<p>Both of your articles are from 1994. I’d prefer, if you’re going to cite data on something that changes every five years that you at least use the most recent testable protocol (2000). I expect better of you, double penny.</p>
<p>A January 2006 JAMA article by Nadkarni et al. on in-hospital astysole and pulseless electrical activity (both associated with far worse outcomes than ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation) had survival rates for adults at 18% and children (who are more likely to present with asystole or PEA) at 27%. </p>
<p>You could have also used an August 2004 NEJM article by Stiel et al for your out of hospital survival to discharge, which puts the rate at about 5% for most cities.</p>
<p>The issue with poor survival rates though is that a sudden cardiac arrest is a serious medical condition, one that has severe complications even in those who are lucky enough to have everything fall their way from early CPR and EMT intervention to rapid defibrillation and all the other variables that are associated with improved outcomes. While the research has lagged, that really has little to do with the question posed by the original poster. If the 17 year old has been properly trained and certified, there should be little reason why they can’t perform at the same level as other, older EMTs (especially since there is plenty of data out there that no one performs compressions to the basic standards).</p>