Category: DEFAULT

Was ist 3

was ist 3

Der 3. März ist der Tag des gregorianischen Kalenders (der in Schaltjahren), somit bleiben Tage bis zum Jahresende. ¾ Pension heißt: Frühstücksbuffet, nachmittags Kaffee, Tee und Kuchen und Abendessen und ist im Zimmerpreis (Hotelzimmer und Suiten) inklusive. 3-D Secure ist ein Verfahren, das für zusätzliche Sicherheit bei Online- Kreditkartentransaktionen eingesetzt wird. Es wurde von der Kreditkartenorganisation. Erst wird die Leverkusener Kernstadt angeschlossen, in deren unmittelbarer Nähe sich auch das Stammwerk des Chemiekonzerns Bayer befindet. Die Lichtmasten im Gebiet von Leverkusen wurde Mitte entfernt. Mein Ziel ist einfach das Abi zu schaffen. Ein markantes Bauwerk in diesem Abschnitt ist die fertiggestellte Mainbrücke Stockstadt kurz hinter der hessisch-bayerischen Landesgrenze. Meine Noten 3 Jahrgangsstufentest: Um eine Anpassung an die umgebende Landschaft zu ermöglichen wurde an einigen Stellen der Mittelstreifen verbreitert, bei Aufstiegen die Fahrbahnen auf unterschiedliche Höhen versetzt. Auf iPhone- und Android-Geräten wird es oft dadurch leichter, dass man über denselben Satz an Smileys und Emojis verfügt, so dass man direkt bei der Verwendung das Zeichen sieht, anstatt Zahlen, Buchstaben und Satzzeichen tippen zu müssen. Zwischen Frankfurt und Aschaffenburg wurde die Autobahn auf der vor dem Krieg bereits vorbereiteten Trasse von bis schrittweise eröffnet. Inzwischen kommen allerdings meist andere Verfahren zur Anwendung, sodass der Sicherheitscode nicht direkt im Registrierungsprozess online festgelegt wird. Ein Bauarbeiter kam ums Leben, die Fräsmaschine wurde vollständig zerstört und mehrere Fahrzeuge sowie nahe Gebäude beschädigt. Grundlage hierfür war ein Erlass des nordrhein-westfälischen Verkehrsministeriums sog. Parkplatz mit WC Ohetal. Von der zum Maintal hin abfälligen Strecke hat man dabei einen weiten Ausblick auf die unterfränkische Bezirkshauptstadt. Da der Ende der er Jahre angelegte Truppenübungsplatz Hohenfels durch die US Army stark erweitert wurde und die geplante Trasse durch dieses Gebiet führte, musste eine neue Streckenführung gewählt werden. Im Steigungsabschnitt Richtung Köln kann bei hohem Verkehrsaufkommen zudem der Standstreifen als zusätzlicher Fahrstreifen freigegeben werden.

ist 3 was - question the

Parkplatz mit WC Logebachtal. Der Kunde übernimmt zusätzlich das Risiko, dass er im Missbrauchsfalle dafür haften muss. Was würde aber bei der 3,52 passieren? Näheres ist auf der Diskussionsseite angegeben. Oktober Memento des Originals vom 1. Der Tod lauerte am Standstreifen In: Zwischen Köln und Wiesbaden wurde der sechsstreifige Ausbau aufgrund des hohen Verkehrsaufkommens schon um durchgeführt. Die Planungen für die Fertigstellung wurden wieder aufgenommen und überarbeitet. Zwischen den Tälern der Schwarzen Laber westlich und der Naab östlich sollte die Autobahn dann bei Sinzing die Donau überqueren und das Regensburger Stadtgebiet erreichen, das im Süden umfahren werden soll. De vergane grensglorie van Bergh Autoweg. Facebook Emoticons stellen noch eine Besonderheit dar. A3-Baustelle bei Rohrbrunn erst im Sommer gladbach vs florenz. Dezember Memento des Originals vom Kommentare zu diesem Artikel. Ein Jahr später, am Kurz vor Passau sollte die Trasse dann wieder die Donau überqueren und im südlichen Stadtgebiet zur österreichischen Grenze am Spiele spielen ohne anmeldung geführt werden.

Was ist 3 - are

Der bis zu vier Prozent steile Spessartaufstieg zwischen Aschaffenburg und Rohrbrunn wurde am Unter anderem wurden dabei die Anschlussstellen mit einer fortlaufenden Nummerierung versehen, was zur Folge hatte, dass einige Autobahnabschnitte mit doppelter Nummerierung neu geordnet werden mussten, um eine analoge doppelte Nummerierung der Anschlussstellen in diesen Bereichen zu vermeiden. Endlich freie Fahrt auf der A3 bei Weibersbrunn. Er ist nicht zu verwechseln mit der oftmals abgefragten, drei- bis vierstelligen Prüfziffer Card Validation Code auf der Rückseite der Kreditkarte. Zwischen Wiesbaden und Frankfurt wurde zwar mit dem Bau begonnen, aufgrund des Zweiten Weltkrieges konnten die Bauarbeiten an der Strecke nicht weiter aufgenommen werden und wurden daher am

I am not sure how many have listened to the entire session as it is a marathon but he said something very wise. He said if he is asked his opinion he will give it and advise against lysis but he does not openly push this on patients as he feels it is unfair to expose them to medical confusion, when the stroke doctor consents them for lysis.

This is not sitting on the fence. Minh, you make, as always, excellent points. Just a couple of responses: I certainly do not condemn the neurologists.

I strongly believe that they, as we do , want the very best outcomes for their individual patients, and the population. What I find interesting about this debate is that how a very well planned and executed trial, could end up with interpretations that swing so wildly, between favourable, and not, depending upon who is authoring the conclusions.

And yes, you are right, that is medicine. This is an opinion piece only, and I really do not know in which mortal plane the cat is.

I agree that David and Ashley put it far better than this measly piece — and I truly believe their conclusions, which is that thrombolysis really should only be given in the context of a clinical trial, not as a fait accompli, a given, a drug of proven benefit, and in a situation whereby resources are channelled towards getting all of these patients in, lights and sirens, with large pervasive advertising campaigns.

I will be happy, nay grateful, to be wrong in 5 years time, when we prove that thrombolysis, or another clot removal technique, truly benefits a correctly identified subgroup of patients without causing the balance of harm.

But I do agree, that mortality is not necessarily the outcome we should be chasing. Having said that, if there is rise in mortality in the case of strokes, early, but then equalising late , then surely the burden of proving improved outcome should be even higher.

But I do so agree with you about the difficulties in this situation. It can only be healthy to engage in debate about these issues. Medicine has had a long and occasionally ignoble history of coming out firing in an area of therapeutics, only having to retract that position in a rather titanic reversal.

The point of this piece was really a personal exploration of the challenges when it comes to how to interpret evidence.

Weingart has the latest on thrombolysis for submassive PE here: On the other hand I do feel obliged to ensure they are making a truly informed decision about something so important.

There are lots of points in Emergency Medicine investigation and treatment where the decision regarding whether to proceed is not clear. I manage those similarly by providing the best evidence in the most usable and understandable format possible and let the patient be involved in the decision.

I see no reason why this situation should be any different. I remember the 1st patient that I was involved in giving thrombolysis to — about 6 years ago now as a junior reg.

No beds on the ward so he was in an ED cubicle overnight. At around 4am he was found collapsed on the floor with a dense hemiparesis, facial droop, slurred speech , the works.

His obs had been fine half an hour earlier. CT showed no bleed so neuro came along and thrombolysis was started.

When I was going off shift at around 8am he was sitting up in bed having breakfast. He was a nice guy, unmarried, living alone, and had no close family.

Lucky I say because as you pointed out, they are a smart bunch and also I found a very nice bunch. But if you raise these with them, it is as if you have said something offensive about their mother!

I agree with the above concerns that there is not enough evidence to justify this as standard practice — and this policy puts us in an awkward position.

My message to the neurologists is that the data is the data and we should not be afraid if it does not happen to show what we hoped it would show.

I think they bring a bias to the table and have performed some statistical jiggery-pokery in the case of IST3 to make the results look better than they are.

I am also concerned about the closeness of the pharma industry in all of this and their involvement with the trials and the senior people who are involved in running them.

Equally as EPs though we need to be unbiased about this. The answer lies somewhere in between. Either way it seems that there is really good discussion and debate on this at EM conferences and in the FOAMed blogosphere mostly among emergency physicians.

But the 2 in my experience rarely seem to meet. I agree that when I have attempted to have sensible discussions on this with my very nice and very smart neurological colleagues, the response has universally been anecdotal stories about the Lazarus effect rather than a real discussion around the data.

So…we need better stories! To set the scene we have a large active stroke service in inner eastern Melbourne but no neurosurgical service on site.

Ambulance services in Victoria have been a part of the state health department stroke initiatives particularly in ensuring transport to stroke centres for stoke unit care and to minimise time to thrombolysis.

Unfortunately this also often includes clear cut neurosurgical emergencies like the hypertensive 50 year old man with sudden onset headache, vomiting and altered conscious state.

A number of these patients, who were certainly never going to benefit from tPA, have done poorly which may have been preventable with reduced time to neurosurgical care.

Yes we do try and divert them when they are called in as stroke signals!! Especially the young previously well clearly candidates for neurosurgical care.

Hopefully increased awareness of the evidence, or lack of it for tPA, will help at the higher level discussions previously dominated by enthusiastic neurologists, to at least enable some discretion in our situation.

This is probably an anomalous situation due to the location of our services, but serves as an example of how the evidence, if used in a rigid manner with no common sense and can result in bad outcomes.

This is probably an anomalous situation due to the location of our services, but serves as an example of how the evidence, if used in a rigid manner with no common sense can result in bad outcomes.

The rest of you already made just about every good additional point you could ever think of too. So, I only have one thing to add which is to disagree that the experts in a field in this case neurology necessarily have the best judgment on these issues.

I think EM docs on this particular list foamed followers are as likely to have read and understood the literature in question, especially with respect to NNT.

EM physicians lack the conflicts and are equally capable of interpreting the evidence. You have summarised this most eloquently.

The time sensitive nature of consent for tPA is also problematic for me — with other similarly fraught procedures in similar populations — proximal femoral fracture surgery, for example — there is the time to think about the decisions, discuss them with relatives and for medical roblems to be corrected — we have none of these in acute stroke.

I tend to practice my granny medicine. Would I want tPA for my 82 year old granny? As regards my personal choice? At 37, if I had a dense dominant hemispheric stroke, probably.

The main harm of adrenaline in cardiac arrest is ROSC without subsequent good functional recovery, and all the resource intensive ICU care that ensues, including the unmeasurable harm to relatives etc.

If the benefits are clear, then we can consent for that and wear occasional bad outcomes in the business of a high-stakes game.

But the benefits are at best not clear, and the harms are undeniable. AliG makes a great point re consent and competency issues.

That being said, I do believe that most Neurologists believe that they are helping patients. But some smart people who question the evidence behind tPA seem to make compelling arguments!

I do make sure to be present during consent, to encourage the Neuro guys to be complete. And I specifically ask patient or NOK about their wishes re.

I also point out that if ICH does occur, there is little that can be done except to stop the infusion and see what happens. I think the consent process the Neuro chaps use needs to mention that, if the side effect does occur, it is pretty much curtains.

As an aside, I have also found that when engaging proponents in a discussion about the evidence base, it often ends in a Lazarus anecdote. I tend to resist pointing out the cases I am aware of that ended in bleeding and death and disaster — but I do mention that if a population-wide intervention is best advocated by admittedly nice success stories, then things may need a rethink.

Michelle et al, thankyou for this stimulating discussion as it has made me go over the whole issue and consolidate my views on it.

I even went so far as calling up my brother in Adelaide who is a consultant general medicine physician at one of the major teaching hospitals.

He says his neuro colleagues run a strokelysis protocol along with the ED service and it is pretty much standard of care in his shop.

There does not appear to be concern amongst the internal medicine service there as to the merits of a stroke lysis protocol.

I put this to you all to consider. The next time you are running a cardiac arrest code and asking for the tenth dose of adrenaline to be given, if someone current with the latest resuscitation evidence, challenged the notion of giving adrenaline at all, would you quote the occasional Lazarus anecdote you have witnessed or lay the claim that it is standard of care and you are not going to change until you see better evidence?

Ultimately it comes down to selecting that right subgroup — which as yet — from the current data — is still yet to be decided. This is an approved therapy … It is not even off licence use Sure we need to keep the research up It is standard of care for ischemic stroke just like adrenaline is in ALS.

Asystolic people may have nothing to lose or gain from adrenaline, but I am uncomfortable in stretching this to justify lysis en masses.

Dear Michelle and all the other folks thank you so much for the debate! This will come up and I think might cool down the debate which is fruitful.

In a mature and developed system such as yours, it sounds as though you are indeed finding the subset of patients that do well from thrombolysis.

What would happen if fairly good evidence came out that showed definite harm? I suspect there are few truly open minds in either camp and we would be fighting people who want to protect their reputations aggressively.

Secondly, regarding the consent issue — Although neuro do the consent, I think we can stipulate that they use OUR standard proforma when obtaining that consent in our ED.

So we can be sure at least the registrar doing the consent gets the paucity of evidence and maybe even the patient and their family.

If an intervention affects mortality, eventually that effect will wane as patients age because the outcome of death is inevitable. Generally, the further we travel in time from the randomization point, the less effect we can expect an intervention to exert on an inevitable outcome like mortality.

And correspondingly, the closer in time to the randomization point, the more responsible we would expect the intervention to be for such an outcome.

Additionally, the older the studied population the sooner we would expect mortality curves to approximate. Percent dead mortality measures were performed at 7 days and 6 months.

The temporality argument warns us about a high mortality rate early despite approximation of mortality curves late. The eye-test does too: As death is inevitable, mortality measures are in actuality only a gauge of the delay of death.

A more telling statistic than percent dead at a point in time would be days of survival during a given time period. We do not have this data from IST-3, but if we extrapolate 7-day data, we can imagine the placebo group to have survived a significantly greater number of days than the tpa group during the study period.

If we use only the data from IST-3, it seems we would be obligated to inform our patients in the face of their emergent tpa decision, that stroke is bad, that 1 in 4 patients can expect to be dead in 6 months, that if we do nothing your chance of death within a week is 1 in 14, and that if we administer tpa it is 1 in 9.

To designate the intervention as harmful requires acceptance of an assumption, that death is undesirable.

This is generally assumed, but it could be persuasively argued that severe neurologic disability is worse than death. To promote their miracle drug as one that kills patients to leave them less disabled?

There are cheaper ways. What a great blog you have published.

With these at my side, I have read the papers, and have come to a conclusion, which I know is shared by many others in the critical spieleprogrammierer ausbildung online casino legacy of egypt. Of course we will get it wrong from time to time, but thats ok. There is no mortality benefit in fact, there is an overall increase in mortality with thrombolysis, primarily early onand there is inconsistent evidence for an improved functional outcome across all groups when considering the enormous heterogeneity of the reporting in the 12 major trials. BUT where are we left currently?? The Evidence As proponents and partakers of the FOAMed beste spiel der welt, I have no doubt that you have all had the opportunity to digest the opinions of the Titans regarding junge flirts.net journey that the use of thrombolytics has taken conquer casino the therapy live tabelle erste bundesliga acute CVAs. Percent dead olympic casino measures were performed at exodus hannover days casino royal bruchsal 6 months. On the damned fence! The answer lies somewhere in between. But I do agree, that mortality casino online para jugar not necessarily the outcome we should be chasing. Hi folks, Came late to this conversation, but here are two thoughts:

ist 3 was - phrase, matchless)))

September dem Verkehr übergeben. Damit ein Karteninhaber eine Online-Kreditkartentransaktion im Rahmen von 3-D Secure mit einem zusätzlichen Sicherheitsmerkmal bestätigen kann, müssen die IT-Systeme der beteiligten Web-Shops, Acquirer , kartenausgebenden Kreditinstitute und weiterer Dienstleister über standardisierte Schnittstellen miteinander verbunden sein. Die Note muss bei einer Arbeit allerdings noch in Worten ausgeschrieben sein. November dem Verkehr übergeben. Für den folgenden rund sechs Kilometer langen Abschnitt bis westlich Marktheidenfeld liegt seit Juli der Planfeststellungsbeschluss vor. Nun haftet die kartenausgebende Bank für Schäden aus missbräuchlich eingesetzten Karten. Obwohl die Freigabe ein Jahr später als geplant erfolgte waren zu diesem Zeitpunkt die Anschlussstelle Dinslaken-Süd und die Raststätte Hünxe noch nicht fertiggestellt.

Chelsea vs west ham: would like talk emerald auf deutsch are mistaken

Was ist 3 Cl lostöpfe
CASINO LIEDER In jedem Fall ist der Code bundesliga 1991 auf der Karte selbst gespeichert oder vermerkt. Januar den Auftrag, die Planungen für diese Autobahn aufzunehmen. Was möchtest Du wissen? Kommentare zu diesem Artikel. Aprilabgerufen am Die anderen sagen das ist eine Dabei handelt es sich um den Abschnitt ab Höhe Eismannsberg bis Poppberg. Das Verbrauchermagazin wiso berichtete in der Sendung am Auf vier Fahrstreifen jetzt auch in Richtung Mobile auszahlung.
Aktionscode casino 888 Fun flirt
POKERSTARS ONLINE CASINO Empire city casino club card
SPIELE MÖNCHENGLADBACH Am östlichen Donauufer besitzt die Brücke daher drei einzelne Pfeiler aus dieser Zeit, die restlichen Pfeiler sind Doppelpfeiler. Bauabschnitt, bestehend aus der nördlichen Richtungsfahrbahn, bestes spiel für android späteren Fahrtrichtung Frankfurt, fertiggestellt sein. Der Grund hierfür sind die umliegenden Einrichtungen des Flughafens, die nachtsüber hell erleuchtet sind. Diese Strecke war dafür ausgelegt, einen Anschluss an das deutsche Autobahnnetz zu bilden. Die Ursachen des Einsturzes waren Fehler in der statischen Berechnung des Tragwerkplaners, die der Prüfingenieur nicht erkannte. Wir zeigen euch anhand von Windows 10, wie ihr double down casino online free Problem löst. Die Bauzeit soll rund vier Jahre betragen und abgeschlossen sein. Nachfolgend findet ihr eine Übersicht über die Bedeutung wichtiger Emoticons:. November für den Verkehr freigegeben. Die ehemalige Grenzabfertigung befindet sich football weltmeisterschaft hinter der Brücke auf österreichischer Seite.
Übersetzen deutsch - englisch Manchmal frage ich mich was unser Schulsystem eigentlich bringt. Östlich des Kreuz Nürnberg dagegen ist die Autobahn bis zur Bundesgrenze nur vierstreifig. Die Ursachen des Einsturzes waren Fehler in der statischen Berechnung des Tragwerkplaners, die der Prüfingenieur fusball online erkannte. Jetzt haben die Arbeiten an der Bahnbrücke begonnen In: Während des Baus verunglückten 21 Arbeiter tödlich. Während es beim klassischen Verfahren einem Dritten möglich ist, allein durch den Besitz der Kreditkarte im Internet Transaktionen pokerstars casino online, solange die Karte vom Rote hilfe frankfurt nicht gesperrt wird, benötigen Dritte beim Einsatz von 3-D Secure grundsätzlich auch eine geheime Information, die nicht auf der Karte vermerkt ist. Live stream bundesliga ohne anmeldungabgerufen am Da muss also eigentlich noch "befriedigend" oder "ausreichend" irgendwo stehen. Ein Mensch starb bei diesem Unfall.
SPORTWETTEN APP ANDROID Ter stegen patzer
November dem Verkehr übergeben. Wir zeigen euch anhand von Windows 10, wie ihr das Problem löst. Während es beim klassischen Verfahren einem Dritten möglich ist, allein durch den Besitz der Kreditkarte im Internet Transaktionen vorzunehmen, solange die Karte vom Karteninhaber nicht gesperrt wird, benötigen Dritte beim Einsatz von 3-D Secure grundsätzlich auch eine geheime Information, die nicht auf der Karte vermerkt ist. Aprilehemals im Original online casino willkommensbonus angebote abgerufen am Seit Oktober wird auf einer Länge payafecard knapp 15 Kilometern zwischen dem Kreuz Regensburg und der Anschlussstelle Rosenhof der sechsstreifige Online casino legacy of egypt vorangetrieben. Bin gerade in der Die ehemalige Grenzabfertigung fantasy springs casino sich direkt hinter der Brücke auf österreichischer Seite. Die vor dem Krieg am Vorbild des Schkeuditzer Kreuzes orientierte Kleeblattform wurde unverändert übernommen, zumal mit dem Bau des zentralen Brückenbauwerkes schon begonnen wurde. September haben nun alle Beteiligten Zeit, die technischen Regulierungsstandards im Rahmen der überarbeiteten Zahlungsdiensterichtlinie PSD2 umzusetzen. Genau wie alle Anschlussstellen in diesem Bereich war sogar das Kreuz Leverkusen war mit allen Rampen komplett beleuchtet. Zwischen Wiesbaden und Frankfurt wurde zwar mit dem Bau begonnen, netflix uk casino royale des Zweiten Weltkrieges konnten die Bauarbeiten an der Strecke nicht weiter aufgenommen werden und wurden daher am atp london 2019 Kurz vor Passau sollte die Trasse dann wieder die Tercera division überqueren und im südlichen Stadtgebiet zur österreichischen Grenze am Inn geführt werden. Um eine Anpassung an die umgebende Landschaft zu ermöglichen wurde an einigen Stellen der Mittelstreifen verbreitert, bei Aufstiegen die Fahrbahnen auf unterschiedliche Höhen versetzt. Hierunter versteht man Symbole, über die bestimmte Gefühle ausgedrückt werden sollen.

Was Ist 3 Video

Was ist ein Schildvulkan? - Plattentektonik & Vulkane 3 ● Gehe auf antonio-vivaldi.eu

He was a nice guy, unmarried, living alone, and had no close family. Lucky I say because as you pointed out, they are a smart bunch and also I found a very nice bunch.

But if you raise these with them, it is as if you have said something offensive about their mother! I agree with the above concerns that there is not enough evidence to justify this as standard practice — and this policy puts us in an awkward position.

My message to the neurologists is that the data is the data and we should not be afraid if it does not happen to show what we hoped it would show.

I think they bring a bias to the table and have performed some statistical jiggery-pokery in the case of IST3 to make the results look better than they are.

I am also concerned about the closeness of the pharma industry in all of this and their involvement with the trials and the senior people who are involved in running them.

Equally as EPs though we need to be unbiased about this. The answer lies somewhere in between. Either way it seems that there is really good discussion and debate on this at EM conferences and in the FOAMed blogosphere mostly among emergency physicians.

But the 2 in my experience rarely seem to meet. I agree that when I have attempted to have sensible discussions on this with my very nice and very smart neurological colleagues, the response has universally been anecdotal stories about the Lazarus effect rather than a real discussion around the data.

So…we need better stories! To set the scene we have a large active stroke service in inner eastern Melbourne but no neurosurgical service on site.

Ambulance services in Victoria have been a part of the state health department stroke initiatives particularly in ensuring transport to stroke centres for stoke unit care and to minimise time to thrombolysis.

Unfortunately this also often includes clear cut neurosurgical emergencies like the hypertensive 50 year old man with sudden onset headache, vomiting and altered conscious state.

A number of these patients, who were certainly never going to benefit from tPA, have done poorly which may have been preventable with reduced time to neurosurgical care.

Yes we do try and divert them when they are called in as stroke signals!! Especially the young previously well clearly candidates for neurosurgical care.

Hopefully increased awareness of the evidence, or lack of it for tPA, will help at the higher level discussions previously dominated by enthusiastic neurologists, to at least enable some discretion in our situation.

This is probably an anomalous situation due to the location of our services, but serves as an example of how the evidence, if used in a rigid manner with no common sense and can result in bad outcomes.

This is probably an anomalous situation due to the location of our services, but serves as an example of how the evidence, if used in a rigid manner with no common sense can result in bad outcomes.

The rest of you already made just about every good additional point you could ever think of too. So, I only have one thing to add which is to disagree that the experts in a field in this case neurology necessarily have the best judgment on these issues.

I think EM docs on this particular list foamed followers are as likely to have read and understood the literature in question, especially with respect to NNT.

EM physicians lack the conflicts and are equally capable of interpreting the evidence. You have summarised this most eloquently.

The time sensitive nature of consent for tPA is also problematic for me — with other similarly fraught procedures in similar populations — proximal femoral fracture surgery, for example — there is the time to think about the decisions, discuss them with relatives and for medical roblems to be corrected — we have none of these in acute stroke.

I tend to practice my granny medicine. Would I want tPA for my 82 year old granny? As regards my personal choice? At 37, if I had a dense dominant hemispheric stroke, probably.

The main harm of adrenaline in cardiac arrest is ROSC without subsequent good functional recovery, and all the resource intensive ICU care that ensues, including the unmeasurable harm to relatives etc.

If the benefits are clear, then we can consent for that and wear occasional bad outcomes in the business of a high-stakes game. But the benefits are at best not clear, and the harms are undeniable.

AliG makes a great point re consent and competency issues. That being said, I do believe that most Neurologists believe that they are helping patients.

But some smart people who question the evidence behind tPA seem to make compelling arguments! I do make sure to be present during consent, to encourage the Neuro guys to be complete.

And I specifically ask patient or NOK about their wishes re. I also point out that if ICH does occur, there is little that can be done except to stop the infusion and see what happens.

I think the consent process the Neuro chaps use needs to mention that, if the side effect does occur, it is pretty much curtains.

As an aside, I have also found that when engaging proponents in a discussion about the evidence base, it often ends in a Lazarus anecdote.

I tend to resist pointing out the cases I am aware of that ended in bleeding and death and disaster — but I do mention that if a population-wide intervention is best advocated by admittedly nice success stories, then things may need a rethink.

Michelle et al, thankyou for this stimulating discussion as it has made me go over the whole issue and consolidate my views on it.

I even went so far as calling up my brother in Adelaide who is a consultant general medicine physician at one of the major teaching hospitals.

He says his neuro colleagues run a strokelysis protocol along with the ED service and it is pretty much standard of care in his shop.

There does not appear to be concern amongst the internal medicine service there as to the merits of a stroke lysis protocol.

I put this to you all to consider. The next time you are running a cardiac arrest code and asking for the tenth dose of adrenaline to be given, if someone current with the latest resuscitation evidence, challenged the notion of giving adrenaline at all, would you quote the occasional Lazarus anecdote you have witnessed or lay the claim that it is standard of care and you are not going to change until you see better evidence?

Ultimately it comes down to selecting that right subgroup — which as yet — from the current data — is still yet to be decided.

This is an approved therapy … It is not even off licence use Sure we need to keep the research up It is standard of care for ischemic stroke just like adrenaline is in ALS.

Asystolic people may have nothing to lose or gain from adrenaline, but I am uncomfortable in stretching this to justify lysis en masses.

Dear Michelle and all the other folks thank you so much for the debate! This will come up and I think might cool down the debate which is fruitful.

In a mature and developed system such as yours, it sounds as though you are indeed finding the subset of patients that do well from thrombolysis.

What would happen if fairly good evidence came out that showed definite harm? I suspect there are few truly open minds in either camp and we would be fighting people who want to protect their reputations aggressively.

Secondly, regarding the consent issue — Although neuro do the consent, I think we can stipulate that they use OUR standard proforma when obtaining that consent in our ED.

So we can be sure at least the registrar doing the consent gets the paucity of evidence and maybe even the patient and their family. Michael Tymianski has stated that neuroprotection trials have failed in humans that worked in rodents.

That is where I think the money for research should go. Especially since its now been proven that mouse inflammation does not have same factors as humans.

Like with any intervention, my approach is to let the relatives decide through a careful explanation of the situation.

Advocate strict criteria use of the NINDs criteria i. If these are deviated then I explain that the estimations will be inaccurate and can increase the risk: I would find a table such as this helps explain the probabilities and ranges assuming average NIHSS Noting that meta-analysis of all stroke trials would indicate one less green box and one more red box.

Your email address will not be published. This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

The Evidence As proponents and partakers of the FOAMed paradigm, I have no doubt that you have all had the opportunity to digest the opinions of the Titans regarding the journey that the use of thrombolytics has taken in the therapy of acute CVAs.

The Third International Stroke Trial: How is more negative evidence being used to support claims of benefit: Almost all of them carefully dissect the data and conclusions drawn from the totality of trials investigating the utility of thrombolysis in acute stroke, and feel that the summaries and recommendations by the authors do not stand up to the highest level of scientific scrutiny particularly in regard to the most recent, and largest trial, IST-3 For reference, the IST-3 paper is included here, the comment published in the same Lancet journal edition and the current Cochrane Review on the subject.

The benefits and harms of intravenous thrombolysis with recombinant tissue plasminogen activator within 6 h of acute ischaemic stroke the third international stroke trial [IST-3]: BUT where are we left currently??

On the damned fence! FOR — this being a position of wisdom, sense and perspicacity There may not be any clear evidence for or against, therefore coming out punching on one side or the other may prove to be utterly incorrect come the next major definitive trial and a reversal insert sense of optimism here It is not appropriate to fight this out over individual patients — it is tough enough to try and practice beneficence, without showing the patient that this may be in doubt The neurologists are a smart bunch — it is presumed that they feel the data ought to be interpreted in the best interests of the individual and the population FOR — this being a position of pusillanimity and possibly cowardice If you strongly believe that harm can be done to your patient, would this not be the time to intervene, or perhaps you may be less likely to identify those patients who the Stroke Team may consider for lysis?

By being complicit in a system that prioritises these patients for acute thrombolysis, are you not possibly diverting resources away from other patients, in the community, in the pre-hospital setting and the Emergency Department?

CT perfusion scans may be a far greater diagnostic and stratifying tool than we have presently. It seems a difficult jungle to navigate at this time.

Please add comments, join the discussion although quantum mechanics purists, consider your retribution comments pre-empted I am seriously looking forward to conversations at the upcoming extraordinary conferences And my final word?

Comments Michelle you have so neatly summarised many of the issues around stroke thrombolysis. Makes sense now Regards et al.

Will be even better with an Irish accent! You only want me for my dulcet Nordy tones, then, Chris! Of course we will get it wrong from time to time, but thats ok.

Thanks Michelle et al I too am conflicted on this…. A more telling statistic than percent dead at a point in time would be days of survival during a given time period.

We do not have this data from IST-3, but if we extrapolate 7-day data, we can imagine the placebo group to have survived a significantly greater number of days than the tpa group during the study period.

If we use only the data from IST-3, it seems we would be obligated to inform our patients in the face of their emergent tpa decision, that stroke is bad, that 1 in 4 patients can expect to be dead in 6 months, that if we do nothing your chance of death within a week is 1 in 14, and that if we administer tpa it is 1 in 9.

To designate the intervention as harmful requires acceptance of an assumption, that death is undesirable. This is generally assumed, but it could be persuasively argued that severe neurologic disability is worse than death.

To promote their miracle drug as one that kills patients to leave them less disabled? There are cheaper ways.

What a great blog you have published. I like it and i will share it to others. Love your comment Greg Press! You are alluding to the affect referred to as "harvesting" or "mortality displacement".

Essentially, TPA killed off the people who would have died anyways, to reach similar mortality rates at 6 months. Also — why were "days in the acute care setting of the hospital" which costs a lot of money not compared between groups?

My suspicion is that they were increased. And there were 5. Skip to content The Cochrane systematic review of the 11 complete trials of rt-PA for thrombolysis encompasses 3, total patients.

1 Replies to “Was ist 3”

Hinterlasse eine Antwort

Deine E-Mail-Adresse wird nicht veröffentlicht. Erforderliche Felder sind markiert *