August 3, 2020

 Background Information:

The care and management of patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is complex and follows an inciting injury to the lungs. This constellation of symptoms is characterized by hypoxemia, diffuse lung inflammation, decreased lung compliance and noncardiogenic pulmonary edema typically seen as bilateral opacities on radiographical imaging.1  Slow progress has been made in developing effective ARDS treatments, among them are low tidal volumes which have been shown to improve mortality.2 Over time the development of guidelines such as the ARDSnet protocol have also helped provide a stepwise framework to treatment. However, there are a subset of patients who continue to remain hypoxic and refractory hypoxemia accounts for 10-15% of deaths in ARDS patients.3   The therapies typically implemented to correct refractory hypoxia include proning, inhaled pulmonary vasodilators, extracorporeal membranous oxygenation (ECMO), paralysis, recruitment maneuvers, unconventional ventilator modes and more.4–8 The following post and included infographics focus on the following salvage therapies: Proning, Paralytics and (lung) Protection. It is important to note that regardless of the therapy, specializing care on an individual basis with a risk-benefit analysis is required to give patients the best possible chance at survival.

June 29, 2020

Background: In patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute ARDS clinical trials network recommends a target partial pressure of arterial oxygen (Pao2) between 55 and 80 mmHg. Goals of arterial oxygenation are not based on robust experimental data and prior evidence has shown the feasibility of targeting a lower partial pressure of arterial oxygen in patients with ARDS. The authors of this trial, aptly named the study, LOCO2 (Liberal Oxygenation vs Conservative Oxygenation). They sought to determine whether a lower oxygen strategy was safe in patients with ARDS.

May 31, 2020

I am fortunate to work in a hospital system that is very forward thinking.  We have a phenomenal relationship with our intensivists, and I have been fortunate enough to have several discussions with them about how we are managing COVID-19 in our ICUs.  For full transparency, I don’t work up in the ICU, but had the opportunity to discuss what we are doing in our ICUs with one of our intensivists (ECMO, steroids, Remdesivir, etc...).  We are doing something different in San Antonio that I thought was worth discussing on this podcast that may be a feasible option for some institutions and some patients, but not all. If there is one thing this disease has taught me, that is one size does not fit all.

May 30, 2020

Background: One of the hot topics in COVID-19 care is the mortality rate associated with invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). There have been early reports of IMV having mortality rates ranging from 50 to 90%.  These high rates are concerning but, context is important; many of the reports emerged from areas with large surges where hospital systems were overwhelmed. Additional data looking at outcomes of critical patients is important particularly within systems that were able to maintain baseline critical care provisions despite surges.

May 19, 2020

While the rate of prepublications on COVID19 continue to be cranked out, we at REBEL EM have reduced our blog post production. It’s not because we’re reading less, but  we’ve reported enough on small, retrospective, observational studies that don’t tell us anything more than we already know.  At this point in time we know enough about what does and doesn’t work, so we wanted to focus on important literature that may affect practice. Going forward that will be our focus with updates in a less rapid-fire rate and more useful way to digest the information. For this COVID-19 update we have picked four papers that are we thought are worthy of mention.