It was in the sense of that kind of discussion probably not interesting to most people on HN.
I don't doubt you place IVs in sick patients, I only doubt those IVs make any difference. I am not very familiar with prehospital/EMT literature, and I don't know if any studies have been done, and I certainly don't have any hard data, but I do prefer when paramedics give aspirin, stick in a combi-tube, do basic stuff, and just rush the patient to the hospital instead of wasted time installing and IV on-site, giving fluids and what not. I've seen a great many "heart attacks" treated with fluids in full-blown congestive heart failure. This is anecdotal of course.
Again, for the 500 bolus, I am not aware of any literature to support it as a life-saving measure, and I do believe that if the patient is gonna code without a 500 bolus, he will code with a 500 bolus, too. We're talking of a previously healthy person suddenly dying here -- in those scenario fluid rarely makes a different unless its profuse bleeding, in which case 500 mL is not enough anyways.
The big problem I see with fluids, stethoscopes, IV benadryl, and the like, is that these things are DISTRACTIONS that make people waste their time trying to get a blood pressure when its obvious the patient's in shock (or equally obvious he isn't). A quick, focused history and exam + Epi + AED + Albuterol are the real life-savers and where the emphasis should be on.
If EMS in your area is starting IVs and pushing fluids on scene, then yeah, that's an issue. Plenty of time to do that in the truck. My primary goal is to gather all clinically relevant information I can, establish any needed access (airway, IV, or otherwise), and stabilize any life threats. In short, to set up the ED doc with the best chance of success (a patient with all the 'prep' taken care of, and a good, clear picture of what's going on.
I do think you're focusing too much on the dying/not dying distinction. There is a pretty wide range in the middle, and much can be done to help those patients (even if it's only to improve their comfort and reduce anxiety). There are a lot of patients who aren't going to die in the next couple hours who would still benefit from one or more of the interventions available on an aircraft (including a 500cc bolus).
"Lots of fluid" really isn't generally the standard of care for severe hemorrhage anymore. 500 mL may indeed be enough (if it's not enough, they're gonna bleed out anyway).
I agree 100% that any provider dealing with a medical emergency on an aircraft (or anywhere else) should be looking at the patient, first and foremost, and not rummaging through a medical kit...
> focusing too much on the dying/not dying distinction.
Well, my point is that if they aren’t so bad, they don’t need IV fluids, and you can give them some juice with pretty much the same effect (I expect normal GI function).
> improve their comfort and reduce anxiety
The Lufthansa kit is great in that respect. Lots of Valium and Haldol to make plenty of passengers calm and happy.
> "Lots of fluid" really isn't generally the standard of care for severe hemorrhage anymore.
I know. That’s been the usual swinging pendulum through the years : give fluids, don’t give fluids, give just a little bit. I highly doubt all this matter except in a few situations in which the patients is pretty much assured to die on the plane: septic choc, severe bleeding, severe fluids loss (on flight cholera?).
Seriously, I’ve never seen an acutely sick patient who needed 500 of saline now. They either can wait till next week, or need 2L STAT. Now, the situation is completely different with the chronic/elderly patients slowly deteriorating during the course of many hours/days, and arriving in extremis, and being resuscitated with a little bolus. However, you don’t see those patients in planes because they don’t let them fly!
Alright, I'll concede the fluid point (maybe this is an argument after all ;). It is very unlikely you would find a patient on an airplane that would benefit from a relatively small amount of fluids, but would also be unable to take those fluids PO.
No idea why your posts are getting down-voted. This has been a mutually constructive discussion, in my opinion...
> It was in the sense of that kind of discussion probably not interesting to most people on HN.
If it's a civil, informed, high level discussion of the topic by experts, I think it's a good discussion for HN. (Just have some sensibility to avoid or explain the very technical details.)
Borrowing a paragraph from the guidelines:
> On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity.
I don't doubt you place IVs in sick patients, I only doubt those IVs make any difference. I am not very familiar with prehospital/EMT literature, and I don't know if any studies have been done, and I certainly don't have any hard data, but I do prefer when paramedics give aspirin, stick in a combi-tube, do basic stuff, and just rush the patient to the hospital instead of wasted time installing and IV on-site, giving fluids and what not. I've seen a great many "heart attacks" treated with fluids in full-blown congestive heart failure. This is anecdotal of course.
Again, for the 500 bolus, I am not aware of any literature to support it as a life-saving measure, and I do believe that if the patient is gonna code without a 500 bolus, he will code with a 500 bolus, too. We're talking of a previously healthy person suddenly dying here -- in those scenario fluid rarely makes a different unless its profuse bleeding, in which case 500 mL is not enough anyways.
The big problem I see with fluids, stethoscopes, IV benadryl, and the like, is that these things are DISTRACTIONS that make people waste their time trying to get a blood pressure when its obvious the patient's in shock (or equally obvious he isn't). A quick, focused history and exam + Epi + AED + Albuterol are the real life-savers and where the emphasis should be on.