Richard Oeckler

5.5K posts

Richard Oeckler banner
Richard Oeckler

Richard Oeckler

@roeckler

Critical Care doc, physiologist, & vent whisperer at the WFMC. Conservationist. Buckthorn eradicator. Reformed skier.

Hopefully somewhere in the GYE Katılım Nisan 2009
2.4K Takip Edilen2.5K Takipçiler
Richard Oeckler retweetledi
Lawrence Lynn
Lawrence Lynn@PatientStormDoc·
The “guideline vs personalized medicine” debate at #SCCM2024 sidesteps the real PRO–CON question. The primary issue facing the science issue isn’t personalization, it’s whether the present method critical care syndrome guideline derivation itself is valid. Specifically why has transport from guessed, cause-agnostic, threshold-based, triage-gated RCTs produced so much public harm? And is this even mathematically defensible? Will those questions be raised or debated openly? Unlikely. Instead, expect a “synthetic debate”: a superficial exchange that avoids questioning the underlying scientific methods themselves.
Lawrence Lynn@PatientStormDoc

We can’t pretend the lack of reform in critical care guideline derivation is a neutral choice. Petty & Bone’s modified, cause-agnostic RCT design, the current standard, has the longest and worst record of producing guideline reversals for harm of any clinical testing to transport methodology. Their 1980s departure from Fisher/Hill, to a triage-gated, threshold-based, synthetic syndrome enrollment, is not just weak; it is mathematically indefensible as a basis for causal transport to guidelines. Its real-world track record has been even worse. We all once thought those modified RCTs were valid. There is no shame but you can no longer ignore both mathematical indefensibility AND mathematically predictably harmful results of that guideline derivation method. The link below outlines the actual history of synthetic syndrome guideline derivation. If you won’t engage, at least send this link to your fellows so the discussion can move forward. Better yet, send a few who are willing to debate syndrome based guideline science openly. Let’s get this in the open where real science belongs. No more “silence defense”. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41402862/

English
0
1
5
635
Richard Oeckler
Richard Oeckler@roeckler·
First bluebirds of the season in SE MN. March 8, 2026.
Richard Oeckler tweet media
English
0
0
2
73
Richard Oeckler retweetledi
Lawrence Lynn
Lawrence Lynn@PatientStormDoc·
Here you see scientists mocking @DrJBhattacharya’s call for combined cutting edge research and reproducibility. Let’s look at the actual history: •~80+ RCTs of corticosteroids in sepsis since the 1970s, using multiple changing consensus entry criteria (SIRS → SIRS+ → SOFA) •~18 RCTs of corticosteroids in ARDS, across several different ARDS definitions. •~15 RCTs of corticosteroids in community-acquired pneumonia, often mixing influenza and non-influenza etiologies. •0 adequately powered RCTs of corticosteroids in pure influenza pneumonia (because influenza was routinely lumped into CAP). And on top of this: •Dozens of meta-analyses, roughly 20–30 in sepsis, 10+ in ARDS, and 10+ in CAP. re-pooling heterogeneous trials built on shifting synthetic-syndrome definitions. What followed? •Polarity-switching guidelines. •Strong recommendations based on pooled averages from causally heterogeneous cohorts. •Silence on influenza in CAP guidelines Now that REMAP-CAP steroid arms were halted for harm, this could force yet another round of meta-analysis and guideline revision. This is five decades of “RCT → meta-analysis → guideline → reversal.” It’s printing money. No deep introspection. No deep failure-mode analysis. But loud criticism when the NIH Director asks for more than “RCT, rinse, repeat.” How is a young investigator supposed to innovate in a science monopoly where indoctrinated consensus panels next guess the latest synthetic-syndrome thresholds that determine funding eligibility? All of this harmful failure with NO causal modeling. Everything taught by @yudapearl and colleagues left on the bookshelf. When a field of clinical science protests this loudly and mocks a leader calling for reform, it usually means the critique is landing and the ongoing patient harm has not been mitigated.
Ann L. Jennerich, MD MS ATSF@aclong111

Worth a read. I also got stuck on the tension between “cutting edge” and replication.

English
2
2
13
5.4K
Richard Oeckler retweetledi
Gustavo Cortes-Puentes, M.D.
Gustavo Cortes-Puentes, M.D.@DrivingPressure·
VentCoach was feasible in the ICU—no protocol-related adverse events or workflow disruptions. It was non-inferior to standard LPV, with signals for lower mechanical power (lung energy) and possibly less sedation. Next: larger trials. #CriticalCare #MechanicalVentilation #ARDS 💪
Gustavo Cortes-Puentes, M.D.@DrivingPressure

Mechanical power guided lung protective ventilation in acute respiratory failure using the #VentCoach approach! nature.com/articles/s4159…

English
1
3
7
618
Richard Oeckler retweetledi
Diego Ketamino
Diego Ketamino@DiegoEscarraman·
Línea arterial: cuando la forma de la onda importa #AventhoAnestesia #Aventho #SMMCE #SAML La línea arterial no solo mide presión: mide cómo el sistema transmite la presión. Para que la señal sea confiable, dos parámetros biofísicos son clave: 1️⃣Frecuencia natural (Fn) Es la capacidad del sistema catéter–tubo–transductor para responder a cambios rápidos. Debe ser muy superior a la frecuencia cardiaca (ideal >100 Hz). Si la Fn es baja →onda se distorsiona y PAS puede ser falsa 2️⃣Coeficiente de amortiguamiento (ζ) Describe cuánta energía se pierde en el sistema. • ζ bajo → subamortiguado → PAS artificialmente alta • ζ alto → sobreamortiguado → PAS falsamente baja • Óptimo: ζ ≈ 0.6–0.7 ✅Flush test (onda cuadrada) Permite evaluar Fn y ζ en la práctica: – 1–2 oscilaciones → sistema confiable – >2 oscilaciones → subamortiguado – <1 oscilación → sobreamortiguado ⚠️ Importante: una PAM “normal” no garantiza una onda correcta. Un sistema mal amortiguado altera la presión de pulso, la morfología sistólica y las decisiones hemodinámicas. 💡Mensaje clave La línea arterial no miente por el número, miente por la física.
Diego Ketamino tweet media
Español
0
49
192
23.2K
Richard Oeckler retweetledi
Richard Oeckler
Richard Oeckler@roeckler·
We generate 300-500 L of CO2/day. But CO2 stores in chronic retainers may be unrecognized and complicate treatment. Dr. Selim emphasizes the need to employ strategies for mobilizing and offloading CO2 stores.
Richard Oeckler tweet mediaRichard Oeckler tweet mediaRichard Oeckler tweet media
English
0
4
3
335
Richard Oeckler
Richard Oeckler@roeckler·
Dr Bernardo Selim further explores hypercapnic failure & its treatment. The issue is not the device. It is the patient and what the patient needs. Chronic compensated hypercapnic failure is NOT ok - these patients have a 9% ⬆️ mortality for each ⬆️ 5 mmHg CO2 above normal.
Richard Oeckler tweet mediaRichard Oeckler tweet mediaRichard Oeckler tweet mediaRichard Oeckler tweet media
English
1
3
4
427
Richard Oeckler retweetledi
Gustavo Cortes-Puentes, M.D.
Gustavo Cortes-Puentes, M.D.@DrivingPressure·
Mechanical Power ⚡ vs 4DPRR 🧮 vs Driving Pressure 📉 — which metric best captures the energy we deliver to the lung? Dr. Francesca Collino unpacked the science behind these measures and what they mean for protecting our patients. #MayoVentilation #ARDS #MechanicalPower
Gustavo Cortes-Puentes, M.D. tweet mediaGustavo Cortes-Puentes, M.D. tweet media
English
0
6
7
1.1K
Richard Oeckler
Richard Oeckler@roeckler·
Dr. Francesca Collino emphasizes that we should be individualizing care by physiology, using tools rooted in physiology - driving pressure, the mechanical power, and 4DPRR. Mayo Mechanical Ventilation 2025
Richard Oeckler tweet mediaRichard Oeckler tweet mediaRichard Oeckler tweet mediaRichard Oeckler tweet media
English
1
6
8
540