Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 197
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1075
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3195
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once
98%
921
2 minutes
20
The morbidity and mortality for patients having a cardiac arrest is substantial. Even if optimally performed, conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation is an inadequate substitute for native cardiac output and results in a 'low-flow' perfusion state. Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation during cardiac arrest, also known as extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (eCPR), has been proposed as an alternative to restore systemic perfusion. However, conflicting results regarding its efficacy compared to routine advanced cardiac life support have left its role in clinical practice uncertain. In this article, the merits and limitations of the existing data for eCPR are reviewed in a 'point- counterpoint' style debate, followed by potential considerations for future trials.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11526500 | PMC |
http://dx.doi.org/10.15420/usc.2024.14 | DOI Listing |