Talk:Induced coma

deleted paragraph

In Iraq war, induced coma is extensively used as stablizing method for gravely injured soldiers. Because soldiers used body armor extensively, many soldiers experience neurological damages and induced coma is performed to stablize. It is debated if induced coma further damages brain tissue and contributing to neurological disorders.

Which Iraq war? The current one involving the United States or one of the previous several? What type of neuological damage? How does that relate to the use of body armor? Why does that sentence repeat the same information given in the first sentence? Why does the last sentence restate information given earlier in the article?

I deleted this paragraph because it's poorly written and adds no value to the article. --TheLimbicOne(talk) 01:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Reworked

I have updated this to reflect the general nature of the term 'induced coma', and added some very basic information on the common agents used in ICUs. This topic still needs expansion - I will add more myself as I have time.

Taraine 03:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I applaud your willingness to contribute, but I see some problems with the text you added. None of it is wikified, which is fairly easily remedied. More concerning to me is that there are no references whatsoever. You make many assertions which are unproven or controversial, and some of the things you state are contradicted by the class A randomized trial literature. I'd particularly call on you to reference an authoritative source about any statement that you make which suggests that induced coma is beneficial. (For instance, it was not routinely used during major cardiothoracic operations in China until recently; heart operations were done on awake patients.) I do not suggest that induced coma has no beneficial role, but it has been interesting to me over the years that every class A trial of its role that I have read has demonstrated at best no benefit, and in many cases harm from the intervention.

You also mention irrelevant things such as 'fever' in this article. Induced coma has no effect on fever; although you don't suggest that it does, it's not clear why you're talking about fever at all. Similar criticisms are appropriate with respect to heart rate, respiratory rate, and muscular blockade; they are pertinent in the critical care setting, but not directly pertinent to a description of induced coma. You also make statements about "physiologic over reactions" as though you, or other physicians, knew with certainty what the appropriate physiological reaction ought to be in all cases. That is not accurate.

Since you deleted most of a pre-existing article - that happens to be linked on the Front Page at the moment - it's really on you to ensure that its replacement is at least as good as what you deleted, now and not at some indeterminate point in the future. While your article is more ambitious in scope, it does not meet minimum Wikipedia standards, and so I'm reverting it for the moment to the previous stub, which does.

 -Ikkyu2 03:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Deleted claim

I deleted the claim "The brain may swell to such proportions as to rupture and bleed out of the ears and even eyes." while updating references because I have not heard of this side-effect, nor could find a reference to it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bgross (talk • contribs) 05:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

This page is fairly useless

I have been searching the web for articles on induced coma and i must say that this page is one of the worst, despite ranking very high at google, due to the popularity of Wikipedia and its interlinkage system. First, the page needs a rewrite by someone who knows medicne. Second, it should link to other Wiki pages about people who have undergone treatment with induced coma -- e.g. Ariel Sharon, Randal MCloy Jr., Jeanna Giese (probably spelled that wrong -- the rabies survivor girl), etc. Good luck.

The references quoted in the controversy section have nothing at all to do with the conclusions stated.

See below ('This page is way out of date') for the first reference.

The last reference in the controversy section is beside the point. The Lund study aimed to answer the question "What is the quality of life in terms of intellectual functioning for those patients with very severe traumatic brain injuries who survive due to aggressive neurosurgical intensive care?" and the answer was, as you might expect, "between pretty good and pretty bad" -- which has a lot more to do with the "severe traumatic brain injuries" than with the "aggressive neurosurgical intensive care" (including induced coma). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.17.11.20 (talk) 09:18, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

This page is way out of date

Induced coma is now a very established treatment (at least in Australia) used to allow patients time to heal without pain, paticularly accident victims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.178.20 (talk) 13:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The first reference in the controversy section is to a paper published (at the time of this comment) a third of a century ago stating: "As soon as a more effective drug is available for the treatment of raised intracranial pressure, pentobarbital should be abandoned". Indeed.

Yes, I was wondering about that. My father was put into one for pneumonia just recently (he's 77) - David Gerard (talk) 15:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Barbiturate Withdrawal after Coma

If peolple are given barbiturates for a longer period of time, they should become physically dependend. This should mean that they have to go through a withdrawal after the coma, right? That is comparable (or even worse) to a benzodiazepin withdrawal. Is this question addressed by the clinical practice? Then it should be mentioned in the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.120.92.37 (talk) 15:57, 28 March 2018 (UTC)