from what I know, the lidco system is recommended for all high risk surgery...but will find out more when I go hospital next. btw...up today as recommended by Faraday
29 Mar '14
to see a quick recovery i guess A.and E will be busy with lots of sticky plasters for the bears caught short
15 Mar '14
Cardiac output monitoring
Please note - my comments are not directed at LiDCO alone, but at all companies that claim their technology improves outcomes from major surgery by measuring/monitoring cardiac output. I have no direct links to any of these companies, and neither do I engage in any social activities (unlike many of the researchers who publish studies with these companies that fund their trials and research departments). The next generation of devices may be better at delineating individual physiological changes but at present I don't think we are there yet and the research data confirms this.
15 Mar '14
I'm not suggesting you must choose; my point is the evidence does NOT YET PROVE that cardiac output monitoring improves outcome. If it was so amazing and had such potential to improve morbidity and mortality, then why does the data need to be played with in order to demonstrate efficacy. Probably because in a very small, selective, sub-group of patients this technology might possibly improve care but it is unlikely to make a difference in many patients especially those who are otherwise fit but undergoing major surgery. The inherent bias in all of these studies is the way in which this monitoring forces clinicians to focus more on individual patient care - it isn't necessarily the technology per se making the improvements, but rather the additional time/effort spent looking at the patient because of a protocol. Feel free to invest in this, but I still don't believe human physiology can be pinned to a series of algorithms based on assumptions and sometimes even cadaveric data, especially when you have complex elderly patients undergoing major surgery. This technology is easier to standardise using fit and healthy middle aged subjects to derive such algorithms and I don't believe they are as reliable in medically unwell patients which is principally why we have to play with the data or make so many excuses as to why the data lacks statistical significance let alone clinical significance.
14 Mar '14
you would still have an anaesthetist or intensive care doctor with 20 years of experience proving/assisting with treatment - this technology is not instead of that. its just a way of improving the outcome of treatment further.
13 Mar '14
I often glance at this stock especially after an RNS recently quoted a paper published by one of my colleagues. Whilst there is evidence that GDT (targetting oxygen delivery to tissues) might result in clinical improvements, my personal opinion is the jury is still out there. Technology like this (and ALL the other devices claiming similiar health benefits) are based on complex algorithms and numerous assumptions. Human physiology is so complex and I do not think the technology currently available accurately reflects individual physiological responses but rather generalised predictions. I would much rather have an anaesthetist or intensive care doctor with 20 years of experience deliver my treatement, rather than rely on a device which is based on mathematical algorithms and assumptions. That's not to say the comany is not investible. As a professional it pains me to see such bias in publications which are further publicised by the RNS feeds. Why don't they publish the numerous studies that don't show any benefit? Or the ones that demonstrate harm?
Datafeed and UK data supplied by NBTrader and Digital Look.
While London South East do their best to maintain the high quality of the information displayed on this site,
we cannot be held responsible for any loss due to incorrect information found here. All information is provided free of charge, 'as-is', and you use it at your own risk.
The contents of all 'Chat' messages should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Limited, or its affiliates.
London South East does not authorise or approve this content, and reserves the right to remove items at its discretion.