To send content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about sending content to .
To send content items to your Kindle, first ensure firstname.lastname@example.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about sending to your Kindle.
Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Introduction: Paramedics commonly administer intravenous dextrose to severely hypoglycemic patients. Typically, the treatment provided is a 25g ampule of 50% dextrose (D50). This dose of D50 is meant to ensure a return to consciousness. However, this dose may be unnecessary and lead to harm or difficulties regulating blood glucose post treatment. We hypothesize that a lower dose such as dextrose 10% (D10) or titrating the D50 to desired level of consciousness may be optimal and avoid adverse events. Methods: We systematically searched Medline, Embase, CINAHL and Cochrane Central on June 5th 2019. PRISMA guidelines were followed. The GRADE methods and risk of bias assessments were applied to determine the certainty of the evidence. We included primary literature investigating the use of intravenous dextrose in hypoglycemic diabetic patients presenting to paramedics or the emergency department. Outcomes of interest were related to the safe and effective reversal of symptoms and blood glucose levels (BGL). Results: 660 abstracts were screened, 40 full text articles, with eight studies included. Data from three randomized controlled trials and five observational studies were analyzed. A single RCT comparing D10 to D50 was identified. The primary significant finding of the study was an increased post-treatment glycemic profile by 3.2 mmol/L in the D50 group; no other outcomes had significant differences between groups. When comparing pooled data from all the included studies we find higher symptom resolution in the D10 group compared to the D50 group; at 99.8% and 94.9% respectively. However, the mean time to resolution was approximately 4 minutes longer in the D10 group (4.1 minutes (D50) and 8 minutes (D10)). There was more need for subsequent doses in the D10 group at 23.0% versus 16.5% in the D50 group. The post treatment glycemic profile was lower in the D10 group at 5.9 mmol/L versus 8.5 mmol/L in the D50 group. Both treatments had nearly complete resolution of hypoglycemia; 98.7% (D50) and 99.2% (D10). No adverse events were observed in the D10 group (0/871) compared to 12/133 adverse events in the D50 group. Conclusion: D10 may be as effective as D50 at resolving symptoms and correcting hypoglycemia. Although the desired effect can take several minutes longer there appear to be fewer adverse events. The post treatment glycemic profile may facilitate less challenging ongoing glucose management by the patients.
Introduction: The Prehospital Evidence-Based Practice (PEP) program is an online, freely accessible, continuously updated Emergency Medical Services (EMS) evidence repository. This summary describes the research evidence for the identification and management of adult patients suffering from sepsis syndrome or septic shock. Methods: PubMed was searched in a systematic manner. One author reviewed titles and abstracts for relevance and two authors appraised each study selected for inclusion. Primary outcomes were extracted. Studies were scored by trained appraisers on a three-point Level of Evidence (LOE) scale (based on study design and quality) and a three-point Direction of Evidence (DOE) scale (supportive, neutral, or opposing findings based on the studies’ primary outcome for each intervention). LOE and DOE of each intervention were plotted on an evidence matrix (DOE x LOE). Results: Eighty-eight studies were included for 15 interventions listed in PEP. The interventions with the most evidence were related to identification tools (ID) (n = 26, 30%) and early goal directed therapy (EGDT) (n = 21, 24%). ID tools included Systematic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS), quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) and other unique measures. The most common primary outcomes were related to diagnosis (n = 30, 34%), mortality (n = 40, 45%) and treatment goals (e.g. time to antibiotic) (n = 14, 16%). The evidence rank for the supported interventions were: supportive-high quality (n = 1, 7%) for crystalloid infusion, supportive-moderate quality (n = 7, 47%) for identification tools, prenotification, point of care lactate, titrated oxygen, temperature monitoring, and supportive-low quality (n = 1, 7%) for vasopressors. The benefit of prehospital antibiotics and EGDT remain inconclusive with a neutral DOE. There is moderate level evidence opposing use of high flow oxygen. Conclusion: EMS sepsis interventions are informed primarily by moderate quality supportive evidence. Several standard treatments are well supported by moderate to high quality evidence, as are identification tools. However, some standard in-hospital therapies are not supported by evidence in the prehospital setting, such as antibiotics, and EGDT. Based on primary outcomes, no identification tool appears superior. This evidence analysis can guide selection of appropriate prehospital therapies.
Debating Immigration presents twenty-one original and updated essays, written by some of the world's leading experts and pre-eminent scholars that explore the nuances of contemporary immigration in the United States and Europe. This volume is organized around the following themes: economics, demographics and race, law and policy, philosophy and religion, and European politics. Its topics include comprehensive immigration reform, the limits of executive power, illegal immigration, human smuggling, civil rights and employment discrimination, economic growth and unemployment, and social justice and religion. A timely second edition, Debating Immigration is an effort to bring together divergent voices to discuss various aspects of immigration often neglected or buried in discussions.