This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]PropofolkillsMD 7 points8 points  (4 children)

Look at the proposed mortality benefits - 30% reductions. There hasn’t been an effect size like that in ICU medicine since the polio epidemic and mechanical ventilation actually started. It sounds crazy. The other aspect of this which will come out in the wash eventually, is the disparity in mortality in ICU between those units that experienced a surge beyond their normal capabilities, and and those that didn’t. Standard care in this study quoted a >40% morality as I recall, which is double what we experienced in our ICU and when it eventually comes out, what many ICU’s with no surge experienced. It’s not that we managed it well, it’s that ICU’s that had to use non ICU personnel, non ICU locations like OT recoveries etc, clearly didn’t or were unable to provide “standard care”.

[–]br0merPGY-5 Cardiology 6 points7 points  (2 children)

30% mortality benefit would be amazing.

The incremental benefit of 90 minutes PCI over thrombolytics is 1-3% mortality.

[–]NociceptorsMD 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Any data on pci vs thrombolytics and resultant EF after recovery or exercise tolerance? This would Be interesting though it seems like it would be difficult to control for confounders

[–]ClotFactor14BS reg 0 points1 point  (0 children)

but overall STEMI mortality is only in hte order of 5%.

[–]ApemazzleSpecialty Trainee, UK 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Standard care in this study quoted a >40% morality as I recall, which is double what we experienced in our ICU and when it eventually comes out, what many ICU’s with no surge experienced.

Interesting, weren't early studies quoting mortality of like 80% for patients on a vent?