Have you killed a patient this year? Some here (maybe me!) might have...
I know that it's already common practice for some providers to try to titrate COPD'rs back to their normal (lowish) SpO2 values, but my impression is that the general rule is for EMS providers to aim pretty high with saturation values.
Similarly, there have been numerous discussions here about "high flow"/high concentration O2 and COPD, and these discussions generally end with a consensus that the "O2 kills because of hypoxic drive" theory is bunk, which seems to me to be accurate. However, nearly every discussion has one or more posters suggest (unchallenged) that "for the short time that EMS treats a COPD patient" high O2 concentrations are unlikely to do any harm.
I would have agreed with that a week ago. I don't like the "O2 for everyone mentality, and think its a poor excuse for "medicine," but these results still came as a bit of a shock to me:
The study does of course have limitations. It is a single center study, I'm not sure how I feel about the choice to randomize paramedics instead of patients, and there was a very high rate of non-compliance in study participating (although, as the authors note, that may minimize rather than inflate the risk of harm from oxygen administration), but I still think this is incredibly important.
Comments? Does this make you re-evaluate the way you practice? Are you surprised that EMS could have such a profound effect on patient course, even with short treatment time? What do you think about the quality of the study? Is this enough evidence to modify your behavior?
It was notable to me that every death occurred after arrival at the hospital, and only 2 occurred in the emergency department. I wonder if this says anything about the need for EMS to examine treatment effects that are not immediatly apparent, and may take days to present? My sense is that there is minimal appreciation in general as to the long term effects of the things we do in the field.
I know that I was shocked the first time I saw pictures of grossly edematous trauma patients a day or so after massive fluid infusions....EMS education doesn't seem to concerned with educating providers about such delayed effects. What do you do to attempt to keep in tune with the effects (immediate and delayed) of your treatments? Do you follow up with patients long-term course?
I know that it's already common practice for some providers to try to titrate COPD'rs back to their normal (lowish) SpO2 values, but my impression is that the general rule is for EMS providers to aim pretty high with saturation values.
Similarly, there have been numerous discussions here about "high flow"/high concentration O2 and COPD, and these discussions generally end with a consensus that the "O2 kills because of hypoxic drive" theory is bunk, which seems to me to be accurate. However, nearly every discussion has one or more posters suggest (unchallenged) that "for the short time that EMS treats a COPD patient" high O2 concentrations are unlikely to do any harm.
I would have agreed with that a week ago. I don't like the "O2 for everyone mentality, and think its a poor excuse for "medicine," but these results still came as a bit of a shock to me:
Free full text access here, apparnetly the BMJ thought it was important enough to let all read:
http://www.bmj.com/content/341/bmj.c5462.abstract
I encourage everyone to read the full text. I don't think the abstract can tell you enough with this study
Austin et. al: Effect of high flow oxygen on mortality in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients in prehospital setting: randomised controlled trial
405 patients with "presumed acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease" were treated with either bronchodialators nebulized by compressed O2 plus O2 via NRB at 8-10 L/min or treated with bronchodialators nebulized by compressed air plus oxygen delivered by nasal prongs and titrated to achieve oxygen saturations between 88% and 92%.
The shocking part (to me) degree of harm found (just from prehospital care!): "Overall mortality was 9% (21 deaths) in the high flow oxygen arm compared with 4% (7 deaths) in the titrated oxygen arm; mortality in the subgroup with confirmed chronic obstructive pulmonary disease was 9% (11 deaths) in the high flow arm compared with 2% (2 deaths) in the titrated oxygen arm. Titrated oxygen treatment reduced mortality compared with high flow oxygen by 58% for all patients (relative risk 0.42, 95% confidence interval 0.20 to 0.89; P=0.02) and by 78% for the patients with confirmed chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (0.22, 0.05 to 0.91; P=0.04)."
"The number needed to harm was 14; that is, for every 14 patients who are given high flow oxygen, one will die."
http://www.bmj.com/content/341/bmj.c5462.abstract
I encourage everyone to read the full text. I don't think the abstract can tell you enough with this study
Austin et. al: Effect of high flow oxygen on mortality in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients in prehospital setting: randomised controlled trial
405 patients with "presumed acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease" were treated with either bronchodialators nebulized by compressed O2 plus O2 via NRB at 8-10 L/min or treated with bronchodialators nebulized by compressed air plus oxygen delivered by nasal prongs and titrated to achieve oxygen saturations between 88% and 92%.
The shocking part (to me) degree of harm found (just from prehospital care!): "Overall mortality was 9% (21 deaths) in the high flow oxygen arm compared with 4% (7 deaths) in the titrated oxygen arm; mortality in the subgroup with confirmed chronic obstructive pulmonary disease was 9% (11 deaths) in the high flow arm compared with 2% (2 deaths) in the titrated oxygen arm. Titrated oxygen treatment reduced mortality compared with high flow oxygen by 58% for all patients (relative risk 0.42, 95% confidence interval 0.20 to 0.89; P=0.02) and by 78% for the patients with confirmed chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (0.22, 0.05 to 0.91; P=0.04)."
"The number needed to harm was 14; that is, for every 14 patients who are given high flow oxygen, one will die."
The study does of course have limitations. It is a single center study, I'm not sure how I feel about the choice to randomize paramedics instead of patients, and there was a very high rate of non-compliance in study participating (although, as the authors note, that may minimize rather than inflate the risk of harm from oxygen administration), but I still think this is incredibly important.
Comments? Does this make you re-evaluate the way you practice? Are you surprised that EMS could have such a profound effect on patient course, even with short treatment time? What do you think about the quality of the study? Is this enough evidence to modify your behavior?
It was notable to me that every death occurred after arrival at the hospital, and only 2 occurred in the emergency department. I wonder if this says anything about the need for EMS to examine treatment effects that are not immediatly apparent, and may take days to present? My sense is that there is minimal appreciation in general as to the long term effects of the things we do in the field.
I know that I was shocked the first time I saw pictures of grossly edematous trauma patients a day or so after massive fluid infusions....EMS education doesn't seem to concerned with educating providers about such delayed effects. What do you do to attempt to keep in tune with the effects (immediate and delayed) of your treatments? Do you follow up with patients long-term course?