This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Douglas H. McNeill, MD
Crossing Medical Center Bruce Crossing, Mich

JAMA. 1990;263(24):3257.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

To the Editor.—

I cannot let the article on coronary perfusion pressure by Paradis et al¹ pass without comment.

The authors have made a valuable contribution to the understanding of factors responsible for success in cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), but I must take issue with their recommendations to catheterize patients during CPR for prediction of outcome.

Patients received only basic cardiac life support during prehospital care, and of 100 patients, none survived the hospitalization.

The authors, like many researchers, have put the cart before the horse. I conclude the main benefit of measurement of coronary perfusion pressure as recommended by the authors is prediction of the time to die rather than likelihood of survival.

Multiple studies have shown the clear benefit of early defibrillation and of the institution of advanced cardiac life support in the field. Before we emphasize technically complex intervention in CPR we should exhaust measures of . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?