In a front-page story, the New York Times 
(9/5, A1, Rabin, Subscription Publication) reports on a new study published online Tuesday in The Lancet, which looked into the duration of cardiopulmonary resuscitation in hospitals. The study suggests that many doctors may be giving up too soon in their efforts to resuscitate their patients. According to the article, "the study found that patients have a better chance of surviving in hospitals that persist with CPR for just nine minutes longer, on average, than hospitals where efforts are halted earlier." The Times says that "the findings challenge conventional medical thinking, which holds that prolonged resuscitation for hospitalized patients is usually futile because when patients do survive, they often suffer permanent neurological damage." In the study, "the researchers found that patients who survived prolonged CPR and left the hospital fared as well as those who were quickly resuscitated," the article adds.
(9/5, A1, Rabin, Subscription Publication) reports on a new study published online Tuesday in The Lancet, which looked into the duration of cardiopulmonary resuscitation in hospitals. The study suggests that many doctors may be giving up too soon in their efforts to resuscitate their patients. According to the article, "the study found that patients have a better chance of surviving in hospitals that persist with CPR for just nine minutes longer, on average, than hospitals where efforts are halted earlier." The Times says that "the findings challenge conventional medical thinking, which holds that prolonged resuscitation for hospitalized patients is usually futile because when patients do survive, they often suffer permanent neurological damage." In the study, "the researchers found that patients who survived prolonged CPR and left the hospital fared as well as those who were quickly resuscitated," the article adds.
NBC News (9/5, Fox) also reports on the story in its "Vitals" blog. Commenting on the study, Dr. Zachary Goldberger of the University of Washington, who led the research, said, "Our findings suggest that prolonging resuscitation efforts by 10 or 15 minutes might improve outcomes." However, the article notes that "there aren't any firm guidelines on how long to keep trying to revive someone whose heart has stopped." The blog adds that the "American Heart Association has detailed pointers on which measurements show a patient has a better chance of living, and on which treatments to give, from simple cardiopulmonary resuscitation or CPR to defibrillation and drugs."
(9/5, Fox) also reports on the story in its "Vitals" blog. Commenting on the study, Dr. Zachary Goldberger of the University of Washington, who led the research, said, "Our findings suggest that prolonging resuscitation efforts by 10 or 15 minutes might improve outcomes." However, the article notes that "there aren't any firm guidelines on how long to keep trying to revive someone whose heart has stopped." The blog adds that the "American Heart Association has detailed pointers on which measurements show a patient has a better chance of living, and on which treatments to give, from simple cardiopulmonary resuscitation or CPR to defibrillation and drugs."
AFP (9/5) reports that the study found that "on average, hospitals spent 20 minutes on attempted resuscitation before a patient was declared dead. But hospitals that tried longest (those whose efforts averaged 25 minutes) had a 12-percent higher chance of patient response than those whose efforts (average 16 minutes) were shortest."
(9/5) reports that the study found that "on average, hospitals spent 20 minutes on attempted resuscitation before a patient was declared dead. But hospitals that tried longest (those whose efforts averaged 25 minutes) had a 12-percent higher chance of patient response than those whose efforts (average 16 minutes) were shortest."
No comments:
Post a Comment