 48% had major adverse cardiac events after amiodarone.

There are better drugs, including adenosine, sotalol, procainamide, and ketamine for ventricular tachycardia. Sedation and cardioversion is a much better choice. Cardioversion is actually expected after giving amiodarone.

For cardiac arrest, amiodarone is not any better than placebo or lidocaine. What ever happened to the study of amiodarone that was showing such wonderful results over a decade ago? It still hasn’t been published, so it is reasonable to conclude that the results were negative for amiodarone. It is time to make room in the drug bag for something that works.[2],[3]

On the other hand, now that we have improved the quality of CPR by focusing on compressions, rather than drugs, more patients are waking up while chest compressions are being performed, but without spontaneous circulation, so ketamine has another promising use. And ketamine is still good for sedation for intubation, for getting a patient to tolerate high flow oxygen, for agitated delirium, for pain management, . . . .[4],[5]

Masimo’s RAD 57 still doesn’t have any evidence that it works well on real patients.[6]

When intubating, breathe. Breathing is good. Isn’t inability to breathe the reason for intubation?[7]

Footnotes:

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

[2] Amiodarone, Lidocaine, or Placebo in Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest
Mon, 04 Apr 2016
Rogue Medic
Article

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

[4] What do you do when a patient wakes up during CPR?
Tue, 08 Mar 2016
Rogue Medic
Article

[5] Ketamine For Anger Management
Sun, 06 Mar 2016
Rogue Medic
Article

[6] The RAD-57 – Still Unsafe?
Wed, 03 Feb 2016
Rogue Medic
Article

[7] Should you hold your breath while intubating?
Tue, 19 Jan 2016
Rogue Medic
Article

.

Should you hold your breath while intubating?

 

This is one of the ancient bits of street wisdom common sense about intubating. If you hold your breath while intubating, you will know when the patient needs to take a breath.

As with much of common sense, it is based on mythology.
 

Never take more than 30 seconds per attempt at each intubation!
Hint: Hold your breath while intubating – when you need to take a breath, so does the patient!
[1]

 

60 pct of the time, it works every time 1
Typical intubation instructor?
 

Obviously, this idea came about long before apneic oxygenation. No, . . . . Wait, it could be that apneic oxygenation came first, since papers were being written about apneic oxygenation long before paramedics were sent out to spread the word of the benefits of unrecognized esophageal intubation close enough for prehospital intubation.[2],[3],[4]

It could be that some anesthesiologists thought breath holding while intubating was a good idea, but I did not find any papers.

Apneic oxygenation can prevent desaturation for much longer than 30 seconds, yet many of us still emphasize fast and bloody, rather than slow and benign.

If the patient can hold her breath for as long as I can, she may be breathing as well as I am breathing, and may not need to be intubated. How do I really know when my patient needs to take a breath?

If I can only hold my breath for as long as a patient who needs to be intubated, then I may be breathing as badly as she is, and I may need intubation more than she does. How long can a paramedic hold his breath before becoming hypoxic and/or confused? How good am I at recognizing this change when I am focused on putting the little plastic tube in the slightly larger cartilage and flesh tube?

If the patient does not need to be intubated, why intubate? If I need to be intubated, should I be the one intubating anyone else? If I can hold my breath longer than the average paramedic, should I take up smoking to make this technique work for me? Should we be testing paramedics on how long a breath can be held as part of the hiring process?

I am shocked that such a simple one size fits all approach fails to consider even one of the many variables that would affect its use. How could that possibly happen in EMS?

Footnotes:

[1] Widely circulated, unwritten paper
The Mythbuilders of EMS
Trust us.
We know what we’re doing.

[2] Oxygen uptake in human lungs without spontaneous or artificial pulmonary ventilation.
ENGHOFF H, HOLMDAHL MH, RISHOLM L.
Acta Chir Scand. 1952 Jul 14;103(4):293-301. No abstract available.
PMID: 12985091

[3] Pulmonary uptake of oxygen, acid-base metabolism, and circulation during prolonged apnoea.
HOLMDAHL MH.
Acta Chir Scand Suppl. 1956;212:1-128. No abstract available.
PMID: 13326155

[4] Apneic oxygenation in man.
FRUMIN MJ, EPSTEIN RM, COHEN G.
Anesthesiology. 1959 Nov-Dec;20:789-98. No abstract available.
PMID: 13825447

.

Our current ambulance system is based on little scientific evidence

 

Our current ambulance system is based on little scientific evidence.

This is one comment by Prachi Sanghavi that has some paramedics very upset.

The video of her short speech at Harvard was posted on EMS1.com[1] and the responses suggested that there is something horribly wrong in the statement, or in any of what followed. There isn’t.
 

[youtube]E_LdhI-UXPU[/youtube]
 

The problem is with the attitude of those who think that they know everything.

The problem is with the people who oppose finding out if treatments work.

The problem is with people who oppose protecting our patients from harmful treatments.

Prachi Sanghavi discusses the difference between BLS (Basic Life Support) treatment and ALS (Advanced Life Support) treatment. BLS includes all of the prehospital treatment that have evidence of benefit. All of them. ALS includes all of the cool things that paramedics and doctors do before getting to the hospital based on a wish and a prayer, but not on any valid evidence.
 


 

This is a comparison of cardiac arrest outcomes between two similar counties looking at the lack of expected benefit with ALS. There are more variables than just ALS vs. BLS, but we do need to ask Why are these cardiac arrest outcomes so bad with ALS?

Prachi Sanghavi is incorrect about a few things. Paramedics generally use a manual defibrillator, not a semi-automatic defibrillator. Taking longer at a cardiac arrest scene is probably not a problem. Those patients transported without pulses can be expected to end up in the morgue. Moving the patient with ineffective compressions, rather than staying on scene to do compressions well, is not recommended, because it is not supported by evidence. Rushing the patient to the hospital is just rushing the patient to ALS in a building. Yes, there is more ALS available at the hospital, but nothing that has good evidence of improving outcomes. Therapeutic hypothermia, is part of post-resuscitation treatment, not resuscitation treatment. That may change.[2]

Prachi Sanghavi also looked at trauma, stroke, and heart attack. The results were the same. Patients had better outcomes with Basic Life Support.

Our response should be to ask questions.

Are we doing something wrong?

What evidence do we have that ALS treatment improves outcomes?

The problem is that we ignore evidence and make excuses for our willful ignorance.

We are slow to adopt ALS treatments that have good evidence of improving outcomes and much, much slower to get rid of treatments that have only the weakest evidence of benefit – expert opinion. Expert opinion is the basis for all treatments that are later demonstrated to be harmful, so expert opinion isn’t worth bragging about. Real experts understand and learn from the evidence.

Should we trust the people criticizing the message that Maybe more is not better, or should we examine what we have been doing to find out what works?

Why are we opposed to providing the best care we can?

Footnotes:

[1] Researcher: Is BLS better than ALS?
EMS1.com
November 13, 2015
Article

[1] Refractory cardiac arrest treated with mechanical CPR, hypothermia, ECMO and early reperfusion (the CHEER trial).
Stub D, Bernard S, Pellegrino V, Smith K, Walker T, Sheldrake J, Hockings L, Shaw J, Duffy SJ, Burrell A, Cameron P, Smit de V, Kaye DM.
Resuscitation. 2015 Jan;86:88-94. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2014.09.010. Epub 2014 Oct 2.
PMID: 25281189

Free Full Text from Resuscitation.

This is a tiny study that suggests a grouping of treatments that may work (or that may include a treatment, or two, that may lead to improved outcomes. The results are good, but it is just one tiny study that needs replication and each of the treatments should be studied individually.

.

If We Are Not Competent With Direct Laryngoscopy, We Should Just Say So – Part II

ResearchBlogging.org
 

Continuing from Part I of a paper that could, at best, be described as a convenience sample, since a quarter of patients were excluded from randomization because of attending physician bias.

What were the authors assuming when comparing GVL (GlideScope Video Laryngoscope) with DL (Direct Laryngoscopy) for intubation?
 

Intuitively, devices such as the indirect video laryngoscope should improve intubation performance. As such, this study tested the hypothesis that achieving better visualization during the intubation with the GlideScope Video Laryngoscope would result in a better airway management performance as measured by shorter intubation times.[1]

 

The authors also intuitively assume that shorter intubation times mean better airway management. This suggests that speed is the most important factor in airway management.
 


Image credit.
 

They are probably still preaching the myth of the Golden Hour at Shock Trauma.

Is speed more important than quality?
 

There is an excellent assessment of intubation attempt in this paper.
 

Confirmation of intubation attempt duration and success was identified using closed-circuit video.[1]

 

We should not be relying on self-reported intubation success, unless we aren’t interested in a study of fiction. We do not accurately report intubation success, so an objective measurement of success is essential. This should be applied to EMS, as well.
 

The failed intubation rate was less than 0.5%, but the participants had already excluded over a quarter of the patients, so how impressive is a half a percent failure on 3/4 of patients?

What is the success rate for all patients?
 

For all of the statistics regarding study measures, a p < 0.05 was chosen as the threshold for determining significance.[1]

 

Secondary outcome measures are free shots at finding something “significant,” so they should be required to achieve a higher standard than the 1 in 20 p value of < 0.05.[2]

 

To account for any potential bias from patients not enrolled owing to attending discretion, comparison analysis was performed between the eligible, enrolled patients and the eligible, nonenrolled patients. The data demonstrates that all groups were proportionally similar in their demographics, injury mechanism, ISS, and arrival vital signs (data not shown).[1]

 

And, according to Dr. Newman in the SMART EM podcast, the Mallampati scores of the excluded patients were similar to those of the included patients.
 

Used alone, the Mallampati tests have limited accuracy for predicting the difficult airway and thus are not useful screening tests.[3]

 

We conclude that the prognostic value of the modified Mallampati score was worse than that estimated by previous meta-analyses. Our assessment shows that the modified Mallampati score is inadequate as a stand-alone test of a difficult laryngoscopy or tracheal intubation, but it may well be a part of a multivariate model for the prediction of a difficult tracheal intubation.[4]

 

Do the demographics, injury mechanism, ISS, and arrival vital signs increase the ability of the Mallapati to predicting difficult intubation?
 


Image credit.
 

How do we know that the difficulty was similar between included patients and excluded patients?

Similar Mallampati scores.

How useful are Mallampati scores at predicting difficulty of intubation?
 

The pooled estimates demonstrated that only 35% of the patients, who underwent tracheal intubation with difficulties, were correctly identified with a modified Mallampati test.[4]

 

Does the Mallampati score work well for predicting difficulty of intubation with a video laryngoscope?
 

The clinical use of videolaryngoscopes may change the accuracy of predictors of difficult tracheal intubation and require a different definition of difficult tracheal intubation.[4]

 

The Mallampati score does not appear to be of much use in comparing the excluded patients from the included patients, but that is what the authors use to assure us that the patients are similar.

Mallampati scores compare one aspect of visibility, but how important is visibility for intubation?

To be continued in Part III.

Footnotes:

[1] Effect of video laryngoscopy on trauma patient survival: a randomized controlled trial.
Yeatts DJ, Dutton RP, Hu PF, Chang YW, Brown CH, Chen H, Grissom TE, Kufera JA, Scalea TM.
J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2013 Aug;75(2):212-9. doi: 10.1097/TA.0b013e318293103d.
PMID: 23823612 [PubMed – in process]

[2] Do multiple outcome measures require p-value adjustment?
Feise RJ.
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2002 Jun 17;2:8. Review.
PMID: 12069695 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

Free Full Text from BioMed Central.
 

Standard scientific practice, which is entirely arbitrary, commonly establishes a cutoff point to distinguish statistical significance from non-significance at 0.05. By definition, this means that one test in 20 will appear to be significant when it is really coincidental. When more than one test is used, the chance of finding at least one test statistically significant due to chance and incorrectly declaring a difference increases. When 10 statistically independent tests are performed, the chance of at least one test being significant is no longer 0.05, but 0.40.

 

[3] A systematic review (meta-analysis) of the accuracy of the Mallampati tests to predict the difficult airway.
Lee A, Fan LT, Gin T, Karmakar MK, Ngan Kee WD.
Anesth Analg. 2006 Jun;102(6):1867-78.
PMID: 16717341 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

[4] Poor prognostic value of the modified Mallampati score: a meta-analysis involving 177 088 patients.
Lundstrøm LH, Vester-Andersen M, Møller AM, Charuluxananan S, L’hermite J, Wetterslev J; Danish Anaesthesia Database.
Br J Anaesth. 2011 Nov;107(5):659-67. doi: 10.1093/bja/aer292. Epub 2011 Sep 26.
PMID: 21948956 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

Free Full Text from Oxford Journals.

Yeatts DJ, Dutton RP, Hu PF, Chang YW, Brown CH, Chen H, Grissom TE, Kufera JA, & Scalea TM (2013). Effect of video laryngoscopy on trauma patient survival: a randomized controlled trial. The journal of trauma and acute care surgery, 75 (2), 212-9 PMID: 23823612

Lee A, Fan LT, Gin T, Karmakar MK, & Ngan Kee WD (2006). A systematic review (meta-analysis) of the accuracy of the Mallampati tests to predict the difficult airway. Anesthesia and analgesia, 102 (6), 1867-78 PMID: 16717341

Lundstrøm LH, Vester-Andersen M, Møller AM, Charuluxananan S, L’hermite J, Wetterslev J, & Danish Anaesthesia Database (2011). Poor prognostic value of the modified Mallampati score: a meta-analysis involving 177 088 patients. British journal of anaesthesia, 107 (5), 659-67 PMID: 21948956

.

Comment on If We Are Not Competent With Direct Laryngoscopy, We Should Just Say So – Part I

 

In the comments to If We Are Not Competent With Direct Laryngoscopy, We Should Just Say So – Part I, TexasMedicJMB writes the following –
 

I look at the approach of what works for the person performing the intubation is best.

 

No.

What is best for the patient is what is best.

Research to find out what is best for the patient is important.
 

The goal isn’t to satisfy keeping a low-tech approach, the goal is to maximize patient care.

 

That is why we need research.

We can’t just assume that we know what is best without valid evidence. If we are honest about doing what is best for our patients and if we are to behave ethically, we need to find out what is best for our patients.
 

If a difficult airway is encountered and the decision to use a Bougie (flex-tube introducer) is made does this qualify as witchcraft?

 

That depends.

What do I mean by witchcraft?

By witchcraft, I mean treatments that are based on superstition, wishful thinking, and/or anecdote, rather than valid evidence.

Is the decision to use a bougie based on valid evidence?

If not, then the decision may qualify as witchcraft, as I use the term.
 


 

However, you entirely missed the point of my criticism of the opposition to learning by these anesthesiologists.

These witches anesthesiologists refused to participate in research designed to answer a question that has not yet been answered and may affect patient survival.
 

If an anesthesiologist opts to use a Mac 0 on a pediatric pt rather than a text-book suggested Miller 0 is this witchcraft?

 

The textbook recommendation appears to be witchcraft, but feel free to provide valid evidence to support either opinion.
 

If the doctor opts to use VGL because the pt is perceived difficult due to morbid obesity, known CA tumor, etc. why is this witchcraft?
I call it prudent judgement.

 

Is there valid evidence that the GVL (GlideScope Video Laryngoscope) improves outcomes?

If not, then what you describe is not prudent judgement, but mere wishful thinking and therefore witchcraft, as I use the term.
 

From the article at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22042705: Compared to direct laryngoscopy, Glidescope(®) video-laryngoscopy is associated with improved glottic visualization, particularly in patients with potential or simulated difficult airway.

 

That is great for someone selling video laryngoscopes

These are only surrogate endpoints, which do not matter.

Surrogate endpoints are just hypothesis generators for studies that will determine if the video laryngoscope actually improves outcomes that matter.

Surrogate endpoints are excellent for self-deception.

Where is the evidence of improved outcomes that matter?
 

From http://ccforum.com/content/17/5/R237: In the medical ICU, video laryngoscopy resulted in higher first attempt and ultimate intubation success rates and improved grade of laryngoscopic view while reducing the esophageal intubation rate compared to direct laryngoscopy.

 

Where is the evidence of improved outcomes that matter?

According to the paper I am writing about,[1] video laryngoscopy resulted in longer intubation attempts and dramatically more hypoxia.

Are we curing the disease, but killing the patient?

Blood-letting also improved surrogate endpoints, while it increased the likelihood of death for patients treated with blood-letting.
 

Physicians observed of old, and continued to observe for many centuries, the following facts concerning blood-letting.

1. It gave relief to pain. . . . .

2. It diminished swelling. . . . .

3. It diminished local redness or congestion. . . . .

4. For a short time after bleeding, either local or general, abnormal heat was sensibly diminished.

5. After bleeding, spasms ceased, . . . .

6. If the blood could be made to run, patients were roused up suddenly from the apparent death of coma. (This was puzzling to those who regarded spasm and paralysis as opposite states; but it showed the catholic applicability of the remedy.)

7. Natural (wrongly termed ” accidental”) hacmorrhages were observed sometimes to end disease. . . . .

8. . . . venesection would cause hamorrhages to cease.[2]

 

I am sorry that your child died, but we consider surrogate endpoints to be more important than the lives of our patients.
 

This paper could have helped to answer that question, but a bunch of anesthesiologists witches decided that they just know and they don’t care about reality or outcomes. In other words, surrogate endpoints are more important than the lives of their patients.
 

As you point out, the article you linked just leaves the sub-group in question at “discretion, unspecified”.

 


 

As Dr. David Newman stated in the podcast,[3] he contacted the corresponding author and was told that all of the attending physician discretion, unspecified patients were because there are some anesthesiologists who refuse to use anything other than a video laryngoscope.

In other words, their patient care depends on prejudice – as does witchcraft.
 

Is the discretion the witchcraft and psychics? Maybe. Is it likely these pt’s were indeed difficult airways the physician felt more comfortable using VGL?

 

Again, according to Dr. Newman, some anesthesiologists insisted on intubating all of their patients with video laryngoscopes, regardless of difficulty. They consider themselves too smart to learn, so they refused to participate.
 

Is the physician truly practicing witchcraft because he chose to perform a procedure known to lower time to intubation, improve first-pass success, etc?

 

Does lowering intubation time improve outcomes?

If video laryngoscopes shorten intubation time, then why did it take longer to intubate patients with the video laryngoscopes?

Valid research could help answer that.
 

Would it have been better if he’d have ignored the VGL device and made several attempts at DL to pass the ETT?

 

Why do you assume that would be the outcome?

Do you have any valid evidence?

One thing this paper does make clear is that there is no good reason to assume that use of video laryngoscopes improve outcomes.
 

The usage of VGL doesn’t appear to be a tool of witchcraft. This is evolution of medicine.

 

You appear to be defending the preventable deaths of patients in order to promote the continuing expansion of witchcraft in medicine.

We do not know what is best, but the anesthesiologists are defending their opinions and protecting their opinions from evidence that may contradict those opinions.

That is witchcraft superstitious nonsense.

Footnotes:

[1] Effect of video laryngoscopy on trauma patient survival: a randomized controlled trial.
Yeatts DJ, Dutton RP, Hu PF, Chang YW, Brown CH, Chen H, Grissom TE, Kufera JA, Scalea TM.
J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2013 Aug;75(2):212-9. doi: 10.1097/TA.0b013e318293103d.
PMID: 23823612 [PubMed – in process]

[2] Blood-Letting
Br Med J.
1871 March 18; 1(533): 283–291.
PMCID: PMC2260507

[3] SMART Literature Update
SMART EM podcast
Friday, October 11, 2013
Dr. David Newman and Dr. Ashley Shreves
From about 45:45 to 1:11:00 in the podcast is on this paper.
Podcast page.

.

If We Are Not Competent With Direct Laryngoscopy, We Should Just Say So – Part I

ResearchBlogging.org
 

This study starts out looking good, but there is a huge problem with the design.

If the person intubating felt that he needed to use the video laryngoscope to get the tube, then the patient was not randomize into the study.

How was this paper accepted for publication with such an obviously violation of research methodology?

Did the authors at least track the violations of ethics, so that some analysis of all patients could be attempted?

Maybe this is not really GVL (GlideScope Video Laryngoscope) vs. DL (Direct Laryngoscopy), but a comparison of intubation of the not-so-difficult airway with GVL vs. DL.

What is not-so-difficult? Whatever did not get the doctor to cry, I could not possibly manage that airway safely with a regular laryngoscope!

833 patients would have been randomized, but the person in charge of the airway cried uncle in 210 (just over 25%) of these cases.
 


Image credit.[1]
 

Has airway management really deteriorated to the point where doctors do not feel competent managing 25% of airways without an electronic toy because they are superstitious and believe the toy has magical powers?
 


 

Maybe.

A study could be set up with some sort of objective criteria for excluding the most difficult airways and still be valid, but how do we objectively assess the need for an electric rabbit’s foot?

Did the doctors read their horoscopes and determine that it was a bad day and they needed to use all of their voodoo powers that day?

Did the doctors consult with psychics?

We do not know, because the criteria for superstition are not explained.

This is just a reminder that medicine, and perhaps especially trauma medicine, is still a very superstitious field. It wasn’t that long ago that these patients would have been treated with blood-letting to get rid of the bad humors that prevent healing. Humorous medicine.

Dr. David Newman and Dr. Ashley Shreves describe this in a SMART EM podcast.[2] Dr. Newman corresponded with one of the authors and states that some of the anesthesiologists at Shock Trauma are biased in favor of the video laryngoscope and refuse to use anything else. Were the 210 patients excluded just because some attending anesthesiologists are too biased to learn what works and those anesthesiologists were just throwing a tantrum for all of their patients?

The mythology of I know it works because I’ve seen it work.[3]

Are 25% of the attending anesthesiologists at Shock Trauma too biased to learn?[4]

Or have we improved to the point where only 25% of attending physicians in a specialty are to biased to learn?

To be continued in Part II.

Footnotes:

Image credit for witch’s hat.

[1] Effect of video laryngoscopy on trauma patient survival: a randomized controlled trial.
Yeatts DJ, Dutton RP, Hu PF, Chang YW, Brown CH, Chen H, Grissom TE, Kufera JA, Scalea TM.
J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2013 Aug;75(2):212-9. doi: 10.1097/TA.0b013e318293103d.
PMID: 23823612 [PubMed – in process]

[2] SMART Literature Update
SMART EM podcast
Friday, October 11, 2013
Dr. David Newman and Dr. Ashley Shreves
From about 45:45 to 1:11:00 in the podcast is on this paper.
Podcast page.

[3] I’ve Seen It Work and Other Lies
Tue, 21 Jun 2011
Rogue Medic
Article

[4] It would be the anesthesiologists managing just over 25% of the intubations, rather than 25% of the anesthesiologists, but no information is provided to clarify how many anesthesiologists that would be.

The result of the bias affects just over 25% of patients.

Yeatts DJ, Dutton RP, Hu PF, Chang YW, Brown CH, Chen H, Grissom TE, Kufera JA, & Scalea TM (2013). Effect of video laryngoscopy on trauma patient survival: a randomized controlled trial. The journal of trauma and acute care surgery, 75 (2), 212-9 PMID: 23823612

.