How often does this podcast release new episodes?

This podcast updates bi-weekly.

Where can I listen to this podcast?

This podcast is available on 10 platforms including Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and more. You can also use the RSS feed directly.

Does this podcast accept guests?

Yes, this podcast regularly features guests.

Tasty Morsels of Critical Care

Claim This Podcast

by Andy Neill

4.9(44 reviews)

95 episodes

Updated Bi-weekly

Accepts GuestsHas SponsorsLocation 🇮🇪

Podcast Authority

Beta

FairBased on show quality, social media presence, reviews, charts, and more

Quality79

Social0

YouTube0

Engagement90

Learn more

Podcast Overview

Bite size chunks of critical care medicine targeted at fellowship exam preparation

Language

🇺🇲

Publishing Since

10/27/2020

Visit Website View on Apple Podcasts RSS Feed

🇺🇸 Charts #3

Outreach generated

Apple 142

Spotify 827

Instant mention tracking

Perfect fit!

Unlock The Full Podcast Authority Score Report

See how your podcast performs across key metrics

Podcast Authority

Beta

FairBased on show quality, social media presence, reviews, charts, and more

Quality79

Social0

YouTube0

Engagement90

Learn more

Excellent Areas

Good Performance

Growth Opportunities

excellent

Episode Length

2 minutes

Performing excellently!

good

Show Notes Quality

3.0/5

Recommendations available

Unlock the full report to see detailed tips

needs improvement

Publishing Consistency

Every 20 days

Recommendations available

Unlock the full report to see detailed tips

+16 More Metrics

Unlock comprehensive insights including:

• YouTube presence analysis
• Social media reach metrics
• RSS compliance scoring
• Podcast 2.0 features
• Technical standards

What's Included in Your Full Report

Detailed Analytics

Complete breakdown of all 19 authority metrics
Personalized recommendations for each metric
Industry benchmarks and comparisons
Technical RSS feed analysis and compliance scoring

Growth Strategies

Step-by-step action plans for improvement
Quick wins to boost your score immediately
Pro tips from successful podcasters

Get your free podcast insights report

See how your show performs across every key metric

Instant delivery

No spam

Attract Better Guests

High authority scores make your podcast more attractive to industry leaders and influencers who want to appear on credible shows.

Secure Sponsorships

Sponsors look for podcasts with proven authority and engagement. Your score demonstrates your podcast's value to potential partners.

Grow Your Audience

Understanding your strengths and weaknesses helps you make data-driven decisions to expand your listener base effectively.

1 verified contact email on file for Tasty Morsels of Critical Care

Pitch yourself as a guest, propose sponsorships, or reach out directly to the host.

See contact details

Recent Episodes

April 13, 2026

Tasty Morsels of Critical Care 095 | Blunt CerebroVascular Injury

Welcome back to the <a href="https://emergencymedicineireland.com/the-tasty-morsels">tasty morsels of critical care podcast</a>. Today we look at blunt cerebrovascular injury or BCVI. I added this to my list to cover for unclear reasons as when i looked back at my notes i had about 8 bullet points and a couple of referenced articles. So this will be shorter than usual I suspect. Effectively this refers to injuries to the carotids and vertebral arteries in the context of trauma. The pathology here is typically a pinch, twist or stretch of the vessel leading to an intimal tear in the vessel. The exposed endothelium then is a nidus for thrombus formation. The main downstream consequence is stroke and it’s a real shame to have a successful haemostatic and surgical resus of a major trauma patient only to have them suffer a life changing stroke 3 days into their hospital stay. They’re also pretty tricksy injuries as there are rarely obvious clinical signs to indicate their presence until they you find the dense hemiplegia, so this is one of those things were the term “index of suspicion” comes into play. It is especially important seeing as we have now effectively outsourced all diagnosis to the radiologists and these injuries are not picked up on the typical trauma pan scan that we so love. Given that I described the pathology of the injury as pinching, twisting and stretching we can probably get a sense of the mechanism of injury associated with these injuries. Top of the list here are c-spine injuries – if the neck has moved enough to break it you should think about the delicate blood vessels beside the c-spine. This is particularly pertinent to the vertebrals whose course, evolution in her wisdom, placed inside the tiny little vertebral foramen transversarium of the c spine itself. To make life more difficult for the poor little vertebrals they have to navigate a few 90 degree turns to get between C1 and the skull to get into the foramen magnum. This is reflected in the higher incidence of BCVI in high spine injuries. Obvious other associations are with severity of TBI and complex facial fractures (remember the carotid has to navigate its way past these). You might get some pointers to diagnosis from your clinical exam. Horner’s syndrome would be a classic (disruption to sympathetic neurons in the carotid) but if you’re diagnosing a Horner’s syndrome in your primary survey then you’re either over achieving or doing it wrong or possibly both. They may have stroke features on arrival which would be an obvious trigger for imaging. A bruit is also listed as a sign of injury but I think that’s a sign for better clinicians than you or I. Most of the time you will have an injured patient without specific symptoms of BCVI. Who do we pursue further imaging on given that I’ve already noted the initial trauma pan scan will often not pick up this? Enter stage left the geographically titled criteria each named after the academic centre that developed it. Denver, Memphis and Boston have all contributed a published criteria. The Denver criteria appear to be the most commonly used and referenced. I think listing the individual components is probably beyond the scope of the post but I’d emphasise the main headlines <ul> <li>c-spine injuries</li> <li>facial fractures</li> <li>complex base of skull</li> <li>severe TBIs</li> <li>hanging</li> </ul> Once you’ve decided the patient needs imaging then you should be reaching for our trusty friend the CT scanner. in this case a well done CT angiogram of the neck vessels extending into the intracranial vessels. It is not (unsurprisingly) a perfect test but it is a very good test and certainly where you should start. If you do find a BCVI you may even have the joy of seeing it classified I to V according to the wonderfully named Biffl classification system. It covers things like intimal tears and degrees of narrowing and occlusion. once you’ve found a BCVI it’s unclear who your go to specialist might be and I have seen vascular, neurosurgery and stroke all give opinions on treatment. Overall risk of stroke in BCVI is ~8% but changes significantly depending on grade with higher grades having higher stroke risk. For the vast majority of patients your treatment options come down to heparin vs aspirin. There does not appear to be a clear proven superiority of one strategy over the other. Some form of antithrombotic does, in observational data, seem to reduce stroke rate and is probably worth doing. Aspirin is generally easier delivered and seems to be the most common choice in our region. Many of the injuries would actually be amenable to surgical repair but the vast majority are surgically inaccessible hence the antithrombotic treatment as next best thing. The decision to give something that makes clotting more difficult in a patient who is either still bleeding or at risk of major bleeding is not an easy one. Hence there is typically a day or two of hand wringing amongst several specialties till we are all comfortable giving it. Observational work suggests that we’re likely a little overcautious on this in a similar way to our reluctance to commence VTE prophylaxis in TBI. <h3>Reading</h3> <a href="https://www.uptodate.com/contents/search">Doctor’s Little Helper</a> <a href="https://radiopaedia.org/articles/blunt-cerebrovascular-injury">Radiopaedia</a>

March 30, 2026

Tasty Morsels of Critical Care 094 | Haemoglobin targets in critical care

Welcome back to the <a href="https://emergencymedicineireland.com/the-tasty-morsels">tasty morsels of critical care podcast</a>. Today we’re going to look at the red stuff – blood, and when to give it. This will cover some of Oh’s Manual chapter 97 covering blood transfusion. But we’ll have a focus on transfusion targets. There’s a nice narrative of evidence here over the past 20 years that has given us a relatively robust evidence base for practice in this area, something quite novel in critical care. Blood is expensive and unlike fossil fuels currently remains a renewable resource in the healthy population, it is obviously quite limited and nations frequently experience shortage of various blood groups and products that can have significant impacts on health care delivery. The red cells we give undergo a number of changes in the donation process with “storage lesions” becoming more prevalent over the duration of storage. A list of potential problems with stored red cells might run as follows: <ul> <li> red cells change in shape biconvave to spherocytes (echinocytes) losing flexibility </li> <li> change in red cell membrane leading to sticking to the endothelium (esp in activated states like sepsis) </li> <li> 2,3 DPG depletion (which means Hb holds onto Oxy) </li> <li> reduced NO </li> <li> progressive increase in K+ </li> <li> acidosis </li> </ul> The ABO reactions of transfusion should be dealt with by good governance of your transfusion service but fevers and other reactions are still an issue. The wonderfully named TRALI and TACO are also well described and space precludes a detailed discussion of these in this post. Now that we know giving red cells is not an entirely benign intervention we are left with the question that all competitive limbo dancers are faced with on a daily basis – how low can you go. What would be an appropriate Hb target for a critically ill patient. So let me tell you a little story… back in the late 90s when i was binging on OK Computer some Canadians led by Paul Hebert produced a large observational cohort of ICU patients called the TRICC trial suggesting that those with lower Hb did poorly and those who got more transfusions did better. But they were good empiricists and acknowledged that this could all be confounded by unmeasured factors. The only way to deal with that is randomisation and so 2 years later, Paul Hebert was at it again producing the TRICC 2 trial. This time an 800 pt multicentre randomised trial looking at Hb of 7 v 10. The headline result here was that the restrictive group did at least as well and probably better than the liberal transfusion group. This was a major trial and I’m pretty sure triggered a major change in practice. The caveats to this were as expected – those with ischaemic heart disease should probably have a higher target. Things went quiet for a few years but in 2010 we saw the TRACS trial from Brazil looking at one of the sacred cows of transfusion targets – cardiac surgery. Can we lower the Hb target in those with dodgy coronaries? They looked at Hb 9 vs 10.5 and found no difference. Villaneueva in 2013 took on upper GI bleeds. They smartly excluded the unstable active bleeders but in 500 patients randomised to 7 v 9, the lower target won out. The trials started to come thick and fast now with TRISS trial in 2014 taking on sepsis. The problem in sepsis is oxygen delivery so surely more Hb is good. But yet again, in 1000 pts with sepsis there was no benefit in targeting 9 vs 7 2015 brought the TRIGGER trial (hopefully you’re starting to see the unofficial naming convention here…) looking again at UGIB and again finding no benefit to the higher target 2017 brought the TRICS 3 trial, looking at 5000 patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Again randomised, this time 7.5 v 9.5, again no advantage to the higher target in 2021 they took on ACS patients in the REALITY trial, the most obviously ischaemic group and randomised 8 v 11 and no benefit to the higher target Most recently in 2025 the TOP RCT looked at vasculopaths having vascular surgery and in 3000 pts there was no benefit to the higher target. Phew… that’s a lot of trials but I think you’re starting to get the point that in general the answer to the question “what is your Hb target” is going to be 7-8 There are of course caveats to throw in at this stage. Firstly, it’s important to note that none of these trials looked at the exsanguinating patient where you should be targeting physiology like HR and BP and perfusion rather than Hb. Restrictive Hb targets are in general questions for the daily ward round rather than the massive transfusion protocol. Finally, in the past couple of years we’ve seen 2 RCTs looking at critically ill patients with sick brains. One looking at TBI and the other looking at SAH. Both suggest that if you have a sick brain you probably should be targeting a higher Hb of 9 or so. When you look at their outcomes the differences do not reach statistical difference in either trial but the trends are clearly to my eye towards more blood leading to better outcomes. <h3>Reading:</h3> <a href="https://litfl.com/transfusion-literature-summaries/">LITFL</a> has a lovely written summary of all the major trials I have included the two neuro trials here as they’re not noted in the LITFL summary <ul> <li class="csl-entry">Turgeon, A. F. et al. Liberal or Restrictive Transfusion Strategy in Patients with Traumatic Brain Injury. N. Engl. J. Med. (2024) doi:10.1056/nejmoa2404360.</li> <li> <div class="csl-entry">English, S. W. et al. Liberal or Restrictive Transfusion Strategy in Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage. N. Engl. J. Med. 392, 1079–1088 (2025).</div> </li> </ul>

March 16, 2026

Tasty Morsels of Critical Care 093 | Prone Positioning

Welcome back to the <a href="https://emergencymedicineireland.com/the-tasty-morsels">tasty morsels of critical care podcast</a>. Today we look at something we do fairly frequently in ICU, especially in the post COVID era: prone positioning or to use its preferred technical term: adult tummy time. This has been around for a long time but was uncommonly done in the pre COVID days and was always a talking point when it did happen. But then 2020 came and you’d spend significant portions of the day proning and supinating patients in the unit. Fair to say it’s something we should have a keen understanding of. Firstly we’ll talk about the physiology and potential mechanism of benefit behind proning. This comes from the proning chapter in Tobin’s mechanical ventilation textbook. Written by none other than the late, great Gattanoni. He argues that there are 3 mechanisms by which proning affects ventilation and oxygenation <ol> <li>changes in inflation</li> <li>redistribution of ventilation</li> <li>redistribution of perfusion</li> </ol> A lot of this comes from Gattanoni’s early work where they managed to do a whole bunch of CT scans on critically people with ARDS in both the supine and the prone position. Yes you heard that right they did the CT scan prone. The typical CT scan for many ARDS patients is a basal dorsal distribution of disease. One would think that flipping the patient might redistribute this atelectasis to the ventral surface. But what seems to happen is more of a homogenisation of the lung with an overall improved inflation of the lung tissue. No longer are you just hyperinflating the baby lung and doing nothing for the atelectatic lung. This should lead to better recruitment, better perfusion/ventilation matching, better oxygenation and in turn better clinical outcomes. There are some suggestions it may also aid secretion clearance which in a paralysed supine patient is obviously a problem. Proning (as we shall we see) does seem to improve outcomes but the precise mechanism is unclear. Improved oxygenation seems plausible but it may also be a reduction in VILI by having a more homogenous lung that is less prone to injury of the baby lung. Guerin (lead PROSEVA author) wrote a nice review article in 2020 highlighting that proning can make chest wall compliance worse. The anterior ventral wall is normally more mobile than the dorsal chest wall. When prone the ventral bit is now wedged and immobile against the bed hence the fall in chest wall compliance. However lung compliance is probably improved and now that the chest wall is moving less it’s probably increased diaphragmatic movement that recruits the bases. Overall compliance should improve. We turn now to the evidence base for proning our patients. This, like many critical care interventions, this has a little bit of a narrative to it with some early trials lacking benefit followed by the paradigmatic trial that shapes practice. What follows is a brief summary of some of the important studies and is neither intended nor considered to be comprehensive. Back in the early noughties there were a flurry of RCTs looking at prone positioning in ARDS. The late and great Gattanoi was of course involved in some. The “dose” of proning was variable with sometimes only short periods like 6 hours being used. Results were variable and a 2011 meta analysis of 7 RCTs did not show a definitive mortality benefit but did suggest that those with the sicker lungs had a benefit Enter PROSEVA. A name, that if you’re going into an ICU viva, is probably something that you should keep in your head. This was 26 centres in France who were already experienced with proning. They took people with severe ARDS and randomised them to 16 hrs a day of proning vs no proning. They used mortality at 28 days as a primary outcome and they were looking for a 15% absolute reduction in mortality (which is pretty huge). It was, for obvious reasons, an open label trial. They enrolled 450 patients and found a 32% vs a 16% mortality favoring proning. It’s possible this trial found a benefit due to the dose – they proned for much longer than many of the other trials. It’s worth having some problems related to proning in your back pocket to pull out. The list of potential contraindications was initially quite long pre-COVID but it turns out that when your back is up against the wall we all became a little bolder with our proning. While you can prone the vast majority of patients it’s not going to be possible in those with unstable spinal injuries. One would think that abdominal surgery or advanced pregnancy might be a problem but you can usually work round this with some discussion with your surgeons. The main downsides (beyond the hassle factor) are related to safety. The facial oedema and skin injuries are not insignificant and no matter how careful you are some people just aren’t a great shape for proning. There is a chance that the ET tube can kink or dislodge either on the proning or on the head turns so you need to have a good plan in your head how to confirm this and get someone flipped back if they need it.   <h3>Reading</h3> Tobin Chapter 49 <a href="https://derangedphysiology.com/main/required-reading/respiratory-medicine-and-ventilation/Chapter%205.1.7/prone-ventilation-ards">Deranged Physiology </a> <blockquote class="wp-embedded-content" data-secret="WbYDKvDhOr"><a href="https://litfl.com/prone-position-and-mechanical-ventilation/">Prone Position and Mechanical Ventilation</a></blockquote> <iframe class="wp-embedded-content" sandbox="allow-scripts" security="restricted" title="“Prone Position and Mechanical Ventilation” — Life in the Fast Lane • LITFL" src="https://litfl.com/prone-position-and-mechanical-ventilation/embed/#?secret=dYSABr7seV#?secret=WbYDKvDhOr" data-secret="WbYDKvDhOr" width="600" height="338" frameborder="0" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no"></iframe> <div class="csl-entry">Guerin, C. et al. Prone Positioning in Severe Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome. New England Journal of Medicine 368, 2159–2168 (2013).</div> <div></div> <div> <div class="csl-entry">Guérin, C. et al. Prone position in ARDS patients: why, when, how and for whom. Intens Care Med 46, 2385–2396 (2020).</div> </div>

95 total episodes available

Similar Podcasts

Discover related shows you might enjoy

Critical Care Time

Critical Care Time Podcast

EMCrit FOAM Feed

Scott D. Weingart, MD FCCM

The Resus Room

Simon Laing, Rob Fenwick & James Yates

Anesthesia and Critical Care Reviews and Commentary (ACCRAC) Podcast

Jed Wolpaw

Neuro Resus

Oliver Flower

The Intelligence from The Economist

The Economist

The News Agents

Global

The Rest Is Entertainment

Goalhanger

Deep-dive analytics for Tasty Morsels of Critical Care

Frequently asked questions

Have a different question and can't find the answer you're looking for? Reach out to our support team by sending us an email and we'll get back to you as soon as we can.

What is Tasty Morsels of Critical Care?: Bite size chunks of critical care medicine targeted at fellowship exam preparation
How often does this podcast release new episodes?: This podcast updates bi-weekly.
Where can I listen to this podcast?: This podcast is available on 10 platforms including Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and more. You can also use the RSS feed directly.
Does this podcast accept guests?: Yes, this podcast regularly features guests.

Legal Disclaimer

Pod Engine is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or officially connected with any of the podcasts displayed on this platform. We operate independently as a podcast discovery and analytics service.

All podcast artwork, thumbnails, and content displayed on this page are the property of their respective owners and are protected by applicable copyright laws. This includes, but is not limited to, podcast cover art, episode artwork, show descriptions, episode titles, transcripts, audio snippets, and any other content originating from the podcast creators or their licensors.

We display this content under fair use principles and/or implied license for the purpose of podcast discovery, information, and commentary. We make no claim of ownership over any podcast content, artwork, or related materials shown on this platform. All trademarks, service marks, and trade names are the property of their respective owners.

While we strive to ensure all content usage is properly authorized, if you are a rights holder and believe your content is being used inappropriately or without proper authorization, please contact us immediately at hey@podengine.ai for prompt review and appropriate action, which may include content removal or proper attribution.

By accessing and using this platform, you acknowledge and agree to respect all applicable copyright laws and intellectual property rights of content owners. Any unauthorized reproduction, distribution, or commercial use of the content displayed on this platform is strictly prohibited.