The New York Times continues its excellent advocacy of Naloxone vs the expanding opioid pandemic.
Frequently asked questions about Narcan/Naloxone, an anti-opioid for heroin, morphine, vicodin, oxycontin etc.
“A simple syringe with a dose of naloxone should cost about $3 …but experts expect that Evzio could well be priced close to $500.”
As overdose deaths surge, the existence of an antidote as effective as Naloxone is making itself evident. Too bad the medical associations can’t show more leadership on this critical issue.
The FDA approved the equivalent of an “epi-pen” for overdose prevention, an antidote auto-injector that even untrained people can use to save the lives of those who have overdosed on drugs like Vicodin or heroin.
The availability of naloxone/narcan as a nasal spray holds much promise for its wider deployment.
“It makes sense to focus attention on the most dangerous types of drugs.”
For too many, ‘protection’ by the government leads to their needless death.
With “deaths from narcotic painkillers, or opioids, quadrupling since 1999″ wider distribution of Narcan (anti-opioid) is critical.
Naloxone is a benign drug that CPR volunteers could use to rescue overdose victims, who now outnumber auto fatalities.
The Tandem AED/EMS strategy has an in-house AED delivering its lifesaving treatment well within four minutes. EMS then arrives some minutes later to consolidate the rescue.
Living or working in a high-rise just about eliminates your chance of surviving a sudden cardiac arrest.
A high-tech system that allows physicians to receive heart data from paramedics in the field is now live at Stanford Hospital & Clinics.
Patients in ventricular fibrillation benefit from higher biphasic energy levels if multiple defibrillation shocks are required.
A large company takes responsibility for its employees and buildings around the world, in the event of sudden cardiac arrest.
More people die each year from SCA than the number who die from colorectal cancer, breast cancer, prostate cancer, auto accidents, AIDS, firearms, and house fires COMBINED.
OK, they can do no more, when AEDs have a 4 min limit – understandable. On behalf of the 95% who die – might we try something new, something onsite?
Adding two minutes to the “8:59 standard” leaves a trail of dead and brain damaged victims everywhere. But in high rises, which already take an estimated 2 more minutes to access, they had may as well ask the coroner to saddle up the horses and roll the morgue wagon one more time.
Dispatchers obviously need more autonomy, and less data entry, before sending.
EMS1 is the leading website and news service for EMS people, and this ‘blog’ is a sterling example of its quality information.
“Matt Zavadsky dared to ask a provocative question in his presentation at the American Ambulance Association conference this past November, “Do Ambulance Response Times Really Matter?”
Safety agencies need to address the fact that thousands of people are dying needlessly in high rise and office buildings each year, because EMS simply can’t get to them in time. Arrest victims and rescuers have no access to the only device that can save them – an AED.
If a pulse is not restored before EMS transport, additional efforts at the receiving hospital almost invariably fail.
The famous article from the NYT in 2002, which nailed the problem, and a dozen years later – little progress. Clearly, onsite first responders are the premium solution for SCA protection in complexes. And for OD’s too.
Elevaed’s Dwight Jones explains his new deployment topology, termed “distributed AEDs”.
AED overkill is expensive and presents educational issues (even in a university) when multiple brands are involved…
Heart safety co-ops may improve serious emergency survivability from <8% to 50% plus.
The NFPA and IFC both rejected Elevaed’s proposals to place AEDs in high rises. EMS is a closed shop, and will not admit that they very rarely get to victims in high rises under ten minutes, which is far too late. We will have to save ourselves, and pay them as well.
Here is the substantiation provided to the code examining committees.
The presence and location of AEDs in large office complexes or high-rise buildings can greatly impact survival rates.
‘Medical creep’ happens when doctors perform procedures or prescribe treatments for patients in the absence of clear evidence that patients will benefit.
Given our overweight and aging boomer generation, expect heart safety to emerge as a welcome and affordable concept.
Common questions about AEDs and Public Access Defibrillation (PADs), with answers from the American Heart Association
The American Red Cross now offers Citizen CPR training, a brief course in providing hands-only CPR to victims of cardiac arrest.
This article demonstrates little awareness of the need to protect high-rises as homes or workplaces as well.
Concentrating on chest compressions rather than mouth-to-mouth can produce better results, says The Lancet.
Another article that indicates EMS and AEDs should have a sequential relationship during SCA’s, with EMS consolidating the earlier rescue by an AED.
If there is an elevator, put a PAD in the lobby and watch poor people save themselves. Safety is cheaper than a TBI for all concerned.
The continuing study of adjunct treatments for SCA; see also CPAP and the recent doubts about epinephrine
Evidently more AEDs should be in powered and networked enclosures – not bare.
Application of an AED in communities is associated with nearly a doubling of survival after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.
Significant delays present when accessing patients in high-rise buildings and evacuating them to the hospital.
US National NEMSIS cardiac arrest elapsed patient care times as an average (table) and as a 90th Fractile (graph).
Pivotal 2005 study establishes no survival benefit from EMS arrival within 8 min – only if within 4 min.