Login
Site Search
Trauma-List Subscription

Subscribe

Would you like to receive list emails batched into one daily digest?
No Yes
Modify Your Subscription

Modify

Home > List Archives

1:1 Blood Resuscitation, Round 2.

Mike Smertka medic0947969 at yahoo.com
Wed Feb 20 15:19:19 GMT 2008


Just a thought
   
  What would be difference in the ethics of a randomized trnsfusion protocol for this and the polyheme trial?  Couldn't you just use a simlar one minus the prehospital part and insert the 1:1 where it used to say polyheme?
   
  Mike

Ronald Gross <Rgross at harthosp.org> wrote:
  OK then - I guess I believe in fairy tales - and the expert opinion of folks like Holcomb and Spinella, the guys that have done this and have shown the efficacy of the 1:1 transfusion protocol. Their proof? Simple - kids that, by the data and by the numbers should have gone home in a box....but came home on a stretcher. Add to that a half dozen of my own patients now that I am back home that have also defied the odds.

I agree with Ken - putting together a large scale prospective and randomized study is a must. The big BUT here is that knowing even the little that we do know, can you ethically justify jeopardizing the lives of those that will receive our "conventional" resuscitation, which, by the way, some also would challenge as fairy tales...

Just my uninformed 2 cents.

Ron

>>> Sanjay Gupta MD 2/19/2008 5:25 PM >>>
No offence meant to anyone, but there is certainly no
evidence of efficacy of 1:1:1 transfusion, although,
it seemed to have worked in a few patients that I have
treated with that approach. My two thoughts about
this practice:


1. How do you design a study that randomizes different
blood transfusion protocols? - possible, but difficult
to carry out in large enough numbers. Also, because
no drug is involved, there will probably be no
corporate sponsor with deep enough pockets to carry
out this study. If you randomize one protocol with
Factor VII transfusion - that might get some
financing, but I could almost predict the result of
that study, if such a study does get going.



2. Expert opinion is level 4 (or level 5 - I forget
which) evidence - just one level away from
fairy-tales.


Sanjay




--- Ronald Gross wrote:

> Gotcha. On that I do agree.
> 
> Take care,
> Ron
> 
> >>> 2/14/2008 1:44 PM >>>
> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 12:08:35 -0500, "Ronald Gross"
> 
> said:
> > Tim,
> > 
> > Sorry to ask, but what exactly is/was your point?
> 
> If Dr. Mattox was not just being polite when he
> wrote "YES, I agree. 
> It will be a great session, and I don't really know
> who will
> will win. It will all be in the delivery," then
> the research
> certainly needs to improve significantly. We have
> far too much that is
> the result of persuasive researchers. In stead, we
> need persuasive
> research, not charismatic people driving patient
> care decisions with
> research that does not address what it claims to
> address. I am not
> stating that there is any particular trauma study
> that this would
> describe, but that if the delivery is the deciding
> factor, the research
> is less than adequate.
> 
> Tim Noonan. 
> 
> 
> > Ron
> > 
> > >>> 2/14/2008 10:27 AM >>>
> > We need to do research that will be large enough
> to produce enough
> > subjects in the various treatment arms that
> differences in outcome will
> > be clear.
> > 
> > As long as the research is small enough, or not
> well enough controlled,
> > that readers can look at the study and state that
> it is flawed, we will
> > be avoiding progress.
> > 
> > In 1989 in the cardiology community the question
> was which
> > antiarrhythmic, when given to patients who had had
> heart attacks, would
> > save the most lives (and make drug companies the
> most money).
> > 
> > All of the studies prior to that point had been on
> a surrogate end point
> > - which drug did a better job of eliminating PVCs.
> > 
> > It was taken for granted that, since patients with
> PVCs die more
> > frequently than those without PVCs, that
> eliminating PVCs saves lives.
> > 
> > The experts were in agreement on this theory.
> > 
> > The study was large enough to show survival
> differences and it was
> > allowed to go long enough to produce statistically
> significant numbers.
> > 
> > Too many studies are stopped early because the
> results are "too good to
> > justify withholding the study treatment from
> others," or vice versa.
> > 
> > How many of these treatments are found to be as
> beneficial/harmful in
> > follow up research?
> > 
> > How much of this is self delusion by the study
> designers?
> > 
> > The result of the CAST (Cardiac Arrhythmia
> Suppression Trial) was a
> > surprise to the cardiology world.
> > 
> > One of the drugs was leading to study participant
> deaths at 3 to 4 times
> > the rate of placebo.
> > 
> > The best that could be said about any of the drugs
> was that it did not
> > appear to be killing the patients at a greater
> rate than placebo.
> > 
> > All of these drugs are still used, just not very
> often.
> > 
> > Cardiologists no longer prescribe drugs to get rid
> of PVCs to everyone
> > who has had a heart attack.
> > 
> > Antiarrhythmia therapy has become much more
> conservative (part of that
> > is due to implantable defibrillators).
> > 
> > Had this study not been done, how long might it
> have taken before
> > someone realized this treatment was harmful.
> > 
> > Almost 20 years later, would this still be the
> focus of care following a
> > heart attack?
> > 
> > Diseased hearts have PVCs due to underlying
> disease.
> > 
> > Giving the patient a rhythm stabilizing drug does
> not change the disease
> > process, at least not for the better.
> > 
> > This study should have been an example to
> researchers everywhere.
> > 
> > In stead, it is viewed as an oddity specific to
> the cardiology
> > community.
> > 
> > It is not.
> > 
> > We need research that does an excellent job of
> controlling for as many
> > variables as possible.
> > 
> > Too much research contains discussions of why
> variable A is not worth
> > controlling for, even though it would have been
> relatively easy to
> > control for it.
> > 
> > We need to keep these flawed researchers from
> continuing to do fatally
> > flawed research.
> > 
> > How is it that experienced researchers, with
> doctorates in their fields,
> > continue to engage in research that should not
> receive passing marks
> > from a high school science teacher? 
> > 
> > The scientific method is one of the most important
> tools we have.
> > 
> > Its misuse kills.
> > 
> > Tim Noonan.
> > 
> > 
> > On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 06:03:48 -0800, "Sise, Mike
> MD"
> > said:
> > > So there is controversy over 1:1. How do we
> answer the question? Is a
> > > randomized trial justified or is it promising
> enough to just do it? On
> > > the one hand, we spent over 40 years using the
> intellectually attractive
> > > "balanced salt solution" lactated ringers
> without examining its impact.
> > > And blood transfusion therapy during the same
> interval may have been
> > > dictated by the technology that allowed
> fractionated blood banking - we
> > > abandoned whole blood. On the other hand, the
> results of 1:1 appear
> > > extremely promising. Pre-treatment Informed
> consent will be out of the
> > > question. Soooo, how about it Ken, Karim, Ron,
> Tim, all you
> > > trauma.org-istas.
> > > 
> > > Mike Sise
> > > San Diego
> > > 
> > > "Scripps Information Security" 
> > >
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > This e-mail and any files transmitted with it
> may contain privileged and
> > > confidential information and are intended solely
> for the use of the
> > > individual or entity to which they are
> addressed. If you are not the
> > > intended recipient or the person responsible for
> delivering the e-mail to
> > > the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
> that any dissemination or
> > > copying of this e-mail or any of its
> attachment(s) is strictly
> > > prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in
> error, please immediately
> > > notify the sending individual or entity by
> e-mail and permanently delete
> > > the original e-mail and attachment(s) from your
> computer system. Thank
> > > you for your cooperation.
> > > 
> > > 
> > >
>
==============================================================================
> > > --
> > > trauma-list : TRAUMA.ORG
> > > To change your settings or unsubscribe visit:
> > > http://www.trauma.org/index.php?/community/ 
> > --
> > trauma-list : TRAUMA.ORG
> > To change your settings or unsubscribe visit:
> > http://www.trauma.org/index.php?/community/ 
> > --
> > trauma-list : TRAUMA.ORG
> > To change your settings or unsubscribe visit:
> > http://www.trauma.org/index.php?/community/ 
> --
> trauma-list : TRAUMA.ORG
> To change your settings or unsubscribe visit:
> http://www.trauma.org/index.php?/community/ 
> --
> trauma-list : TRAUMA.ORG
> To change your settings or unsubscribe visit:
> http://www.trauma.org/index.php?/community/ 
> 


Sanjay Gupta
Tel: 412 335 6304


____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and 
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ 

--
trauma-list : TRAUMA.ORG
To change your settings or unsubscribe visit:
http://www.trauma.org/index.php?/community/
--
trauma-list : TRAUMA.ORG
To change your settings or unsubscribe visit:
http://www.trauma.org/index.php?/community/


       
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.


More information about the trauma-list mailing list