You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
PostScript
Letter
Authors’ response: overcautious adoption of extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation
  1. Clifton W Callway1,
  2. Kjetil Sunde2
  1. 1 Emergency Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
  2. 2 Department of Anesthesiology, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
  1. Correspondence to Dr Clifton W Callway, Emergency Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, 400A Iroquois, 3600 Forbes Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA; callawaycw{at}upmc.edu

https://doi.org/10.1136/emermed-2017-206917

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.

    We agree with most points made by Burns and colleagues.1 In fact, their letter is an excellent example of the enthusiasm that surrounds extracoporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR), and that is essential to bring novel approaches to resuscitation. Their own data and experience reinforce the impression that mechanical cardiac support may benefit some patients after cardiac arrest. In addition, it is clear that ECPR, if it is deployed, should be part of optimising the entire system of emergency care. Doing system-wide optimisation will benefit the majority …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Competing interests None declared.

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

    Linked Articles