Sign in

Nicholas Chrimes

@chrimesy.com
999 followers 345 following 1.1K posts

Anaesthetist | Creator Vortex Approach | Co-founder Safe Airway Society | Director Universal Airway (PUMA) Guidelines | ANZCA/ASA/NZSA Airway SIG Executive Member VortexApproach.org UniversalAirway.org SafeAirwaySociety.org EZDrugID.org

PostsRepliesMedia
Nicholas Chrimes @chrimesy.com · 14/11/2025
This is the original graphic before I simplified it. Pale blue lines represent lowest risk of cross reactivity.
More complex graphic showing cross reactivity of different NMBAs following previous allergic reaction.
110
Nicholas Chrimes @chrimesy.com · 14/11/2025
Ideally refer for testing to find safe agents. Odd that this was not done during previous skin testing. Otherwise pancuronium.
Algorithm indicating safest NMBA following prior allergic reaction to NMBA.
120
Nicholas Chrimes @chrimesy.com · 01/09/2025
I didn’t define virtue signalling, I simply stated that complaining about alt text was being used to virtue signal.
Dictionary
Definitions from Oxford Languages:

virtue signalling
noun

DEROGATORY

the public expression of opinions or sentiments intended to demonstrate one's good character or social conscience or the moral correctness of one's position on a particular issue.
100
Nicholas Chrimes @chrimesy.com · 01/09/2025
If you think it’s dangerous to remove the tube use a flexible bronchoscope to exclude oesophageal intubation.
Algorithm for the circumstance in which the criteria for sustained exhaled CO2 are unable to be satisfied. 

4 questions: 

1. Is removing the tube dangerous?
2. Is the SpO2 adequate?
3. Has oesophageal intubation been excluded?
4. Has sustained exhaled CO2 been restored?

If answer to ANY question is ‘NO’ then remove tube & ventilate with an alternate device.

If answer to ALL questions is ‘YES’ tube may be left in situ. 

DO NOT USE CLINICAL SIGNS TO EXCLUDE OESOPHAGEAL INTUBATION 

Criteria for sustained exhaled CO2:
1. Level rises during expiration & falls during inspiration

2. Consistent or increasing amplitude over at least 7 breaths

3. Peak amplitude > 1kPa (7.5mmHg)

4. Reading is clinically appropriate
120
Nicholas Chrimes @chrimesy.com · 31/08/2025
The incorporation of the Vortex into DAS 2018 was 3 fold: 1. Acknowledging the utility of the Vortex graphic as an adjunct to facilitate implementation of the guidelines. 2. The ability to approach choice of rescue lifelines non-linearly. 3. Prompts to optimise attempts
110
Nicholas Chrimes @chrimesy.com · 30/08/2025
You keep saying you use the DAS guidelines & never hear the Vortex mentioned, yet the Vortex is mentioned in both the 2015 & 2018 DAS guidelines. Perhaps the greatest support the Vortex has ever had has been from DAS. They’re adjuncts not alternatives.
110
Nicholas Chrimes @chrimesy.com · 30/08/2025
DAS acknowledged this in the 2015 @dasairway.bsky.social guidelines & incorporated the Vortex into their 2018 Critical Care guidelines. das.uk.com/guidelines/d... das.uk.com/guidelines/g...
032
Nicholas Chrimes @chrimesy.com · 16/08/2025
SBP of 50mmHg is frightening. This study shows middle cerebral artery blood flow velocity decreases 50% w *MAP* < 60mmHg pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26879693/
120
Nicholas Chrimes @chrimesy.com · 11/08/2025
Didn’t we work out that the environmental impact of volatiles is actually “vanishingly small”? pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38205585/
Here, we assert that when proper consideration is given to the science of climate change, volatile anaesthetic gas emissions cannot be simply equated to real carbon dioxide emissions, and that their climate impact is vanishingly small
310
Nicholas Chrimes @chrimesy.com · 09/08/2025
Ummm, no.
Incomprehensible AI generated “explanation” of the Vortex Approach to airway management. Meaningless graphic in which colour coding & labels in legend don’t match the colours & abbreviations on the graphic.
110
Nicholas Chrimes @chrimesy.com · 06/08/2025
Point 3 is the thrust of the editorial BUT to make that decision in a way that aligns with the patient’s rather than clinician’s values (thereby supporting patient autonomy rather than being paternalistic) a conversation about risk needs to be had.
Merely giving the patient
information, rather than expert guidance, may produce
suboptimal decisions and unnecessary stress [21].
Preserving patient autonomy is achieved by ensuring a
patient’s care aligns with their personal values. Whether any
outcome constitutes a material risk to a particular individual
is influenced by an array of factors, including personality;
experience; culture; age; sex; career; and lifestyle. It is
important that the anaesthetist has the ability to recognise
when patient values and priorities differ from their own.
Determining this essentially requires a reversal of the flow of
information; rather than providing information so that the
patient can make decisions, the emphasis should be on
acquiring information so that the clinician can make
management decisions in line with the patient’s stated
values. This information may be derived during the consent
process, elsewhere in the patient consultation or from other
sources.Seeking information that reveals the relative importance
of complications to the patient, facilitates anaesthetists using
their expertise to make complex judgements about how best
to trade off the competing risks associated with anaesthetic
alternatives that patients cannot be expected to make, whilst
ensuring these align with patient values. Based on this, the
anaesthetist should seek explicit permission from the patient
to make decisions on their behalf about what constitutes the
safest and most effective anaesthetic There is a fine line between empowering expert
clinicians to make value-based decisions after discussion
with their patients and the re-emergence of paternalism.
What distinguishes this approach from paternalism is that
the clinician is using their expertise to make decisions torpretive model´ [23] aligns with anaesthetic
care as it describes a circumstance where the patient is often
unaware of the relevant information and how their values
might affect the delivery of care. It allows the clinician to
determine the vulnerabilities and concerns of an individual
and then use their expertise to deliver the most appropriate
care, augmenting rather than diminishing patient
autonomy. This is consistent with the concept of autonomy
as a multidimensional capacity, requiring not only the
cognitive ability to make rational decisions but additional
aspects such as understanding, intentionality and freedom
from external constraints, which the patient may require
support from others to attain
122
Nicholas Chrimes @chrimesy.com · 06/08/2025
Except that: 1. You don’t necessarily have to have the surgery. 2. Even if you do have the surgery there are multiple ways to do the same thing, each with different risks, that can be chosen according to complications which the patient is particularly vulnerable to or concerned about.
121
Nicholas Chrimes @chrimesy.com · 04/08/2025
Montgomery also says "anything the clinician is or should reasonably be aware that a particular person would consider significant". So if you are aware or even suspect that a specific patient might have a particular (though objectively unreasonable) concern about, that's a material risk.
000
Nicholas Chrimes @chrimesy.com · 04/08/2025
I'm far too young to remember that. 😉 (actually I loved the Rockford Files speaking of James Garner)
110
Nicholas Chrimes @chrimesy.com · 04/08/2025
Awareness can be viewed as both a harmful outcome and a mechanism for harm. It's an unpleasant experience in its own right and a potential precipitant for psychological injury.
000
Nicholas Chrimes @chrimesy.com · 03/08/2025
That’s a common approach but anyone can have awareness & it’s entirely reasonable for a patient to say “if I’d known that was a risk, I wouldn’t have had this done” (or would have asked if you could have done things differently to reduce the likelihood) about any rare catastrophic risk.
110
Nicholas Chrimes @chrimesy.com · 03/08/2025
It doesn’t matter what the doctor considers a material risk, nor does it necessarily have to be a risk that a ‘reasonable person’ would consider material. It can just be something the doctor should reasonably be aware that a particular patient might consider significant (however unreasonably).
100
Nicholas Chrimes @chrimesy.com · 03/08/2025
Categorical terms are unhelpful in isolation but can be useful in assoc w descriptors to aid conceptualisation. We speculate that it may be easier for pts to conceptualise likelihood if descriptors are framed in terms of how often clinicians encounter them cf proportion of pts experiencing them.
Table from ‘The paradox of informed consent’ providing descriptors for categorical incidence levels common/uncommon/rare based on how frequently they are encountered by anaesthetists.
001
Nicholas Chrimes @chrimesy.com · 02/08/2025
Here’s an example of how potentially harmful outcomes of anaesthesia can be categorised into 6 groups. From ‘The paradox of informed consent’. Free for a limited time in @anaesjournal.bsky.social 🔓🔑⏳ associationofanaesthetists-publications.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1...
Table showing 6 categories of potential harmful consequences from anaesthesia (adverse experiences, psychological injury, physical injury, disability/death, additional interventions & additional care) with examples of each.
002
Nicholas Chrimes @chrimesy.com · 02/08/2025
Yet 70L/min (mouth closed) consistently provides ETO2 >90% (while 70L/min mouth open is consistently crap)
Whiteboard showing results of measuring ETO2 following 3 mins of HFNO at 70L with mouth closed as 90% & mouth open as 53%.Whiteboard showing results of measuring ETO2 following 3 mins of HFNO at 70L with mouth closed as 93% & mouth open as 36%.Whiteboard showing results of measuring ETO2 following 3 mins of HFNO at 70L with mouth closed as 94% & mouth open as 44%.
120
Nicholas Chrimes @chrimesy.com · 02/08/2025
But as the uncommon risks are the catastrophic ones it’s very difficult to mount an argument that they don’t constitute ‘material risks’ to the patient that necessitate consent.
010
Nicholas Chrimes @chrimesy.com · 02/08/2025
When engaging in the consent process should we be alerting patients to *mechanisms* of harm or to harmful *outcomes*? ‘The paradox of informed consent’ Free full text in @anaesjournal.bsky.social for a limited time. associationofanaesthetists-publications.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1...
Informed decisions about whether to accept or refuse an
intervention require appreciation of the harmful
consequences impacting patient experience (e.g. pain,
disability, additional interventions, death) or patient values
(whether explicitly stated, e.g. blood transfusion in a
Jehovah’s Witness, or inferred from societal expectations,
e.g. obtaining permission to insert a suppository), which
could arise from these choices. In contrast, complications
that are physiological disturbances (acidosis, hypoxaemia,
hypotension); pathological processes (haemorrhage,
anaphylaxis, aspiration); or technical issues (endobronchial
intubation, equipment failure, drug error) represent
mechanisms of harm rather than consequences for the
patient. The nature of these mechanisms may not be
understood by patients and their implications for outcome
are highly variable, sometimes unknown, potentially
insignificant and not necessarily intuitive. A patient’s
acceptance of a given mechanism for harm, the
consequences of which may range from nothing to severe
disability or death, may result in significant over- or
underestimation of risk, undermining decision-making and
compromising autonomy. Conversely, unless it impacts
their experience or values, it seems implausible that a
patient would accept a given overall risk of a specific
complication contributed to by one mechanism of harm but
not another. Disclosing mechanisms of harm may at best be
unnecessary, and at worst represent an overload of baffling
technical information that the Montgomery ruling specifies
does not fulfil the doctor’s duty of disclosure
112
Nicholas Chrimes @chrimesy.com · 01/08/2025
I’m simply floating an idea. Consenting for mechanisms of harm has always been the convention but we should examine why we do this & whether or not it contributes to autonomous decision making. Perhaps we need to consent for consequences to the patient instead.
Table showing categories of harmful outcome (adverse experiences, psychological injury, physical injury, disability/death, need for additional interventions & need for additional care) with examples of specific harms for each.
021
Nicholas Chrimes @chrimesy.com · 01/08/2025
That’s a bit different from the original 1985 description. Even after 3 got altered & 4 added w the Samsoon modification in 1987, I’ve never heard of the tonsils getting involved!
310
Nicholas Chrimes @chrimesy.com · 31/07/2025
From the ‘similar articles’ it seems it’s been done quite a lot, with a distinct theme emerging… I love “fair interrater reliability beyond that expected by chance”. Really setting a low bar there. ASA Status, not perfect but better than a coin toss!
We found only fair agreement among anaesthetists in assigning ASA class to ten fictitious patients, which was no better than that observed in earlier studies. Further, the range of scores assigned to standard patients' histories by anaesthetists supports earlier concerns about the robustness of this classification.Overall correlation was only fair in all groups (Kappa indices: 0.21-0.4). We found that the current pattern of inter-observer inconsistency of classification was similar to that 20 years ago and exaggerated between locally and overseas trained specialists (P<0.05).Consistent with its inherent subjectivity, the ASA-PS scale has moderate inter-rater reliability in clinical practice.This study demonstrates fair interrater reliability beyond that expected by chance of the ASA PS scores among anesthesiologists and trauma surgeons when assessing adult polytrauma patients.
230
Nicholas Chrimes @chrimesy.com · 27/07/2025
3-step guide to mastering #HAVL from @cliffreid.bsky.social 1. Watch the video m.youtube.com/watch?v=aYo7... 2. Read the stepwise guide drive.google.com/file/d/14r_W... 3. Deliberate team practice (rinse & repeat)
156
Nicholas Chrimes @chrimesy.com · 27/07/2025
More detailed video tutorial with me & Cliff here… m.youtube.com/watch?v=aYo7...
011
Nicholas Chrimes @chrimesy.com · 24/07/2025
If you’re a Billy Joel fan, the doco “And So It Goes” on HBOMax is fantastic.
020
Nicholas Chrimes @chrimesy.com · 23/07/2025
This would seem to be the essence of it…
065
Nicholas Chrimes @chrimesy.com · 23/07/2025
Risk of neurological injury w spinal is so rare that even if it were 10 x greater w clopidogrel you’d never power a study to detect it. While it would still be extremely rare, for those affected it’s catastrophic. This pt populatn is often difficult to monitor for early signs of neurol injury.
152
Nicholas Chrimes @chrimesy.com · 23/07/2025
There’s many factors at play but are we in any position to weigh them up in a meaningful way to tailor anaesthesia? There’s no clear evidence (I’m aware of) for benefit of GA vs spinal. Haematoma risk of spinal will be higher on clopidogrel but actual risk is impossible to study.
252
Nicholas Chrimes @chrimesy.com · 19/07/2025
040
Nicholas Chrimes @chrimesy.com · 06/07/2025
😉
211
Nicholas Chrimes @chrimesy.com · 04/07/2025
😉
230
Nicholas Chrimes @chrimesy.com · 04/07/2025
FB isn't inherently complicated but most people struggle with it bc the basics are badly taught. I'd been practising for decades before someone explained things like this to me...
010
Nicholas Chrimes @chrimesy.com · 03/07/2025
That’s the love of my life, Ella. 😍
Beautiful, beautiful Ella. A Doberman with her front legs so elegantly crossed.
110
Nicholas Chrimes @chrimesy.com · 01/07/2025
For clarity, the same reusable & disposable blades both attach to their respective CMAC & GS workstation & handheld versions. Disposable & reusable HA blades equally good for GS but again I find the CMAC version a bit chunky. New CMAC-PM has a larger centralised screen like the GlideScope GO 2.
130
Nicholas Chrimes @chrimesy.com · 01/07/2025
For HAVL (cf Mac) both GlideScope & CMAC are excellent in either workstation (standalone screen) or handheld (integrated screen) versions. CMAC has advantage of a single adult & paed HA blade sizes. Choosing wrong size w GS can complicate Mx. GS reportedly much better local support than Storz.
130
Nicholas Chrimes @chrimesy.com · 01/07/2025
#NeuraxialChats 27G should be the default spinal needle. Discuss.
27G Whitacre spinal needle
210
Nicholas Chrimes @chrimesy.com · 30/06/2025
CMAC reusables are best Mac VL. Basically a standard Mac blade w a camera. Their disposables are weirdly bulky though.
230
Nicholas Chrimes @chrimesy.com · 30/06/2025
Due to negative feedback the horizontal flange on the disposable (but not reusable) blades was widened but the vertical flange remains inadequate on both. Comparison w standard Mac blade here…
131
Nicholas Chrimes @chrimesy.com · 30/06/2025
Interesting bc it seems like you were insisting on the definition debate fairly recently in this thread 🤷🏻‍♂️
100
Nicholas Chrimes @chrimesy.com · 29/06/2025
I’m supportive of gentle FMV in RSI but that study was an abomination for many reasons. I know about 20 clinicians w an interest in airway Mx (& widely published in the area) who submitted critical correspondence, NONE of which was published by @nejm.org. Here’s mine.
354
Nicholas Chrimes @chrimesy.com · 28/06/2025
More thoughts here… associationofanaesthetists-publications.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/...
020
Nicholas Chrimes @chrimesy.com · 28/06/2025
Universal HAVL: 100% grade 1 view & 1st pass success since 2020. 😘👌
6162
Nicholas Chrimes @chrimesy.com · 28/06/2025
Anyway, you just stick it in. Simple.
200
Nicholas Chrimes @chrimesy.com · 28/06/2025
What is your preferred handheld, all-in-one, videolaryngoscope?
1153
Nicholas Chrimes @chrimesy.com · 28/06/2025
The portable versions, GlideScope GO & CMAC-PM, have MUCH larger, higher resolution screens, allow recording & use the same blades as the large versions. They are INFINITELY superior to the McGrath, which is only marginally cheaper when you take into account that its batteries aren’t rechargeable.
142
Nicholas Chrimes @chrimesy.com · 28/06/2025
Think we need to be more specific than talking about GlideScope, CMAC & McGrath as the former two have both workstation & handheld versions. While workstation versions w large standalone screens have clear advantages, need to compare handheld versions w McGrath to be comparing apples with apples.
132
Nicholas Chrimes @chrimesy.com · 22/06/2025
Yeah I’m going to have a profile pic where I look like John Dutton! Temporarily out of frame, that’s all.
000