We believe that critical care is not simply a location or a unit in a hospital, but the practice of providing care to those who need urgent support to treat or prevent a life-threatening illness. Whether you’re a paramedic, nurse, EM, IM, CCM doc, etc…

REBEL Crit

will help you critically appraise the literature so that you can deliver the highest quality, evidence based and compassionate care to your patients.

REBELCrit not only review’s recent publications, but has many review article’s, on often complex topics, to help you, the busy provider, continue to provide the best care possible. Soon, REBELCrit will be launching a critical care podcast through our already popular REBELCast!

REBELCrit strives to give you the most up to date and timely information so that you can be the best provider you can be and deliver the best care to your critically ill patients!

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.

June 11, 2020

Background: In end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients on hemodialysis (HD), infection is the second most common cause of mortality after cardiovascular disease (Sarnik 2000). Because of the systemic inflammation and increased capillary permeability, septic patients are at significant risk for fluid imbalances and frequently require large volumes of crystalloids. The Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines provide a strong recommendation with low quality of evidence for administering a 30mL/kg fluid bolus within 3 hours of recognition of sepsis-induced hypoperfusion (Rhodes 2016). Further fluid administration should be guided by hemodynamic assessment (bedside echocardiography, passive leg-raise, etc.). In the general population, this early administration of fluids to patients with hypotension or sepsis-induced hypoperfusion has been associated with improved outcomes. However, there is significant confusion regarding the effects of a large 30mL/kg bolus on ESRD patients due to a lack of studies. While these patients may appear, volume overloaded on physical exam, they may be intravascularly volume deplete. Physicians may be hesitant to administer a large fluid bolus in ESRD patients because of the risk of precipitating cardiogenic shock, pulmonary edema, and respiratory failure. In fact, multiple studies show that patients who have ESRD are less likely to receive the full 30mL/kg fluid bolus compared to non-ESRD patients (Lowe 2018, Truong 2019, Dagher 2015). Furthermore, some studies show equivalent outcomes between ESRD patients who receive the full bolus and those who do not. We will review two studies that examined this topic.

June 4, 2020

Traditionally, vasopressor infusions have been done through central venous catheters (CVCs) due to the hypothetical risk of extravasation injury to extremities when given through peripheral IVs.  The documented risk of extravasation from peripheral pressors is 3 – 6% [1][3][4][5]. Hypothetically, the extravasation rate can be further reduced.  At Essentials of EM 2020 I gave a short 10-minute talk on 6 pearls I have implemented.  This post will serve as a summary of that talk.

May 28, 2020

Background Information:

Physicians have and continue to heavily contribute to the current opioid epidemic in the United States and Canada.1 Although much of the focus has been opioid prescriptions given to patients in the emergency department,2,3 not much attention has been paid to critically ill patients who survive to hospital discharge. The long-term sequelae of these opioids is concerningly overlooked especially when physicians utilize these medications as part of an “analgesia first” approach to sedating critically ill patients for the purposes of invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV).4 Previous observational studies in Canada found that approximately 85% of critically ill patients receiving IMV were exposed to opioids.1 Furthermore, the average daily opioid dosing for 2-7 days was 63 milligrams of morphine equivalent (MME), increasing to 106 MME per day for patients receiving IMV for greater than 7 days. The authors of this study performed a retrospective chart review of population-based data from Ontario Canada to investigate the frequency of new opioid initiation and persistent opioid use among critically ill patients who received mechanical ventilation. They compared this to patients who were hospitalized but not critically ill.

May 18, 2020

Background: Getting the basics right in all illness is vital. In sepsis, this means appropriate use of antibiotics, judicious fluid resuscitation, and early identification.  Vasopressor support is also essential in the sickest sepsis patients (i.e. septic shock). Should the metabolic cocktail (thiamine, vitamin C and hydrocrotisone) be part of that initial package? We’ve previously reviewed the key articles in this area: CITRIS-ALI, VITAMINS, and the original before and after Marik trial. Now we have our next RCT, the HYVCTTSSS trial. From a pathophysiologic standpoint, Vitamin C levels are thought to be low in critically ill patients with sepsis. Vitamin C is an antioxidant that prevents vascular endothelial damage and helps maintain microvascular integrity. Additionally, it is a cofactor for catecholamine synthesis which helps maintain vascular tone and cardiac output.  Glucocorticoids have been shown to reduce time to shock relief and length of ICU stay, but not mortality. The addition of thiamine can help promote oxalate decomposition, which reduces vitamin C metabolites from depositing and crystalizing in kidneys.  While these medications are cheap, the more important question is do they improve patient-oriented outcomes? The previous literature on whether this translates to patient oriented benefits has been mostly negative thus far.