emergemedicinophile

North Broad Street, Phila, PA
Joined September 2011
Long COVID RCT results (n=126) as presented @ISLCPAIS in abstract form: PSRT had statistically significant & clinically meaningful improvement of primary endpt (somatic symptoms, SSS-8) & secondary endpts of fatigue, physical function, cognitive function, pain, & shortness of breath compared to two different control groups (usual care & mindfulness-based stress reduction [MBSR]). 1/2
31
16
10
45
21,946
Matt Wong retweeted
1/15 🤔Does end-stage renal disease (ESRD) make diabetes disappear? No, but in some patients with ESRD, insulin needs fall. A1c drops. Diabetes medications can be stopped. This has been called “burnt-out diabetes.” Let's examine why.
7
90
3
255
23,731
Very excited to share our State of the Art review entitled Diagnosis and Management of Acute Hyperkalaemia published in @bmj_latest ✅Check it out for a nice overview of the epidemiology and pathophysiology of hyperkalaemia, key risk factors and diagnostic considerations, and evidence based approaches to acute management bmj.com/content/394/bmj-2026… @LRayRx @DEZ_EM_Pharm @DharatiDesai @gavin_howington @MileHighEMCCM
1
12
54
2,772
Matt Wong retweeted
Reflections on retirement by @EdlowJonathan is a worthwhile read: "Thirty‐Eight Years a Clinician…and What's Next?" | @AcademicEmerMed pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/article… I interviewed for a job at BIDMC EM (2022) via Zoom, and Edlow was outside on Zoom in rural VA. It looked gorgeous 😊
3
2
8
1,604
I don’t think people are naming their kids after Elizabeth, NJ. It’s mostly oil refineries and industrial parks off of the Turnpike, near Newark Liberty International Airport. It’s probably the glimpse of NJ that gives travelers the worst impression of my home state.
1
195
Maybe, just maybe, those cities were named after people. And the names of the cities persisted. And the names continue to remain popular for people too. No one is naming their kids after Elizabeth, NJ or Jackson, MS or Lincoln, NE. They just like the name.
1
52
ARISE-FLUIDS has arrived and it's awesome 🥳 For over a decade, the Surviving Sepsis Guidelines recommended that septic patients get at least 30 cc/kg fluid. In the United States, these guidelines were weaponized into performance metrics, pressuring clinicians to prescribe arbitrary volumes to every patient. Evidence-based clinicians have LONG known that this guideline lacked evidentiary support. For example, I've attached a picture of a blog I wrote about this back in 2017. Despite the lack of evidentiary support and some evidence of harm, the Surviving Sepsis Guidelines INSISTED on perpetually recommending 30 cc/kg fluid resuscitation. We finally have a prospective RCT demonstrating that mandating early administration of 30 cc/kg fluid (as compared to early vasopressors) doesn't help and may actually cause harm. It's important to note that all of the hard endpoints in this trial were neutral (e.g., mortality, days free of organ support). I still think that 30 cc/kg fluid is a pretty reasonable volume of fluid for *most* patients. But the study does suggest that giving too much fluid may promote edema - so we should be *thoughtful* about this intervention rather than mandating it for every septic patient. Based on the subgroup analysis, the fluid-conservative strategy may have helped the subgroup of pneumonia patients the most. This is statistically nonsignificant but aligns with my expectation. ARDSy patients often don't respond well to fluid. (In contrast, I really doubt that a liter of fluids in either direction matters for most urosepsis patients.) This is a great example of the over-reach of guidelines and protocoled medicine. People get all upset about practice variation, so sometimes they try to stomp it out using guidelines and protocols. But these guidelines are highly fallible, so what may occur is that you standardize care in a way that harms everyone equally. 🤦‍♂️
17
147
11
470
62,528
Prehospital Resuscitation with Type O Whole Blood for Trauma and Hemorrhage (TOWAR Trial) Presented @ATSCritCare Published @NEJM CCR Journal Watch criticalcarereviews.com/late… CCR Summary & Critique criticalcarereviews.com/trau…
1
168
A recurring pattern across the new guidelines is the repeated issuance of strong recommendations based on very low certainty evidence, with RCTs often downplayed in favor of observational data—seen across multiple recommendations. For example, the 1-hour antibiotic recommendation in sepsis without shock persists despite RCTs showing no mortality benefit, with trials like PHANTASi effectively discounted while observational studies are prioritized. Another example is pre-hospital antibiotic recommendations, which similarly extrapolate beyond the studied populations—notably, even the largest RCT (PHANTASi), which showed no mortality benefit across illness severities, appears to have been discounted, while smaller trials and observational data were emphasized—making some recommendations seem more speculative than evidence-based. It’s worrying that the SSC continues to double down on opinion-based recommendations, despite repeated RCTs showing prior guidance was likely wrong. The approach feels more about defending prior positions than learning from what the evidence actually shows, raising serious concerns about potential harm to patients without sepsis, as well as those with sepsis without shock. This pattern also reflects an absence of humility in acknowledging uncertainty when revisiting prior guidance in light of new evidence. How does the panel justify prioritizing lower-quality observational data over robust RCT evidence, and what underpins maintaining these strong recommendations despite clear evidence gaps?”
🔥Just published🔥 Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2026 : Critical Care Medicine #IDXposts share.google/VN4AfbchzDiRr7e…
10
19
4,079
64♂T2DM Mild confusion Na 118➡️Took oral🧂➡️ Deteriorated🤔2 days➡️ 🚨🚑🏥 ‘Safe’ slow Na correction initiated ➡️ 'Transient improvement in sensorium' D4-5: Na 135➡️rapid deterioration in sensorium➡️ P/W tetraparesis + bulbar involvement MR brain🆗except L vitreous🩸 🧵 ❶|❾
3
12
3
58
11,510
#omissionbias #statusquobias blog post No, you don't need to hold him till his O2 is "back to baseline" or because the (low value) ECHO has not been performed yet. statusiatrogenicus.com/2026/…
4
5
1,654
1/ As we advance in life, we collect NEW memories. What if ⓵ fine day that ability gets taken away? A 1st first-hand experience in 30 years of #neurology practice. 🧵 BIT LONG 1|23
5
2
1
15
1,499
1/ #POCUS pop quiz Elderly female with no PMHx presented with confusion, hypoxemia, rapid Afib and hypotension. Receives 3L of IVF and started on NE at 0.5ug/kg/min. This is her CXR:
3
26
3
60
20,457
General curiosity: When you’re communicating MAP goals in a generic hypotensive septic pt to the team, what do you specifically say? Something like:
44%Aim for a MAP of 65.
21%The floor should be 65.
32%Target a range of 60-70.
2%Something else?
84 votes • Final results
3
1
3
5,703
And I’m left thinking, wait are these all sort of the same thing or not? “Targeting” 63 and getting a range around it. “Maintaining minimum MAP of at least 65.” Having a “MAP target of 60-65.”
1
104
They’re all probably close enough that they’re clinically the same. But to be pedantic, I’m not sure.
1
1
110