Prof. John Myburgh: "Reductionism vs Numerology: why less is best"
The optimal treatment of vulnerable, critically ill patients depends primarily on two factors: the patient's innate response to the insult (host response) and minimising secondary insults (iatrogenesis). The host response is primarily genetically determined, but the adequacy of this response is influenced by associated co-morbidities and environmental factors such as access to effective health care. In this context, the greatest impact on human survival has evolved from advances in preventive medicine, public health initiatives, universal health access, and medical technology. While Intensive Care Medicine has resulted in major improvements in the care of critically ill patients, many of the fundamental interventions have evolved through physiologically-based paradigms, often predicated on normalising short-term variables, clinical measurements, or surrogate clinical endpoints. When many of these strategies are tested in comparative effectiveness studies, evidence of adverse impacts on patient-centered outcomes has emerged that is often attributed to iatrogenic injury. While some technological advances have delivered substantial benefits, the safety and efficacy of these technologies have not been evaluated by high-quality studies. This technological imperative is associated with inexorable indication creep, overuse, and misapplication of related strategies that are applied with little consideration of adverse down-stream consequences that independently affect patient-centered outcomes. Coupled with non-validated management bundles and clinical practice guidelines, the art and science of medicine is lost, so that effective treatment directed at augmenting the innate host response over the course and trajectory of critical illness becomes obscured.
Duration: 51 min