Why don't you put ice on a snake bite?

[DwayneEMTP]

My little theory is that the damage from the venom to the tissues causes it to be more susceptible to cold injury.

These are my very favorite posts of all. All discussion considered, some research done, and then the a willingness to hang ones hiney out to dry with an independent theory! Way cool.

Others do this as well of course, but I've come to give these types of posts the "Fiznat" award in my little brain...for what seems to me to be obvious reasons.

And if there is a frostbite issue in snake bites, where there doesn't seem to be in other injuries (not clear on this yet), this seems like as good a theory, or better, than than any others I can think of.

Cool thread all in all...

Dwayne

[DwayneEMTP]

So, bottom line is, ice not good. Ice bad. Even if ice weren't bad, it is still not good.

I think we're all on the same page up to this point... :wink:

What else is there to say about it?

What about the why?

The simple fact that IT DOES NOT HELP should be wholly sufficient discussion, for even the seriously scientific minded.

At this point I'm thinking someone has hijacked your computer...Unless this is in jest, I can't imagine this sentence coming from Dustdevil's fingers. The fact that is does not help should certainly be only the beginning of the discussion. I'm thinking someone pee'd in your grape nuts, (or you were being fascecious) or you would have been the first to make that point.

My God, the way some people whine about it, you'd think you just took an ALS skill from them.

And I'm completely lost here...

Dwayne

[AnthonyM83]

I think it should also be noted here that apoptosis (which can be helped by cooling, see stuff about cooling in cardiac arrest) is completely different than necrosis.

Apoptosis has been one of my favorite terms and words since 1997.

[Dustdevil]

At this point I'm thinking someone has hijacked your computer...Unless this is in jest, I can't imagine this sentence coming from Dustdevil's fingers. The fact that is does not help should certainly be only the beginning of the discussion. I'm thinking someone pee'd in your grape nuts, (or you were being fascecious) or you would have been the first to make that point.

Well, you are right that this morning has started off bad, so I am a little less patient than usual. Nobody peed in my Grape Nuts, but perhaps the fact that I got no breakfast at all is a contributing factor.

Anyhow, that statement didn't really come across as I meant it. I wasn't insinuating that we shouldn't be interesed in a discussion of the physiology of it all. You're right, that definitely isn't me. What I meant was that that fact it does not work should be all the discussion necessary in order to dismiss the practice itself. Not basing my opinion solely on this particular thread, but on hearing this discussion for the last ten years in various circles, I hear a lot of people trying desperately to justify continuing a disproven practice until somebody can prove it really hurts anything. Those people tend to only hear what they want to hear, and they simply don't want to hear anything that denies them the opportunity to "do something" in a situation where there is very little to nothing they can do. It's kind of an extension of the trauma/MAST/permissive hypertension thing. A lot of people just can't let go of the "theory" that low blood pressure must be raised, and consequently never get past that point to see the contrary evidence. Same as when you try to explain to an EMT with 3 weeks of first aid training that giving NTG to everybody who complains of some form of chest pain is a really bad idea, and you end up totally beating your head against the desk, because they refuse to understand. That's exactly what seems to be happening with the snakebite thing, and my point was that it is silly. But no, intelligent pathophysiological discussion is never wasted time, so long as your focus is objective.

And I'm completely lost here...

Yeah, again, I was talking about the attitude of the overall controversy, not just this particular discussion. Sorry for the confusion. :oops:

[CC64]

i found a lovely little paper from 1971 that said that cryotherapy for snakebites was bad. Sadly, the author didn't say why, just that animal studies showed no improvement to the dogs (they mostly died, actually, after getting injected with a lethal dose of rattlesnake venom), and the ones that were treated with cryotherapy showed an increase in local tissue necrosis. Here's the PubMed link

Google gave me links to another couple papers describing frostbite (small patches, approx 1% BSA in one patient), after they had been treated with cryotherapy by somebody who didn't know. Unfortunately, the summary didn't say if an ice pack or gel pack was used, and for how long. Here.

Another couple things about how an airline attendant got a 3rd degree burn after having dry-ice used in an ice pack to treat an injury. I just wish that I actually had better access to these articles on PubMed, but nope, no access from the individual journals, and I don't really feel up to devoting my next paycheck to purchasing these articles.

[WANTYNU]

Well, you are right that this morning has started off bad, so I am a little less patient than usual. Nobody peed in my Grape Nuts, but perhaps the fact that I got no breakfast at all is a contributing factor.

Boy, Dust, I was thinking the same thing… glad to hear it was hypoglycemia and not ureic acid poisoning…. :roll:

W-

btw I'm still waiting to hear back on the underling PHYSIOLOGICAL reason behind not using ice. (I KNOW ICE BAD...) :roll:

[DwayneEMTP]

...that statement didn't really come across as I meant it. I wasn't insinuating that we shouldn't be interesed in a discussion of the physiology of it all. You're right, that definitely isn't me. What I meant was that that fact it does not work should be all the discussion necessary in order to dismiss the practice itself.

Whew...I feel my world slowly shifting back onto it's normal axis.

I hear a lot of people trying desperately to justify continuing a disproven practice until somebody can prove it really hurts anything. Those people tend to only hear what they want to hear, and they simply don't want to hear anything that denies them the opportunity to "do something" in a situation where there is very little to nothing they can do.

Got it. Unfortunately, in my short time in EMS, I know exactly what you're talking about.

I've always felt these discussions were important, but so much more now that I've started my ambulance clinicals.

Example, an overheard conversation from a medic to some basics, (WARNING: this will make you cry...

Medic: "You know how kemo therapy works right?

Basics: "No, not really.

Medic: "Well, normal cells are round and smooth, cancer cells, because they are abnormal grow crooked and and get sharp edges. The kemo meds are sticky, so as they circulate through the body, they just sssssslide off of the normal cells, but get stuck in the roughness of the cancer cells, and it kills them!"

Basics: "Really? That's cool! I always wondered how that worked!"

:shock:

So it appears that maple syrup is the cure for cancer? (Then think what a miracle the stuff we used to cut out of Stretch Armstrong would be!)

Thanks to all for their thoughts in this thread. I love the questions/answers that make you follow your own logic tree through physiology/pathophysiology!

Have a great day all!

Dwayne

Edit One: To add that little bugged eyed shock thing.

Edit Two: To add this to explain my edits.

[WANTYNU]

So it appears that maple syrup is the cure for cancer?

COOL I LOVE Maple syrup!

W-

[JPINFV]

Example, an overheard conversation from a medic to some basics, (WARNING: this will make you cry...

Medic: "You know how kemo therapy works right?

Basics: "No, not really.

Medic: "Well, normal cells are round and smooth, cancer cells, because they are abnormal grow crooked and and get sharp edges. The kemo meds are sticky, so as they circulate through the body, they just sssssslide off of the normal cells, but get stuck in the roughness of the cancer cells, and it kills them!"

Basics: "Really? That's cool! I always wondered how that worked!"

And people still argue that paramedic shouldn't be at least a 2 year degree?

[Scaramedic]

It's kind of an extension of the trauma/MAST/permissive hypertension thing.

If this thread turns into a MAST pants debate I am coming to Iraq to for vengeance. :evil: