Key result
Thrombolytic bolus during CPR yields complete recovery in a patient with unexplained refractory cardiac arrest.
Why the study?
Thrombolytic therapy during cardiopulmonary resuscitation is not routinely recommended despite many cardiac arrests being caused by acute myocardial infarction or massive pulmonary embolism.
Does a bolus injection of a thrombolytic agent improve outcomes in a patient with refractory cardiac arrest of unknown diagnosis?
Case Report (n=1)
Does a bolus injection of a thrombolytic agent improve outcomes in a patient with refractory cardiac arrest of unknown diagnosis?
Thrombolytic therapy may be a viable rescue modality for patients with refractory cardiac arrest of unknown etiology.
Should not change practice in refractory cardiac arrest; single case leaves open thrombolytic benefit in unknown etiology.
Thrombolytic therapy during cardiopulmonary resuscitation is not routinely recommended, but 50-70% of cardiac arrests are caused by either acute myocardial infarction or massive pulmonary embolism. Thrombolytic therapy can be a reasonable treatment modality for a patient suffering with cardiac arrest in an emergency situation and whose diagnosis is not known. We report here on a case with cardiac arrest and the diagnosis was not known. The patient was refractory to conventrional cardiopulmonary resuscitation, and he was treated with a bolus injection of a thrombolytic agent. He recovered completely without complications. (Korean Circ J 2007;37:663-665)
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kim et al. (2007) conducted a case report in Cardiac arrest (n=1). Thrombolytic therapy was evaluated on Recovery and complications. Bolus injection of a thrombolytic agent during cardiopulmonary resuscitation in a patient with refractory cardiac arrest of unknown cause resulted in complete recovery without complications.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: