Near drowning: consensus and controversies in pulmonary and cerebral resuscitation

Abstract

By consensus, the most clinically important consequence of near drowning is hypoxemia. Whether it is due to physiologic shunting induced by diffuse alveolar flooding from saltwater aspiration or to diffuse atelectasis induced by surfactant inactivation from freshwater aspiration, both physiologic disturbances can be reversed with the institution of positive-pressure breathing in the form of PEEP or CPAP, which should be the mainstay of pulmonary management of respiratory insufficiency in these patients. The use of prophylactic antibiotics or corticosteroids as an adjunct in the management of pulmonary insufficiency resulting from near drowning is not warranted, may be detrimental, and remains controversial. The most crucial clinical consequence of the hypoxemia resulting from near drowning is cerebral injury and the consequent neurologic sequelae. The general consensus supported by large clinical studies is that near-drowning victims who, after initial resuscitation, are spontaneously breathing and are not comatose have a uniformly benign neurologic outcome. A significant subset of comatose near-drowning victims survive with eventually normal neurologic recovery when routine aggressive supportive intensive care is administered. Uncontrolled studies reporting improved outcomes with the institution of complex cerebral salvage techniques, such as induction of hypothermia, intracerebral pressure monitoring, induction of barbiturate coma, and the use of corticosteroids and osmotic diuretics, remain controversial. It is now clear that neither induced hypothermia nor barbiturate coma improves survival or neurologic outcome in these patients and may be detrimental.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)