Mailing List Archive Mailing List Archive
On Wed, 21 Dec 1994, Prime Rat wrote: > Well, to put in my 0.05 cents worth (and someone MUST have said it already) > the main danger associated with IWR from a medical point of view is the risk > of O2 induced convulsions. If you have a protocol which can contain this > risk then I believe prompt treatment of DCI, even using the "slighly more > risky" IWR method is preferable to delaying treatment. There's also the issue of initial bubble growth after switching to 100% O2, and the problem of recompressing bubbles trapped in a not-so-damaging place, allowing them to lodge in a somewhat-more-damaging place. I'm not sure if this is really a serious theoretical problem, after your extremely informative posting a couple of days ago). Additionally, if anything other than pure O2 is included in protocols (and, all liability issues aside, I believe air/nitrox has a place in some IWR situations), then we have to wrestle with the risk of additional inert gas loading. > >why we have only 'anecdotal' accounts. I think it would be GREAT if DAN > >kept data on IWR, but when I suggested it last year, they didn't seem > >interested. If nobody else will do it, I will volunteer. > > Too bad about DAN... It wasn't so much that DAN responded negatively...It was more that they told me they do not already have any data on IWR attempts, and they made no offer to begin recording it. I haven't entirely given up on DAN as the data repository (they are MUCH better qualified for this sort of thing than am I). Perhaps I'll try to convince them to set up some fields in their database if I have the opportunity at Tek95. Many thanks for your response. Aloha, Rich deepreef@bi*.bi*.ha*.or*
Navigate by Author:
[Previous]
[Next]
[Author Search Index]
Navigate by Subject:
[Previous]
[Next]
[Subject Search Index]
[Send Reply] [Send Message with New Topic]
[Search Selection] [Mailing List Home] [Home]