The evidence is quite clear that ITH in the prehospital setting is of dubious benefit. But what is the harm in continuing the practice? Well, prehospital ITH most likely takes away from more beneficial therapies such as high-quality CPR, rapid defibrillation, recognition of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), and similar essential treatments. Several studies have shown prehospital ITH, in many cases, delays hospital transport. When the initial studies of ITH were released, I was immediately on the ITH bandwagon. Interestingly, the American Heart Association (AHA) has never recommended prehospital ITH. Even the position paper on ITH by the National Association of EMS Physicians (NAEMSP) was cautious, saying, "A lack of evidence on induced hypothermia in the prehospital setting currently precludes recommending this treatment modality as standard of care for all emergency medical services (EMS) patients resuscitated from cardiac arrest. A systematic review of ITH recently published states, "In cardiac arrest, the initiation of therapeutic hypothermia in the out-of-hospital environment has not been shown to improve neurologic outcomes, although studies to date have been limited. We now know that caution Fxercised by the AHA and preMSP was appropriate. One medmy mentors in residency and ays said, "Never be the first- Univtor to prescribe a new drug or of Mlast doctor to prescribe an old is th" Lik" many things in EMS, EMS tms something that was put in Practe with good intent but lim- scientific evidence. We now P ITH is probably not a good ice and it is time to abandon it. However, we should still carry chilled IV fluids for hyperthermia, excited delirium and to main- tainormothermia in patients in cardiac arrest where transport times are long.