February 27, 2020

A 57-year-old man is watching his son’s baseball game when he suddenly collapses. Witnesses did not appreciate a pulse, so they started CPR. Unfortunately, an AED was not available. EMS was called and when they arrived within minutes the patient was found to be in vfib arrest and was defibrillated. When the patient arrived to the hospital, he was in PEA arrest. Ultrasound of the patient’s heart showed some coordinated cardiac activity. ACLS doesn’t really tell us how to proceed with cardiac activity but not enough to generate a pulse on the monitor.

February 26, 2020

Take Home Points 
  • No palpable pulse does not equal no perfusion. We aren't great at feeling pulses
  • Patients with moderate to severe signs and symptoms of lithium toxicity should be considered for hemodialysis
  • Always consider serious causes of back pain before simply treating with analgesics
  • Consider trauma as well as other toxic exposures (I.e. CO and CN) in patients with major burns

February 24, 2020

Background: Critical illness and ICU admission comes with significant consequences – not just from the primary pathology but also from the secondary effects of therapies that may be begun to correct the abnormal physiology. One of these consequences in ventilated patients is the development of stress ulcers in the gastrointestinal tract, leading to bleeding. Over two-thirds of patients admitted to the ICU will be prescribed some form of stress ulcer prophylaxis, often in the form of either a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) or a histamine-2 receptor blocker (H2RB)1. But which one is better? Are there any risks? The existing evidence of benefit of one over another is limited. Though one systematic review did show a benefit of PPIs, the reviewed data was limited2. Neither drug is without risk either. These include a potential for immunosuppression and increased risk of infections3. More evidence is needed – which is where the Proton Pump Inhibitors vs Histamine-2 Receptor Blockers for Ulcer Prophylaxis Treatment in the Intensive Care Unit (PEPTIC) randomized clinical trial comes in4.

February 20, 2020

The REBELEM Team is proud to provide you with a Critical Care Education Curriculum that can be used for your residents, medical students, advanced providers as well as many other learners during their rotation. We realize now, more than ever, that providers are under high pressure to perform clinically in high stress environments like the Emergency Department and the Intensive Care Unit and provide high quality education at the same time. Our team would like to provide you with a quality resource to help you deliver a fun, dynamic, multimodal curriculum to your learners.

February 17, 2020

Background: In REBEL Cast Episode 73, Anand Swaminathan and I discussed two recent studies on the safety of peripheral vasopressors from two large trials [1][2]. An email from good friend Rory Spiegel brought my attention to yet another trial on this topic [3]. I think we can all agree that in patients with septic shock, or shock in general, the administration of vasopressor agents early, can help to stabilize patients and reverse end-organ hypoperfusion.  Traditionally, this has been done through central venous catheters (CVCs) due to the hypothetical risk of extravasation injury to extremities.  The flip side of this is, that central venous catheters are not without their own risks and time to place them can delay a therapy that may benefit patients.