Letter by Rottenberg Regarding Article, “Conventional Versus Compression-Only Versus No Bystander Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation for Pediatric Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest”
This article requires a subscription to view the full text. If you have a subscription you may use the login form below to view the article. Access to this article can also be purchased.
To the Editor:
Fukuda et al1 published an observational study comparing conventional versus compression-only versus no bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) for pediatric out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. They presented clinical implications of their study which, based on newly published and existing evidence, elicit comments.
They suggested that both conventional and compression-only bystander CPR may be lifesaving in children. However, Naim et al2 found that, although both conventional CPR and compression-only CPR were associated with better outcomes than no bystander CPR for children aged 1 to 18 years, in infants, only conventional bystander CPR was associated with improved neurologically favorable survival in comparison with no bystander CPR. …