English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

In “Will We Code for Default ECMO?” Brauner and Zimmerman draw parallels between the history of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and current developments in extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). They fear that, as occurred with CPR, indications for ECMO will expand until cardiac arrest becomes a “blanket indication” for ECMO as an adjunct to CPR. If ECMO becomes a default treatment for patients experiencing cardiac arrest, patients and surrogates will likely need a mechanism to opt out of this default. As Klugman, a clinical ethicist, recently blogged: “Is It Time for the DNE: Do Not ECMO?”1 This question has also been raised in the bioethics and critical care literature.2,3 We agree with Brauner and Zimmerman that the best course of action would be to prevent ECMO from becoming a default treatment.

Response to “Will We Code for Default ECMO?”: Clarifying the Scope of Do-Not-ECMO Orders