Low RBS WITHOUT catheter.
- Thread starter falcon-18
- Start date
usafmedic45
Forum Deputy Chief
- 3,796
- 5
- 0
I would not give D5W, but have given oral glucose this way. BTW, there is a very interesting case report in the literature of fluid resuscitation in a remote area by rectal administration of crystalloid.
MSDeltaFlt
RRT/NRP
- 1,422
- 35
- 48
thanks . I do not know about this. anyway thanks about this .
If you do not have only D5W . what you will do . I think you will give him that. I will see link from MSDeltaFlt
medic3416
Forum Probie
- 20
- 0
- 0
Before you go putting things in someones rectum, what about GLUCAGON IM!!!!
you can not give
. pt unconscious . oral glucose lead to aspiration in unconscious :sad:but, If not available :sad: . what you will do? I mean last choice you will go to this.
usafmedic45
Forum Deputy Chief
- 3,796
- 5
- 0
I was assuming we were talking at the BLS level, so glucagon and D5W would not be available. Also, I am not aware of a state that does not require oral glucose on all ambulances at the BLS level. In my case, I carried a tube of it in my pocket while on duty (the person who was my partner for the longest time was prone to hypoglycemic events) and still keep two in the first aid bag in my car.
Also, you really can't raise someone's glucose level all that effectively with D5W due to the low glucose content. It just takes too long to push the volume of fluid necessary, compared to the effect you'll get from oral or rectal glucose As someone else said, you can always use non-medicinal sources of glucose. I've personally seen cases or seen the documentation on cases where oral glucose (guess it would be rectal glucose in this setting), maple syrup and honey were all administered rectally.
Not always, but that is one of the reasons why I would favor the rectal route in that setting to avoid the possibility.
Also, you really can't raise someone's glucose level all that effectively with D5W due to the low glucose content. It just takes too long to push the volume of fluid necessary, compared to the effect you'll get from oral or rectal glucose As someone else said, you can always use non-medicinal sources of glucose. I've personally seen cases or seen the documentation on cases where oral glucose (guess it would be rectal glucose in this setting), maple syrup and honey were all administered rectally.
Not always, but that is one of the reasons why I would favor the rectal route in that setting to avoid the possibility.
gicts
Forum Lieutenant
- 149
- 0
- 16
What about an IO?
usafmedic45
Forum Deputy Chief
- 3,796
- 5
- 0
As an ALS provider, I would hesitate to jump to doing an IO for something that can be effectively treated with a procedure with far lower risk of complications and a lot less pain involved (even after insertion IOs are not supposed to be the most comfortable device). This is a major issue in EMS: the push for advanced procedure when something less aggressive will function just fine. The best example of this is intubation in the setting where the patient can be adequately managed with a BVM and perhaps an OPA. In the case of the scenario presented here, contrary to popular belief a failed IV is not an instant indication for an IO (pretty much the only exception to this is cardiac arrest or the unequivocal need to IMMEDIATELY give medications that have no alternate route).
For the service I worked for, I can guarantee you would have been hauled before our medical director and your peers at audit and review to explain the decision to use an IO in this setting. The first questions would have been: " Why not glucagon? Why not give the glucose rectally?".
As the saying goes, if it's stupid and it works, it's not stupid; if it's ugly and it works, it's thing of beauty. It might not be the most high speed practice out there- I don't know many people who look forward to sticking a tube of glucose up someone's backside- but if it fixes the problems and "saves" the patient without inflicting excessive pain or exposing them to undue risk, that is something that should be the bigger ego boost. We are here for our patients- first, foremost and without question- and sometimes (most of the time?) EMS providers tend to get ahead of themselves in the rush for new skills or to apply the ones they already have.
For the service I worked for, I can guarantee you would have been hauled before our medical director and your peers at audit and review to explain the decision to use an IO in this setting. The first questions would have been: " Why not glucagon? Why not give the glucose rectally?".
As the saying goes, if it's stupid and it works, it's not stupid; if it's ugly and it works, it's thing of beauty. It might not be the most high speed practice out there- I don't know many people who look forward to sticking a tube of glucose up someone's backside- but if it fixes the problems and "saves" the patient without inflicting excessive pain or exposing them to undue risk, that is something that should be the bigger ego boost. We are here for our patients- first, foremost and without question- and sometimes (most of the time?) EMS providers tend to get ahead of themselves in the rush for new skills or to apply the ones they already have.
Ridryder911
EMS Guru
- 5,923
- 40
- 48
Ever heard of deviation from protocols? Call in and just ask just like you do for any other order that was not clear or a more simpler effective way of doing it. I treat patients not protocols.
R/r 911
IO. not available.
But if IO available I will use it or rectal ? I will give rectaly.
Ridryder911
EMS Guru
- 5,923
- 40
- 48
The same as in a seizing patient. Would you rather I/O a seizing patient or give Diastat Gel rectally? Which is the best and most appropriate for the patient?
R/r 911
R/r 911