Peripheral line for vasopressor administration: Prospective multicenter observational cohort study for survival and safety
For decades, we’ve been told vasopressors belong only through central lines — but what if that’s not the whole story? In this episode, we unpack a groundbreaking multicenter study from Addis Ababa that dares to challenge convention.
Researchers followed 250 patients in shock, tracking survival outcomes, complications, and safety when vasopressors were given peripherally instead of through central access. The result? A strikingly low extravasation rate of just 1.2%, with all complications occurring only after five days of infusion. For short-term management, the data suggests — peripheral might be not only feasible, but safe.
We’ll explore what this means for critical care teams everywhere — especially in resource-limited settings where central access isn’t always an option. Is it time to rewrite the playbook for shock management? What are the risks, the predictors of survival, and the real-world tradeoffs?
Tune in as we dig into the data, the debates, and the bedside lessons from this landmark study — and ask the question every critical care clinician should be thinking about: Are we overcomplicating vasopressor delivery?
Science meets practicality. Evidence meets the frontline. And the future of shock resuscitation might just look a little different.
--------
16:39
--------
16:39
A Comprehensive Review of Fluid Resuscitation Strategies in Traumatic Brain Injury
Why are we still arguing about the best way to give fluids to patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI)? 🤔 This seems like a basic question, but the answer is complex and could mean the difference between life and death at the bedside.
A recent comprehensive review article from the Journal of Clinical Medicine dives deep into the clinical and physiological challenges of fluid resuscitation in TBI patients. The authors conducted a non-systematic literature review of studies over the last two decades, focusing on fluid management, types of fluids, and transfusion strategies. The research highlights a critical paradox: while hypotension (low blood pressure) is a known killer in TBI, giving too much fluid can be just as deadly by worsening cerebral edema.
The key takeaway? There is no one-size-fits-all approach. For fluid choice, the review argues against using balanced crystalloids like Ringer's lactate, suggesting they could worsen cerebral edema due to their relative hypotonicity. Instead, normal saline is often the preferred first-line fluid . As for blood transfusions, the data is contradictory. While some studies suggest a liberal transfusion strategy (aiming for a higher hemoglobin target) improves outcomes, others found no benefit and even a higher risk of adverse events . This means that transfusion decisions should be highly individualized, based on the patient's specific physiological parameters, not a fixed number .
This research is a wake-up call for frontline clinicians. It reminds us that blindly following protocols can be harmful. Every fluid bag, every pressor drip, and every unit of blood must be a thoughtful, personalized decision guided by robust
hemodynamic and neuromonitoring .
Want to know how to make smarter, more precise fluid decisions for your TBI patients? Tune in to this episode as we break down the latest evidence and translate it into actionable steps for your daily practice.
--------
20:27
--------
20:27
Impact of ECPR initiation time and age on survival in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients: a nationwide observational study
Are we giving our older patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) a fair shot? ⏱️ Current guidelines say an ECPR initiation time of up to 60 minutes is acceptable, but is that really the case for everyone? This is a question clinicians grapple with every day at the bedside.
A new nationwide observational study from South Korea tackles this head-on, analyzing data from 483 adult patients who received ECPR for non-traumatic OHCA. The study found that while both age and time to ECPR independently predict survival, the combination of the two is critical. The key takeaway? The "golden hour" for ECPR may not apply to our elderly patients.
The results are practice-changing and frankly, a wake-up call. The study found that in patients over 65, the probability of survival plummeted to less than 10% when ECPR was delayed beyond just 21 minutes. For their younger counterparts, a 10% survival rate was maintained for nearly twice as long, up to 38 minutes . This finding suggests that for older patients, the effective window for ECPR is much shorter than previously thought . The authors recommend a sense of urgency, urging clinicians to activate ECPR in carefully selected elderly patients almost immediately upon hospital arrival .
This isn't just about a new number; it's about re-evaluating our clinical protocols and embracing an age-specific approach to resuscitation. Tune in as we break down the data and discuss what this means for your next OHCA case.
--------
13:25
--------
13:25
Pressure-controlled ventilation versus volume-controlled ventilation for adult patients with acute respiratory failure: A systematic review and meta-analysis
When it comes to saving lives in the ICU, every breath counts. But what’s the best way to deliver that breath—pressure-controlled ventilation (PCV) or volume-controlled ventilation (VCV)?
In this episode, we dive into a new systematic review and meta-analysis that put these two ventilator modes head-to-head in over 1,100 patients with acute respiratory failure. The findings may surprise you: while both modes showed no major differences in barotrauma or overall mortality, PCV hinted at a slight edge in reducing deaths among patients with ARDS.
What does this mean for frontline clinicians? Could PCV be the more patient-friendly option when seconds matter? Join us as we unpack the data, discuss the implications for practice, and explore where future research needs to go.
Tune in for a deep dive into ventilator strategies that could shape critical care worldwide.
--------
14:33
--------
14:33
Is high-flow nasal oxygen as effective as non-invasive ventilation in acute cardiogenic pulmonary Edema?
When a patient crashes with acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema, emergency teams need fast, effective solutions. For years, non-invasive ventilation (NIV) has been the gold standard — but could high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) be just as good?
In this episode, we break down a prospective, randomized trial published in the American Journal of Emergency Medicine (Dec 2025) that compared HFNC head-to-head with NIV in the ED. The results? No difference in survival, respiratory rates, or dyspnea scores between the two therapies.
We’ll explore:
Why HFNC may rival NIV for managing ACPE
The surprising equivalence in clinical outcomes at 30, 60, and 120 minutes
Patient comfort and tolerability — where HFNC may hold the edge
What this means for ED practice, protocols, and future airway management
If you’re an emergency physician, intensivist, or resuscitationist, this study has big implications: it suggests you may have more flexibility — and your patients, more comfort — than ever before.
Welcome to the ResusX:Podcast. Each episode features an amazing talk from the ResusX conference. This is a podcast dedicated to your sickest patients, and it'll all FOAMed. For more great content including our monthly grand rounds, newsletters and more go to www.ResusX.com now.
Ireland