I wrote about treatment with the LUCAS CPR machine and stated that There is no price that justifies no improvement.[1]
There are plenty people who want to justify the use of placebo treatments – treatments that do not improve outcomes. Here is one –
Before writing this response, I took some time to examine the equipment I use on a daily basis. Needless to say, I was shocked to discover that we spend a lot of money of items that really don’t improve patient outcomes at all. One example is the Stryker Power Cot.[2]
The LUCAS is a treatment that is a potential substitute for manual chest compressions.
The selling point was supposed to be that the LUCAS improves outcomes – survival with a working brain – that is the whole purpose of the research I have been writing about.
Thus, in clinical practice, CPR with this mechanical device using the presented algorithm can be delivered without major complications but did not result in improved outcomes compared with manual chest compressions.[3]
The LUCAS failed.
However, Sean is taking my statement about the outcome of a treatment and applying it to the choice of equipment.
Does a power stretcher improve the survival of patients?
I do not know of any studies that examine this question, but the stretcher is not used as a treatment. The stretcher is used as a means of moving the patient.
What Sean appears to be asking is – since I am going to use a stretcher (is there any state that does not require a stretcher in an ambulance), shouldn’t I use the cheapest stretcher that meets the requirements? Or am I going to base my decision on something other than outcomes?
Is the choice to pay more for a power stretcher based on the outcomes of patients?
Although I tried, I couldn’t find any studies that compared patient outcomes to those transported using a manual cot.[2]
It is not based on the outcomes of patients, but the choice is based on outcomes.
In a study comparing the injury rate among FTEs (Full-Time Employees), the rate of injury was cut in half after the introduction of a powered stretcher.[4]
Maybe EMS should not consider the outcomes for employees when making decisions?
What is Sean’s next gotcha?
Another major purchase was the LifePak 15 ECG monitor / defibrillator. Once again, I couldn’t find anything showing improved patient outcomes.[2]
Sean couldn’t find any evidence that waveform capnography improves outcomes for patients?[5] 🙁
Sean couldn’t find any evidence that an EMS 12 lead ECG (ElectroCardioGram) improves outcomes for patients?[6] 😳
Sean couldn’t find any evidence that EMS defibrillation improve outcomes for patients?[7] 😯
Perhaps Sean works in a state that does not require a defibrillator, 12 lead capability, and/or waveform capnography as minimum paramedic equipment and thinks these are just fun to have toys.
Sean appears to be suggesting that the choice of brand and options, except as mandated by EMS regulatory organizations, must be limited to the cheapest available item. Otherwise, I am misleading people by stating – There is no price that justifies no improvement.
Should I be worried at Sean’s failure to find the valid evidence, when I only provided a small sample of the valid evidence?
Does this affect Sean’s argument? The argument is really just a bait and switch – a logical fallacy known as a straw man.[8] I wrote about one thing and Sean represented my argument as something else, because he has an argument against the argument I did not make. However, his argument does not address the claim I actually did make.
That is not the only argument Sean makes. I address the rest in Part II, Part III, and Part IV.
Dr. Brooks Walsh also explains the failure of the LUCAS in this study in “We had a LUCAS save!” – No, you didn’t.
–
Footnotes:
–
[1] The Failure of LUCAS to Improve Outcomes in the LINC Trial
Wed, 05 Mar 2014
Rogue Medic
Article
The LUCAS, Research, and Wishful Thinking
Fri, 07 Mar 2014
Rogue Medic
Article
–
[2] In Defense of the LUCAS
March 12, 2014
by Sean Eddy
Medic Madness
Article
–
[3] Mechanical chest compressions and simultaneous defibrillation vs conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: the LINC randomized trial.
Rubertsson S, Lindgren E, Smekal D, Östlund O, Silfverstolpe J, Lichtveld RA, Boomars R, Ahlstedt B, Skoog G, Kastberg R, Halliwell D, Box M, Herlitz J, Karlsten R.
JAMA. 2014 Jan 1;311(1):53-61. doi: 10.1001/jama.2013.282538.
PMID: 24240611 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]
Free Full Text in PDF Download format from PEHSC.org.
–
[4] Evaluation of occupational injuries in an urban emergency medical services system before and after implementation of electrically powered stretchers.
Studnek JR, Mac Crawford J, Fernandez AR.
Appl Ergon. 2012 Jan;43(1):198-202. doi: 10.1016/j.apergo.2011.05.001. Epub 2011 May 31.
PMID: 21632034 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]
–
[5] The effectiveness of out-of-hospital use of continuous end-tidal carbon dioxide monitoring on the rate of unrecognized misplaced intubation within a regional emergency medical services system.
Silvestri S, Ralls GA, Krauss B, Thundiyil J, Rothrock SG, Senn A, Carter E, Falk J.
Ann Emerg Med. 2005 May;45(5):497-503.
PMID: 15855946 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]
–
[6] Effect of prehospital triage on revascularization times, left ventricular function, and survival in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction.
Sivagangabalan G, Ong AT, Narayan A, Sadick N, Hansen PS, Nelson GC, Flynn M, Ross DL, Boyages SC, Kovoor P.
Am J Cardiol. 2009 Apr 1;103(7):907-12. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2008.12.007. Epub 2009 Feb 7.
PMID: 19327414 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]
–
[7] Treatment of out-of-hospital cardiac arrests with rapid defibrillation by emergency medical technicians.
Eisenberg MS, Copass MK, Hallstrom AP, Blake B, Bergner L, Short FA, Cobb LA.
N Engl J Med. 1980 Jun 19;302(25):1379-83.
PMID: 7374695 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]
–
[8] Straw man
Wikipedia
Article
.
Subscribe to RogueMedic.com