> Let’s be realistic here - if you are requiring a tracheostomy and ventilator, or ECMO the you are severely unwell.
Obviously. So why use these invasive procedures if a less invasive one could do the job with less risk?
> A blood transfusion, or small risk of infection is the least of your worries at that point.
Did you come straight from the 19th century or something? Hospital acquired infections kill hundreds of thousands of people every year. That's hardly a small worry.
> As with everything in medicine there is a risk:benefit ratio.
No shit. That's why there's interest in alternative procedures with less risk for the same benefit.
> If you need ECMO you literally cannot oxygenate your own blood even with a ventilator.
Unless… there's a new method that bypasses the lungs. Did you read the linked article?
Obviously. So why use these invasive procedures if a less invasive one could do the job with less risk?
> A blood transfusion, or small risk of infection is the least of your worries at that point.
Did you come straight from the 19th century or something? Hospital acquired infections kill hundreds of thousands of people every year. That's hardly a small worry.
> As with everything in medicine there is a risk:benefit ratio.
No shit. That's why there's interest in alternative procedures with less risk for the same benefit.
> If you need ECMO you literally cannot oxygenate your own blood even with a ventilator.
Unless… there's a new method that bypasses the lungs. Did you read the linked article?