is anyone here... hypertonic saline for the treatment of trauma
- Thread starter Veneficus
- Start date
DrankTheKoolaid
Forum Deputy Chief
- 1,344
- 21
- 38
re
Not in the Pre-hospital protocols here. Is for the Tactical medical protocols, though I am pushing for Albumin instead of 3%NS.
Not in the Pre-hospital protocols here. Is for the Tactical medical protocols, though I am pushing for Albumin instead of 3%NS.
Smash
Forum Asst. Chief
- 997
- 3
- 18
No. Trialled it a fair while ago for head injury. I can't remember if the trial was stopped early, or whether it just showed no benefit, but whatever the case it was not taken on as standard of care.
It seems like another one of those compelling ideas that wasn't supported by the data in the end. That said, I haven't looked at any data for a long time, so there may be something new in the field that I'm not aware of.
It seems like another one of those compelling ideas that wasn't supported by the data in the end. That said, I haven't looked at any data for a long time, so there may be something new in the field that I'm not aware of.
TatuICU
Forum Lieutenant
- 204
- 0
- 0
Good luck getting the albumin, not being sarcastic. Though I think hetastarch may be a more practical choice cost wise.
Rettsani
Forum Captain
- 298
- 5
- 18
Did you mean NaCl ?
We use it as a carrier solution for drugs and for the short-term volume replacement. Ringer's solution is here our preferred if it is present
Low-molecular solutions in combination with high-molecular solutions are used here in trauma patients.
Low-molecular solutions in patients with traumatic brain injury and in patients with severe burns.
TatuICU
Forum Lieutenant
- 204
- 0
- 0
No, I'm sure he means actual hypertonic saline (3%), not just the 0.9% NaCl, presumably as a resuscitative fluid in TBI, therapy for intracranial htn, etc.
I've also heard of nebulizing 7% NaCl for CF patients as an adjunctive therapy though I admittedly have very little experience with CF patients.
this
MedicBrew
Forum Lieutenant
- 123
- 2
- 18
No, we looked into it but we have relatively few actual hemorrhagic/ hypovolemic shock and TBI / ICP patients that made it "cost prohibitive". Same with albumin.
the_negro_puppy
Forum Asst. Chief
- 897
- 0
- 0
Isotonic only
https://roc.uwctc.org/tiki/completed-studies
Only actual study that's been done in the US (that I know of).
And for what's it's worth never heard of anyone here carrying it outside of during a study.
Only actual study that's been done in the US (that I know of).
And for what's it's worth never heard of anyone here carrying it outside of during a study.
I asked because there is a growing body of conflicting evidence, with benefit edging out no effect.
The mortality in the US study that was stopped listed a 28 day mortaility being the same, but ISS was not reported.
Yes, I have used it as part of an actual protocal. We were supplied 3% HTS as well as mannitol, furosemide, and other things for managing severe TBI. Mind you, this was asscrackistan, so take it with a grain of salt.
Military medical protocols are on the cutting edge when it comes to certian things, and in the stone age when it comes to other things, so you'll have to decide for yourself. Here's the guideline where it can be found:
http://jsomonline.org/Publications/TrainingSupplement2011.pdf
10 mins later...
Ok, I posted that link without checking, and the online version seems to be outdated... I wish I brought the hard copy from AFG with me, because it definately had it. It was a one-time trial bolus, not to be repeated. Central pontine myelinolysis is nothing to toy with.
Military medical protocols are on the cutting edge when it comes to certian things, and in the stone age when it comes to other things, so you'll have to decide for yourself. Here's the guideline where it can be found:
http://jsomonline.org/Publications/TrainingSupplement2011.pdf
10 mins later...
Ok, I posted that link without checking, and the online version seems to be outdated... I wish I brought the hard copy from AFG with me, because it definately had it. It was a one-time trial bolus, not to be repeated. Central pontine myelinolysis is nothing to toy with.
Last edited by a moderator:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3232054/ Link to the full study. I had some friends taking part in this so I've heard a bit from the lectures that the various medical directors gave when this was cancelled.
The average ISS for each arm was about the same; I've never seen anything about the results being broken down specifically by ISS; I'd bet it was done but couldn't say for certain. From what I've heard and read, part of the issue with this study was that patient's who were recieving HTS or the HTS/dextran were delayed in getting blood. Based on what's known now, that could have potentially skewed the results.
Thanks, I have copies of the updated military guidlines.
I am sure there were lots of explanations, it seems most of the emergency studies show no benefit while most of the ones done by anesthesia, neurology, and various surgical disciplines showing benefit.
It seems to be a continuing trend in a number of areas that emergent studies usually find something completely different than everyone else.
It is one of the reasons I seriously doubt that any reasonable data coming out of an emergency study.
If the data is gathered correctly, and the specific treatements are performed appropriately (and it is interpreted correctly) why discount the study? It may be hard to do all that both prehospitally and in the ER, but when it is, that doesn't mean that the study is neccasarily wrong.
A treatement that works for a certain issue in a specific setting may not work under other conditions due to the variables involved; wouldn't it be better to know that and know that maybe some things should/shouldn't be done initially even though they work later on during the patient's care?
There was a in-hopsital study from, I think, Singapore (or maybe Italy) that was published recently that showed WORSE outcomes with post-ROSC hypothermia when it was started immedietly after ROSC versus waiting for a period of time. Granted, there were factors involved that probably affected the outcomes, but still worth thinking about.
A single study isn't neccasarily going to be the final word on a treatement; why not repeat it under other settings to see if the results differ?
Studies in emergent populations are very difficult to perform. Not because I said so, but everything from ethical considerations to confounding variables which are often unexplained or even accounted for make interpretation of the data very difficult.
I agree with this for the most part, but in the last several months, I have noticed that studies done in the emergent environment often condradict findings in other areas, whether advocating for or against a given treatment.
What's more, They do not limit their conclusions to the emergent environment. But often present the findings as globally authoritative.
I find it extraordinarily difficult to believe that the scientific priniciples of medicine suddenly change when in an emergent environment.
I do find it reasonable that the environment will demand alteration of how those principles are applied.
Didn't hear of it before.
However, according to your information here, it doesn't suggest hypothermia is not a valid treatment. It suggests the application of it may have to be altered.
Considering that in many disease processes radical reversal or rapid initiation of treatment has negative effects, it doesn't sound like an unreasonable conclusion.
But it doesn't authoritively denounce the treatment, as any casual observer of emergent studies seems to.
That would be the goal actually.
But I still stand by my statement. The emergent studies I have read over the last year and 1/2 often differ from the conclusions of other specialists.
Because of that ongoing observation, I am hesitant to give much credibility to them.
Last edited by a moderator:
Sure, and there are many that aren't performed very well yet are held up as shining examples of what should be done. The same could be said for medical studies in general, but I do agree it's probably more prevalent in ER/prehospital studes. That doesn't mean that all are though, just that a more critical look needs to be taken before following what's recommended.
And that's a problem. Like I said, due to multiple variables that aren't found in every situation, a given treatement may have different results in different settings. If one study done in an emergent setting contradicts another done in a more controlled environment, it shouldn't be held as the new standard, but 1) held as a reason that maybe that treatement isn't appropriate in the emergency setting only, and 2) cause people to start looking at why the results differ. Granted, this doesn't always happen. Hello EBM super-advocates.
That's what I mean.
It came out a few monthes ago; had a relatively small number of enrolled patients as I remember.
I don't mean to say it does. It's just an example of how a treatement that usually is seen as a benefit, when used under other cirucmstances may actually be harmful, or at best indifferent.
I'll still say that as long as the study was well run there isn't any reason to discount it. But there isn't any reason to say that it should supercede another well run study that had different results. Just that maybe things should be done differently depending on the factors affecting the patien'ts condition and the setting of care.
EMT11KDL
Forum Asst. Chief
- 964
- 76
- 28
The only place i see the use is military. (hextend) we use a 6% solution... I would love to see it on the civilian side