You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 34, Issue 8
  • Authors’ response: Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation probably good, but adoption should not be too fast and furious!

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
PostScript
Letter
Authors’ response: Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation probably good, but adoption should not be too fast and furious!
  1. Brian Burns1,
  2. Cliff Reid2,
  3. Rob Scott3,
  4. Stephen Bernard4,
  5. Lionel Lamhaut5,
  6. Joe Bellezzo6,
  7. Zack Shinar7,
  8. Mark Dennis8,
  9. Paul Forrest9
  1. 1 Pre-hospital care, Greater Sydney Area HEMS, Bankstown, New South Wales, Australia
  2. 2 New South Wales Ambulance, Greater Sydney Area HEMS, Bankstown, New South Wales, Australia
  3. 3 Greater Sydney Area HEMS, Ambulance Service of New South Wales, Rozelle, New South Wales, Australia
  4. 4 Alfred Hospital and DEPM, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
  5. 5 DAR – SAMU de Paris CHU Necker INSERM U 970 "Centre d'Expertise de la Mort Subite", Paris, France
  6. 6 Emergency Department, Sharp Memorial Hospital, San Diego, California, USA
  7. 7 Department of Emergency Medicine, Sharp Memorial Hospital, San Diego, California, USA
  8. 8 Department of Cardiology, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia
  9. 9 Cardiothoracic Anaesthesia and Perfusion, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia
  1. Correspondence to Dr Brian Burns, Pre-hospital care, Greater Sydney Area HEMS, Bankstown, New South Wales, Australia; bburns_2000{at}yahoo.com

https://doi.org/10.1136/emermed-2017-206801

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Callaway and Sunde1 are right when they advise caution in adoption of extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) given the varying definitions of what ECPR constitutes. However, we believe ECPR is not coming ‘too fast and furious’ but rather like a Formula One car, dependent on focused high performance teams, bespoke with narrow specifications and at the cutting edge.

    Current survival for cardiac arrest by conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CCPR) is indeed dismal at around 10%.2 ECPR has led to improved outcomes compared with CCPR in many regions.3–6 ECPR consideration is in some ways analogous to resuscitative thoracotomy (RT) in trauma. Despite moderate quality of evidence, RT is strongly recommended in pulseless penetrating torso trauma with signs of life in ED.7 …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors BB wrote the first draft and performed final edit, submission and revision. All authors submitted comments and edits/additions.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

    Linked Articles