Potentially Reversible Causes

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

- Rogue Medic

2020 ACLS Repeats the Mistakes of 2015 ACLS

Wed, 21 Oct 2020 12:10:23 -0400 by Rogue Medic

The International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR) has updated the ACLS (Advanced Cardiac Life Support) recommendations by making excuses for the evidence.

We have been using epinephrine for 50 years without evidence of improved outcomes that matter to patients.

A Randomized Trial of Epinephrine in Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest (Paramedic2) shows that epinephrine does not improve outcomes for prehospital patients.

In conclusion, in this randomized trial involving patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, the use of epinephrine resulted in a significantly higher rate of survival at 30 days than the use of placebo, but there was no significant between-group difference in the rate of a favorable neurologic outcome because more survivors had severe neurologic impairment in the epinephrine group.

Rather than limit treatments to those with high quality evidence that they improve outcomes that matter to patients, the recommendation is to keep giving epinephrine, because eventually someone might provide something – anything – to support epinephrine.

What about amiodarone?

Amiodarone, Lidocaine, or Placebo in Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest (ALPS) showed that amiodarone also does not improve outcomes.

Conclusions Overall, neither amiodarone nor lidocaine resulted in a significantly higher rate of survival or favorable neurologic outcome than the rate with placebo among patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest due to initial shock-refractory ventricular fibrillation or pulseless ventricular tachycardia.

If amiodarone was mentioned, I missed it. Both epinephrine and amiodarone had large placebo-controlled research results released showing that the outcomes are worse with epinephrine and worse with amiodarone.

There is still no evidence that any ventilation produces better outcomes than compression-only resuscitation, but it looks like the intervention will continue to be recommended.

In the absence of evidence of benefit, inadequately tested interventions should be avoided.

The goal is to protect the patients, not to protect the interventions.

Filed Under: ACLS, Defibrillation, Epinephrine, Ethics, Evidence, Heresy, Intubation, Naloxone, PALS, Pharmacology, Potentially Reversible Causes, Research, Superstition, Ventilation

Hydroxychloroquine – The More You Know, The Worse It Looks

Fri, 22 May 2020 14:15:49 -0400 by Rogue Medic

Do you want to use a drug that was never based on any good evidence, but only a hunch? Try hydroxychloroquine. The president says, What have you got to lose?

Kitchen sink medicine is a remnant of the Dark Ages, but it has not been eliminated from medicine. It is the argument from ignorance. If you can’t prove that the treatment is harmful, the treatment is wonderful. If you can prove the treatment is harmful, you are part of a conspiracy.

This is further evidence that hydroxychloroquine is harmful. The higher the quality of the evidence about hydroxychloroquine, the worse hydroxychloroquine looks.

Today, Lancet published this study comparing almost 15,000 patients receiving several different experimental treatments with about 80,000 patients not receiving any of the experimental treatments. This should convince reasonable people that there is no justification for treating patients with hydroxychloroquine outside of a well controlled randomized trial.

The comments on articles about the study are full of the usual anti-science, anti-vax, alternative medicine propaganda. Their religion has failed, but they keep preaching.

After controlling for multiple confounding factors (age, sex, race or ethnicity, body-mass index, underlying cardiovascular disease and its risk factors, diabetes, underlying lung disease, smoking, immunosuppressed condition, and baseline disease severity), when compared with mortality in the control group (9·3%), hydroxychloroquine (18·0%; hazard ratio 1·335, 95% CI 1·223–1·457), hydroxychloroquine with a macrolide (23·8%; 1·447, 1·368–1·531), chloroquine (16·4%; 1·365, 1·218–1·531), and chloroquine with a macrolide (22·2%; 1·368, 1·273–1·469) were each independently associated with an increased risk of in-hospital mortality.^[1]

The evidence shows that you are twice as likely to die if you receive hydroxychloroquine.

Don’t listen to anti-science, anti-vax, anti-medicine preachers, because they are not interested in your health.

What have you got to lose?

What are you treating, you politics/religion or your health?

If your goal is to treat your religion, go ahead and use the magic elixir and maybe you will not be harmed by it.

If your goal is to treat your health, avoid magic claims about treatments, regardless of the treatment. Use treatments that work in the real world.

What have you got to lose?

You are twice as likely to lose your life. Among survivors, the significant adverse effect rate was much higher in the hydroxychloroquine groups. This is the highest quality research so far and there is no good news for the hydroxychloroquine.

Read the full paper and think for yourself. Don’t listen to those making excuses to promote their agenda. Your health has never been important to those who reject science.

It is unfortunate that we do not have some treatment that works well, but that is not a good reason to bet your life on bad medicine. More people survive with better health with conventional treatment.

Footnotes:

^[1] Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19: a multinational registry analysis
Prof Mandeep R Mehra, MD, Sapan S Desai, MD, Prof Frank Ruschitzka, MD, Amit N Patel, MD
Lancet. Published:May 22, 2020
DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31180-6

Free Full Text from Lancet.

Filed Under: Cardiology, Conspiracy Theories, Corruption, COVID-19, Critical Judgment, EBM, Ethics, Evidence, Heresy, Narrative Fallacy, Pharmacology, Potentially Reversible Causes, Research Blogging, Risk Management, Science, V Tach

Closed chest compressions reduce survival in an animal model of haemorrhage-induced traumatic cardiac arrest

Fri, 31 May 2019 19:00:44 -0400 by Rogue Medic

This is an animal study, rather than a human study, but it has fewer disadvantages than the usual animal studies of medical cardiac arrest. Animals do not develop the comorbidities that humans do, but have artificially created heart attacks, rather than by the development of actual heart disease. In studying trauma, this is less of a problem, since trauma is artificially created. This study is much more representative of penetrating injuries with a low velocity objects, than blunt force trauma, or penetrating injury with a high velocity object.

Are we really killing trauma patients with our chest compressions?

Maybe. This is one small study (39 pigs), but it does raise questions about the ways we can minimize the harm we cause.

CCC were associated with increased mortality and compromised haemodynamics compared to intravenous fluid resuscitation. Whole blood resuscitation was better than saline.^[1]

A soft tissue injury was created, with 3 shots to the right thigh using a captive bolt (Cash Special, Accles and Shelvoke, Sutton Coldfield, UK). Two minutes later animals underwent a controlled haemorrhage (30% blood volume) at an exponentially reducing rate as previously described¹² until the mean arterial blood pressure (MAP) was 45 mmHg. Blood was collected into CPD (citrate phosphate dextrose) and stored at room temperature until required for later transfusion.^[1]

Image source

This study, conducted in an animal model of haemorrhage-induced traumatic cardiac arrest, has demonstrated that chest compressions confer no benefit over fluid resuscitation alone, and blood should be the fluid therapy of choice.^[1]

That seems to be concluding too much, since this is just one study, but it does reinforce the results of other, similar studies. We should study the outcomes in humans, since there does appear to be equipoise. There never was a physiological justification for chest compressions in traumatic cardiac arrest which appears to be due to hemorrhage. Now there is more evidence that chest compressions produce more harm than benefit in traumatic cardiac arrest which appears to be due to hemorrhage.

One study using a baboon traumatic cardiac arrest model found that the improvements in haemodynamics seen with chest compressions for normovolaemic cardiac arrest were not reproduced in hypovolaemic arrest.14 The authors suggested that CCC should not delay correction of the underlying deficit causing TCA, but the study was undertaken in only three animals, perhaps limiting its clinical relevance. A more recent study using a canine model of pulseless electrical activity in TCA found no benefit of chest compressions over fluid therapy alone or fluid combined with chest compressions; in fact the chest compression only group had worse survival, base deficit and ejection fraction.15 The authors concluded that further research was required to determine whether CPR has a role for the patient in haemorrhagic shock.^[1]

Most important is that the outcome is ROSC (Return Of Spontaneous Circulation), not return to normal neurological function. Since these are pigs, even the appearance of normal neurological function may not mean anything in humans. Still, the treatment is not evidence-based, so there does not appear to be a good reason to prefer to continue using compressions for traumatic cardiac arrest which appears to be due to hemorrhage.

Here in America, we are unlikely to do the research, because we are more concerned with appearances than with improving outcomes for patients. Maybe somebody in Britain or Australia will have to demonstrate some responsibility, so we can stop using chest compressions to kill trauma patients.

Footnotes:

^[1] Closed chest compressions reduce survival in an animal model of haemorrhage-induced traumatic cardiac arrest. Watts S, Smith JE, Gwyther R, Kirkman E. Resuscitation. 2019 May 9;140:37-42. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2019.04.048. [Epub ahead of print]

PMID: 31077754

Free Full Text from Resuscitation

Filed Under: ACLS, CPR, Heresy, Potentially Reversible Causes, Research, Trauma

A Randomized Trial of Epinephrine in Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest – Part I

Thu, 19 Jul 2018 14:40:46 -0400 by Rogue Medic

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

The results are in from the only completed Adrenaline (Epinephrine in non-Commonwealth countries) vs. Placebo for Cardiac Arrest study.

Even I overestimated the possibility of benefit of epinephrine.

I had hoped that there would be some evidence to help identify patients who might benefit from epinephrine, but that is not the case.

PARAMEDIC2 (Prehospital Assessment of the Role of Adrenaline: Measuring the Effectiveness of Drug Administration in Cardiac Arrest) compared adrenaline (epinephrine) with placebo in a “randomized, double-blind trial involving 8014 patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest”.

More people survived for at least 30 days with epinephrine, which is entirely expected. There has not been any controversy about whether giving epinephrine produces pulses more often than not giving epinephrine. As with amiodarone (Nexterone and Pacerone), the question has been whether we are just filling the ICUs and nursing home beds with comatose patients.

There was no statistical evidence of a modification in treatment effect by such factors as the patient’s age, whether the cardiac arrest was witnessed, whether CPR was performed by a bystander, initial cardiac rhythm, or response time or time to trial-agent administration (Fig. S7 in the Supplementary Appendix). ^[1]

The secondary outcome is what everyone has been much more interested in – what are the neurological outcomes with adrenaline vs. without adrenaline?

The best outcome was no detectable neurological impairment.

the benefits of epinephrine that were identified in our trial are small, since they would result in 1 extra survivor for every 112 patients treated. This number is less than the minimal clinically important difference that has been defined in previous studies.29,30 Among the survivors, almost twice the number in the epinephrine group as in the placebo group had severe neurologic impairment.

Our work with patients and the public before starting the trial (as summarized in the Supplementary Appendix) identified survival with a favorable neurologic outcome to be a higher priority than survival alone. ^[1]

Click on the image to make it larger.

Are there some patients who will do better with epinephrine than without?

Maybe (I would have written probably, before these results), but we still do not know how to identify those patients.

Is titrating tiny amounts of epinephrine, to observe for response, reasonable? What response would we be looking for? Wat do we do if we observe that response? We have been using epinephrine for over half a century and we still don’t know when to use it, how much to use, or how to identify the patients who might benefit.

I will write more about these results later

We now have evidence that, as with amiodarone, we should only be using epinephrine as part of well controlled trials.

–

Also see –

How Bad is Epinephrine (Adrenaline) for Cardiac Arrest, According to the PARAMEDIC2 Study?

–

Footnotes:

–

^[1] A Randomized Trial of Epinephrine in Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest.
Perkins GD, Ji C, Deakin CD, Quinn T, Nolan JP, Scomparin C, Regan S, Long J, Slowther A, Pocock H, Black JJM, Moore F, Fothergill RT, Rees N, O’Shea L, Docherty M, Gunson I, Han K, Charlton K, Finn J, Petrou S, Stallard N, Gates S, Lall R; PARAMEDIC2 Collaborators.
N Engl J Med. 2018 Jul 18. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1806842. [Epub ahead of print]
PMID: 30021076

Free Full Text from NEJM

All supplementary material is also available at the end of the article at the NEJM site in PDF format –

Protocol

Supplementary Appendix

Disclosure Forms

There is also an editorial, which I have not yet read, by Clifton W. Callaway, M.D., Ph.D., and Michael W. Donnino, M.D. –

Testing Epinephrine for Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest.
Callaway CW, Donnino MW.
N Engl J Med. 2018 Jul 18. doi: 10.1056/NEJMe1808255. [Epub ahead of print] No abstract available.
PMID: 30021078

Free Full Text from NEJM

Filed Under: 2018 ACLS Guidelines, ACLS, Common Sense, Critical Judgment, Drug Shortages, Epinephrine, Ethics, Evidence, Heresy, Intubation, Lasix, Mythology, Narrative Fallacy, Oxygen, Pharmacology, Placebo, Potentially Reversible Causes, Probability, Research, Research Blogging, Resuscitation Theater, tPA

The Kitchen Sink Approach to Cardiac Arrest

Mon, 16 Feb 2015 16:00:53 -0500 by Rogue Medic

When faced with death, we can become desperate, stop thinking clearly, and just try anything.

Alternative medicine thrives on the desperation of people who are not thinking clearly. We should be better than that, but are we?

A recent comment on The Myth that Narcan Reverses Cardiac Arrest^[1] proposes that I would suddenly give kitchen sink medicine a try, if I really care about the patient.

Kitchen sink medicine? It’s better to do something and harm the patient, than to limit treatment to what works. Throw everything, including the kitchen sink, at the patient.

Mike Karras writes –

I will leave you with this question sir and I am interested to hear your answer. You walk in to find your 14 year old daughter that intentionally overdosed on morphine in a suicide attempt and she is in cardiac arrest. How would you treat her? Would you give her Narcan? I think you would.^[2]

Mike, I am thrilled to read that you do not think that I care about the outcomes of my patients, unless the patient happens to be my daughter. I am even more thrilled that you made my imaginary daughter suicidal.

No, I would not use naloxone (Narcan).

I would also not use homeopathy, acupuncture, sodium bicarbonate, incantations, or magic spells to treat my daughter during cardiac arrest. Voodoo only works on believers, because voodoo is just a placebo/nocebo.^[3]

Image credit.

Does really wanting something to be true make it true? If you believe in magic, the answer is Yes, believing makes it true. If you examine the evidence for that belief, you have several choices. You can acknowledge your mistake, or you can employ a bit of cognitive dissonance, or . . . . Cognitive dissonance is the way our minds copes with the conflict, when reality and belief do not agree, and we choose to reject reality.^[4]

According to the ACLS (Advanced Cardiac Life Support) guidelines –

Naloxone has no role in the management of cardiac arrest.^[5]

If the patient is suspected of having a cardiac arrest because of an opioid overdose (overdose of heroin, fentanyl, morphine, . . . ), the treatments should include ventilation and chest compressions. If those do not provide a response, epinephrine (Adrenaline in Commonwealth countries) is added.

An opioid overdose can produce respiratory depression and/or vasodilation. I can counter both of those with chest compressions, ventilation, and maybe epinephrine. Naloxone works on opioid receptors. What does naloxone add?

Does naloxone’s stimulation of an opioid receptor produce more ventilation than bagging/intubating?

Does naloxone’s stimulation of an opioid receptor produce more oxygenation than bagging/intubating?

Does naloxone’s stimulation of an opioid receptor produce more vasoconstriction than chest compressions and epinephrine?^*

Also –

Don’t confuse post- or pre–arrest toxicologic interventions with the actual cardiac arrest event.^[6]

Dead people do not respond to treatments the same way living people do.

Potentially Reversible Causes of Cardiac Arrest and the Futility of CPR for Trauma Arrest – comment from DocXology

Wed, 09 Jan 2013 16:00:08 -0500 by Rogue Medic

DocXology did not like my criticism of the futility of CPR in trauma –

I think you are setting up a straw man with your naloxone argument. There is not even biomedical plausibility for the scenario you describe.

What did I write?

While CPR in the pulseless trauma patient has overall been considered futile, several reversible causes of cardiac arrest in the context of trauma are correctible and their prompt treatment could be life-saving.^[1]

This is a non sequitur.

Where is there any evidence that CPR in any pulseless trauma patients is not futile?^[2]

Then I substituted naloxone for CPR in the argument in order to demonstrate that treatment of a potentially reversible cause has absolutely nothing to do with providing a futile treatment in the mean time.

It does not matter if the futile treatment is CPR in traumatic arrest, naloxone in cardiac arrest, or homeopathy for any medical condition. Providing a useless treatment is still useless.

Doing something useless, just for the purpose of looking like we are doing something, is not useful. This only distracts us from whatever might be useful.

One way of improving the fuel economy of a vehicle is to turn off the air conditioning and other items that make the engine work harder and burn more fuel. If the vehicle is out of fuel, then turning off the air conditioning is not going to matter. It is a futile response, just as CPR is a futile response to traumatic cardiac arrest.

The whole point of what I wrote is to demonstrate that the argument for CPR in trauma lacks biological plausibility.

Is that a straw man argument? My argument is not a straw man. Whether DocXology’s argument is a straw man, or just a misunderstanding, is not clear.

Image credit.

There is no RCT to say that oxygenation is good for cardiac arrest but there is a good physiological rationale for it. I presume you don’t withhold that?

That depends on the bias one uses in interpreting the evidence that is the basis for physiological hypotheses.

We started using oxygen for resuscitation because it seemed like a good idea. Now we use it because we always have.^[3]

WHAT’S KNOWN ON THIS SUBJECT:
The superiority of room air over 100% oxygen for resuscitating asphyxiated term and near-term newborns has been demonstrated. However, results of studies of preterm infants have indicated that room-air resuscitation may not be appropriate for this population.

WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS:
Resuscitation of preterm infants starting with 100% oxygen followed by frequent titration was most effective at achieving a target oxygen saturation while avoiding hyperoxemia. Treatment-failure rates were highest for those resuscitated with room air despite rapid titration of oxygen.^[4]

As with most treatments based only on the contemporary understanding of physiology, the good physiological rationale for it is being demonstrated to be an overly optimistic interpretation of what we really know.

Oxygen is a drug that should be titrated to the effect that is best for the patient.

This does not mean that physiology is unimportant, but that treatments based on physiology must be demonstrated to work in real patients before being widely adopted.

What about adult resuscitation?

Overall, 56% of patients (n = 3561) met the primary outcome of in-hospital mortality (Table 4). Mortality was highest in the hyperoxia group (732/1156; 63% [95% CI, 60%-66%]) compared with the hypoxia group (2297/3999; 57% [95% CI, 56%-59%]) and the normoxia group (532/1171; 45% [95% CI 43%-48%]). The hyperoxia group had significantly higher in-hospital mortality compared with the normoxia group (proportion difference, 18% [95% CI, 14%-22%]; P < .001). Mortality also was significantly higher in the hyperoxia group compared with the hypoxia group (proportion difference, 6% [95% CI, 3%-9%]; P < .001). On Kaplan-Meier analysis, the survival fractions for the hyperoxia and normoxia groups diverged significantly over time (log-rank P < .001; Figure). In addition, among hospital survivors, patients with hyperoxia had a significantly lower proportion of discharges from the hospital as functionally independent compared with patients with normoxia (29% vs 38%, respectively; proportion difference, 9% [95% CI, 3%-15%]; P = .002; Table 4).^[5]

Then there is the question of how much physiology really supports the use of supplemental oxygen at high flow rates, rather than just to maintain a normal oxygen saturation.

Numerous laboratory investigations have identified a paradox relative to oxygen delivery to the injured brain. Although it is intuitive that insufficient oxygen delivery can exacerbate cerebral anoxia, excessive oxygen delivery can also be harmful by exacerbating oxygen free radical formation and subsequent reperfusion injury.^4,–,11 ^[6]

My protocols only require that oxygen saturation be maintained at 94% or above.

Supplemental oxygen is not required if the oxygen saturation is adequate.

You suggest that the physiological rationale is unambiguous on oxygen for resuscitation.

That is not true.

I appreciate the issue of withholding ECM (Excternal Cardiac Massage) for traumatic arrest. It was raised at ICEM 2012 by Prof Harris of HEMS and he quoted animal studies with the argument the heart in hypovolaemic PEA is maximally hyper-dynamic and further mechanical augmentation is unlikely to improve output. But again no RCTs or human studies to support this.

Routine treatments should not be based on the absence of evidence of harm, otherwise we could justify anything at all that has not been demonstrated to be harmful. That is not medicine.

Medicine has evidence of efficacy.

Where is the evidence of efficacy for CPR in traumatic cardiac arrest?

Where is the physiologic rationale for CPR in traumatic cardiac arrest?

Treatments without evidence of efficacy should be limited to controlled trials.

We need to stop using wishful thinking to justify abuse of patients.

There is presentation on resuscitation by Dr. Tim Harris available as a free mp3 download at Free Emergency Medicine Talks, but I did not notice any reference to CPR for traumatic cardiac arrest. There are several skips in the recording, but the skips do not appear to obscure information necessary to understand the points Dr. Harris is making. Did he have another presentation on resuscitation?

Tim Harris (UK): Endpoints of Resuscitation
Published: JULY 25, 2012
2012-06-29 D3T3 1100 Endpoints of Resuscitation

–

Footnotes:

–

^[1] Part 12.8: Cardiac Arrest Associated With Trauma
2010 American Heart Association Guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care
Part 12: Cardiac Arrest in Special Situations
Free Full Text from Circulation

–

^[2] Potentially Reversible Causes of Cardiac Arrest and the Futility of CPR for Trauma Arrest
Mon, 14 Nov 2011
Rogue Medic
Article

–

^[3] Oxygen and resuscitation: beyond the myth.
Lefkowitz W.
Pediatrics. 2002 Mar;109(3):517-9. No abstract available.
PMID: 11875151 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

–

^[4] Room-air versus oxygen administration for resuscitation of preterm infants: the ROAR study.
Rabi Y, Singhal N, Nettel-Aguirre A.
Pediatrics. 2011 Aug;128(2):e374-81. doi: 10.1542/peds.2010-3130. Epub 2011 Jul 11. Erratum in: Pediatrics. 2011 Dec;128(6):1212.
PMID: 21746729 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

Free Full text from Pediatrics.

–

^[5] Association between arterial hyperoxia following resuscitation from cardiac arrest and in-hospital mortality.
Kilgannon JH, Jones AE, Shapiro NI, Angelos MG, Milcarek B, Hunter K, Parrillo JE, Trzeciak S; Emergency Medicine Shock Research Network (EMShockNet) Investigators.
JAMA. 2010 Jun 2;303(21):2165-71. doi: 10.1001/jama.2010.707.
PMID: 20516417 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

Free Full Text from JAMA.

–

^[6] Relationship between supranormal oxygen tension and outcome after resuscitation from cardiac arrest.
Kilgannon JH, Jones AE, Parrillo JE, Dellinger RP, Milcarek B, Hunter K, Shapiro NI, Trzeciak S; Emergency Medicine Shock Research Network (EMShockNet) Investigators.
Circulation. 2011 Jun 14;123(23):2717-22. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.110.001016. Epub 2011 May 23.
PMID: 21606393 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

Free Full Text from Circulation.

Filed Under: 2010 AHA Guidelines, Evidence, Heresy, Potentially Reversible Causes

The Myth that Narcan Reverses Cardiac Arrest

Wed, 12 Dec 2012 20:45:29 -0500 by Rogue Medic

We are supposed to search for the potentially reversible causes of cardiac arrest and treat those causes. Since naloxone (Narcan) is the most familiar antidote out there, many people assume that we should be giving naloxone.

Narcan is in the ACLS (Advanced Cardiac Life Support) guidelines!

What do the ACLS guidelines actually state about naloxone?

Naloxone is a potent antagonist of the binding of opioid medications to their receptors in the brain and spinal cord. Administration of naloxone can reverse central nervous system and respiratory depression caused by opioid overdose. Naloxone has no role in the management of cardiac arrest.^[1]

Naloxone has no role in the management of cardiac arrest.

Yes. Naloxone is in the ACLS guidelines, but the guidelines say naloxone is not for cardiac arrest.

But what if I really, really, really want to give Narcan?

We can give naloxone, but we shouldn’t pretend that we are following ACLS guidelines.

What about the Hs and Ts?

ACLS does state that we are supposed to consider the potentially reversible causes and to give a treatment that has the potential to improve the outcome. ACLS clearly states that naloxone is not one of those treatments.

Opioid overdose is a potentially reversible cause of cardiac arrest, but naloxone is not the recommended treatment. Opioids do not require administration of an antidote for resuscitation.

But at least Narcan is safe!

Opioid Depression
Abrupt reversal of opioid depression may result in nausea, vomiting, sweating, tachycardia, increased blood pressure, tremulousness, seizures, ventricular tachycardia and fibrillation, pulmonary edema, and cardiac arrest which may result in death (see PRECAUTIONS).^[2]

That is not a description of safe.

Safety depends on the context.

Yesterday I wrote about giving naloxone to an intubated patient who had good vital signs after a couple of minutes of chest compressions.^[3] There are many ways that naloxone could have made things worse and only one way that it might have helped. That is not the kind of context where naloxone is safe. The medic got lucky.

Why go looking for trouble?

We get invited to enough trouble already.

In normal subjects anaesthetised with morphine and nitrous oxide,³ and in patients addicted to narcotics, pulse rate and blood pressure increase appreciably after reversal of the effects of opiates. Presumably naloxone antagonises opiate suppression of the sympathetic system resulting in a sudden increase in its activity.^[4]

We could protect against this unwanted sympathetic stimulus by giving another drug, but how many drugs are we going to give to a patient who is already stable to try to produce a stable patient?

Clonidine might possibly be useful because it abolishes increases in pulse and blood pressure after reversal of opiate effects with naloxone.⁵ ^[4]

I am very aggressive in treating many things (e.g. high doses of nitrates for CHF, high doses of opioids and/or benzodiazepines), but these are supported by documentation of safety in the way that I use them.

Why go looking for trouble?

Naloxone has no role in the management of cardiac arrest.

–

Footnotes:

–

^[1] Opioid Toxicity
2010 American Heart Association Guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care
Part 12.7: Cardiac Arrest Associated With Toxic Ingestions
Free Full Text from Circulation

–

^[2] NALOXONE HYDROCHLORIDE injection, solution
[Hospira, Inc.]
DailyMed
Adverse reactions
Opioid toxicity
FDA Label

–

^[3] To Narcan or not Narcan
Tue, 11 Dec 2012
Rogue Medic
Article

–

^[4] Cardiac arrest after reversal of effects of opiates with naloxone.
Cuss FM, Colaço CB, Baron JH.
Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 1984 Feb 4;288(6414):363-4. No abstract available.
PMID: 6419929 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

Free Full Text from Pubmed Central.

Filed Under: 2010 AHA Guidelines, Heresy, Pharmacology, Potentially Reversible Causes

Potentially Reversible Causes of Cardiac Arrest and the Futility of CPR for Trauma Arrest

Mon, 14 Nov 2011 13:00:25 -0500 by Rogue Medic

–

One caveat. This does not apply to a medical cardiac arrest that coincidentally has some trauma associated with it. V Fib (Ventricular Fibrillation) while driving leading to a car crash. That is not a trauma arrest.

–

What is the purpose of CPR in trauma arrest?

To put on a show.

–

[youtube]e7mmrF-4rUE[/youtube]

–

Bullwinkle is infinitely more likely to pull a rabbit out of that hat, than CPR is likely to resuscitate a cardiac arrest due to trauma.

Play the video again, it might work.

Almost.

Keep trying.

Nearly had it.

Don’t give up.

You were so close.

Maybe this time.

There was tremendous improvement on that attempt.

Never say die.

Couldn’t you feel that it was there?

Under no circumstances will we admit that our magic is futile!

Keep trying. I know you can do it. You can find that card, Charlie Brown will kick that ball, and nobody ever dies. 😉

–

Picture credit.

–

Part 12.8: Cardiac Arrest Associated With Trauma

BLS and ACLS for the trauma patient are fundamentally the same as that for the patient with primary cardiac arrest, with focus on support of airway, breathing, and circulation. In addition, reversible causes of cardiac arrest need to considered. While CPR in the pulseless trauma patient has overall been considered futile, several reversible causes of cardiac arrest in the context of trauma are correctible and their prompt treatment could be life-saving. These include hypoxia, hypovolemia, diminished cardiac output secondary to pneumothorax or pericardial tamponade, and hypothermia.^[1]

While CPR in the pulseless trauma patient has overall been considered futile, several reversible causes of cardiac arrest in the context of trauma are correctible and their prompt treatment could be life-saving.

This is a non sequitur.

Where is there any evidence that CPR in any pulseless trauma patients is not futile?

There isn’t any.

None. That is why CPR for pulseless patients is considered futile.

This is just a case of treatment based entirely on What if . . . ?

This is alternative medicine. This is not medicine.

–

Here is our good friend naloxone (Narcan) to explain the non sequitur –

~~While CPR in the pulseless trauma patient has overall been considered futile~~While naloxone in the pulseless trauma patient has overall been considered futile, several reversible causes of cardiac arrest in the context of trauma are correctible and their prompt treatment could be life-saving.

Or –

While CPR in the pulseless trauma patient has overall been considered futile, ~~several reversible causes of cardiac arrest in the context of trauma are correctible and their prompt treatment could be life-saving~~ naloxone can cause withdrawal in opioid addicts.

Are we harming trauma patients by not using naloxone?

What does naloxone have to do with traumatic arrest?

Not a thing.

What does any futile treatment for pulseless trauma patients have to do with reversible causes of cardiac arrest?

But it is only considered futile!

That is because of the difficulty in proving a negative. Hume’s problem of induction does not mean that we should assume that anything that has a snowball’s chance of working actually does work.^[2]

–

Should we try Reiki, because What if . . . ?

Should we try acupuncture, because What if . . . ?

Should we try a medicine dance, because What if . . . ?

Should we try ~~therapeutic phlebotomy~~ bleeding the patient to remove the bad humors, because What if . . . ?

Should we sing silly songs, because What if . . . ?

–

What is the cause of pulselessness in trauma patients?

There are 2 possibilities –

1. Obstruction of circulation –

Tension pneumothorax kills by preventing circulation, not by interfering with breathing.

Cardiac tamponade also kills by preventing circulation.

2. Nothing to circulate –

Hypovolemic arrest kills because there is not enough blood to produce a palpable pulse, even though the heart is beating as well as can be expected.

If the compressions do not produce any circulation, what is the point of CPR?

–

Let’s not forget spinal immobilization combined with CPR for traumatic arrest –

–

Picture credit. Still no rabbit.

–

BLS Modifications
When multisystem trauma is present or trauma involves the head and neck, the cervical spine must be stabilized.^[1]

Is the outcome from traumatic arrest so good that we need to throw in this ritual? Or is it so bad, that it does not matter what we do to keep up appearances?

If we have time to strap a patient to a backboard, then we might as well just get out a shovel and have the funeral right there. Nothing says permanently dead as clearly as putting spinal immobilization and CPR for trauma together.

There must be a rabbit in here somewhere.

It works in the scenarios in school.

–

Footnotes:

–

^[1] Part 12.8: Cardiac Arrest Associated With Trauma
2010 American Heart Association Guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care
Part 12: Cardiac Arrest in Special Situations
Free Full Text Article with links to Free Full Text PDF download

–

^[2] Problem of induction
Wikipedia
Article

Filed Under: 'Alternative' Medicine, ACLS, Heresy, Potentially Reversible Causes

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

2020 ACLS Repeats the Mistakes of 2015 ACLS

Hydroxychloroquine – The More You Know, The Worse It Looks

Closed chest compressions reduce survival in an animal model of haemorrhage-induced traumatic cardiac arrest

A Randomized Trial of Epinephrine in Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest – Part I

The Kitchen Sink Approach to Cardiac Arrest

Potentially Reversible Causes of Cardiac Arrest and the Futility of CPR for Trauma Arrest – comment from DocXology

The Myth that Narcan Reverses Cardiac Arrest

Potentially Reversible Causes of Cardiac Arrest and the Futility of CPR for Trauma Arrest

email me:

Subscribe to RogueMedic.com

About Me

Sidebar Navigation

Archives

Recent Posts