Sorry, people -
STUPID QUESTION OF THE WEEK #6:
Please help solve an argument. In comparing various sources/texts for lists
of standard absolute & relative contr-indications to thrombolysis, we found
many sources state "prolonged CPR" as one. Not all do. Some actually state
that this means over 10 minutes. Now, I'm not too concerned at the mo' about
who's correct and whether this should be a contra-indication.
But, as irrelevant as it might seem, the question we have been tasked with
answering is: Why? i.e. if one does accept that this IS a contra-indication,
what is the reason? The immediate reply initially was "broken ribs" risk,
but then we decided that even if we had KNOWN broken ribs we sould still
thrombolyse. So is there another pathology, recognised as a risk from
PROLONGED CPR, which makes it too risky to thrombolyse? Anyone with the
right pathology texts or post-mortem analyses to answer this please do...
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
|