Bernd W. Böttiger

European Resuscitation Council Guidelines for Resuscitation 2010 : section 1 : executive summary

Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, Royal United Hospital, Bath, UK Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, Southmead Hospital, North Bristol NHS Trust, Bristol, UK Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK Paediatric Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine, Universite Libre de Bruxelles, Queen Fabiola Children’s University Hospital, Brussels, Belgium Cardiology and Intensive Care, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium Cardiac Anaesthesia and Critical Care, Southampton University Hospital NHS Trust, Southampton, UK Department of Cardiology, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands Neonatology and Paediatrics, The James Cook University Hospital, Middlesbrough, UK any Anasthesiologie und Operative Intensivmedizin, Universitatsklinikum Koln, Koln, Germ

Part 8: Advanced Life Support 2010 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations

Part 8 : Advanced life support : 2010 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations

Post–Cardiac Arrest Syndrome

The contributors to this statement were selected to ensure expertise in all the disciplines relevant to post–cardiac arrest care. In an attempt to make this document universally applicable and generalizable, the authorship comprised clinicians and scientists who represent many specialties in many regions of the world. Several major professional groups whose practice is relevant to post–cardiac arrest care were asked and agreed to provide representative contributors. Planning and invitations took place initially by e-mail, followed a series of telephone conferences and face-to-face meetings of the cochairs and writing group members. International writing teams were formed to generate the content of each section, which corresponded to the major subheadings of the final document. Two team leaders from different countries led each writing team. Individual contributors were assigned by the writing group cochairs to work on 1 or more writing teams, which generally reflected their areas of expertise. Relevant articles were identified with PubMed, EMBASE, and an American Heart Association EndNote master resuscitation reference library, supplemented by hand searches of key papers. Drafts of each section were written and agreed on by the writing team authors and then sent to the cochairs for editing and amalgamation into a single document. The first draft of the complete document was circulated among writing team leaders for initial comment and editing. A revised version of the document was circulated among all contributors, and consensus was achieved before submission of the final version for independent peer review and approval for publication. This scientific statement outlines current understanding and identifies knowledge gaps in the pathophysiology, treatment, and prognosis of patients who regain spontaneous circulation after cardiac arrest. The purpose is to provide a resource for optimization of post–cardiac arrest care and to pinpoint the need for research focused on gaps in knowledge that would potentially improve outcomes …

Part 1: Executive Summary 2010 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations

The International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR) was founded on November 22, 1992, and currently includes representatives from the American Heart Association (AHA), the European Resuscitation Council (ERC), the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada (HSFC), the Australian and New Zealand Committee on Resuscitation (ANZCOR), Resuscitation Council of Southern Africa (RCSA), the InterAmerican Heart Foundation (IAHF), and the Resuscitation Council of Asia (RCA). Its mission is to identify and review international science and knowledge relevant to cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and emergency cardiovascular care (ECC) and when there is consensus to offer treatment recommendations. Emergency cardiovascular care includes all responses necessary to treat sudden life-threatening events affecting the cardiovascular and respiratory systems, with a particular focus on sudden cardiac arrest. In 1999, the AHA hosted the first ILCOR conference to evaluate resuscitation science and develop common resuscitation guidelines. The conference recommendations were published in the International Guidelines 2000 for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care .1 Since 2000, researchers from the ILCOR member councils have evaluated resuscitation science in 5-year cycles. The conclusions and recommendations of the 2005 International Consensus Conference on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations were published at the end of 2005.2,3 The most recent International Consensus Conference was held in Dallas in February 2010, and this publication contains the consensus science statements and treatment recommendations developed with input from the invited participants. The goal of every resuscitation organization and resuscitation expert is to prevent premature cardiovascular death. When cardiac arrest or life-threatening emergencies occur, prompt and skillful response can make the difference between life and death and between intact survival and debilitation. This document summarizes the 2010 evidence evaluation of published science about the recognition and response to sudden life-threatening events, particularly sudden cardiac arrest and periarrest events in …

European Resuscitation Council Guidelines for Resuscitation 2015: Section 3. Adult advanced life support

Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, Southmead Hospital, Bristol, UK Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, Royal United Hospital, Bath, UK School of Clinical Sciences, University of Bristol, UK Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, University Hospital of Cologne, Germany Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK Heart of England NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK Department of Anesthesiology, University Medical Center, Johannes Gutenberg-University, Mainz, Germany SAMU de Paris, Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, Necker University Hospital, Paris, France Anaesthesia, Intensive Care and Emergency Medical Service, Santa Maria degli Angeli Hospital, Pordenone, Italy Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, Catholic University School of Medicine, Rome, Italy Division of Intensive Care, Department of Anaesthesiology, Intensive Care and Pain Medicine, Helsinki University Hospital and Helsinki University, elsinki, Finland Centre of Postgraduate Medical Research & Education, Bournemouth University, Bournemouth, UK Department of Anaesthesiology, Division of Emergencies and Critical Care, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway edical Cardiac Anaesthesia and Cardiac Intensive Care, NIHR Southampton Respiratory Biom outhampton, UK

Thrombolysis during resuscitation for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

BACKGROUND Approximately 70% of persons who have an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest have underlying acute myocardial infarction or pulmonary embolism. Therefore, thrombolysis during cardiopulmonary resuscitation may improve survival. METHODS In a double-blind, multicenter trial, we randomly assigned adult patients with witnessed out-of-hospital cardiac arrest to receive tenecteplase or placebo during cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Adjunctive heparin or aspirin was not used. The primary end point was 30-day survival; the secondary end points were hospital admission, return of spontaneous circulation, 24-hour survival, survival to hospital discharge, and neurologic outcome. RESULTS After blinded review of data from the first 443 patients, the data and safety monitoring board recommended discontinuation of enrollment of asystolic patients because of low survival, and the protocol was amended. Subsequently, the trial was terminated prematurely for futility after enrolling a total of 1050 patients. Tenecteplase was administered to 525 patients and placebo to 525 patients; the two treatment groups had similar clinical profiles. We did not detect any significant differences between tenecteplase and placebo in the primary end point of 30-day survival (14.7% vs. 17.0%; P=0.36; relative risk, 0.87; 95% confidence interval, 0.65 to 1.15) or in the secondary end points of hospital admission (53.5% vs. 55.0%, P=0.67), return of spontaneous circulation (55.0% vs. 54.6%, P=0.96), 24-hour survival (30.6% vs. 33.3%, P=0.39), survival to hospital discharge (15.1% vs. 17.5%, P=0.33), or neurologic outcome (P=0.69). There were more intracranial hemorrhages in the tenecteplase group. CONCLUSIONS When tenecteplase was used without adjunctive antithrombotic therapy during advanced life support for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, we did not detect an improvement in outcome, in comparison with placebo. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00157261.)

European Resuscitation Council and European Society of Intensive Care Medicine Guidelines for Post-resuscitation Care 2015: Section 5 of the European Resuscitation Council Guidelines for Resuscitation 2015

Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, Royal United Hospital, Bath, UK School of Clinical Sciences, University of Bristol, UK Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, Southmead Hospital, Bristol, UK Cochin University Hospital (APHP) and Paris Descartes University, Paris, France Department of Clinical Sciences, Division of Neurology, Lund University, Lund, Sweden Adelante, Centre of Expertise in Rehabilitation and Audiology, Hoensbroek, The Netherlands Cardiac Anaesthesia and Cardiac Intensive Care and NIHR Southampton Respiratory Biomedical Research Unit, University Hospital, Southampton, UK Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne, Germany Department of Clinical Sciences, Division of Anesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, Lund University, Lund, Sweden Department of Anaesthesiology, Division of Emergencies and Critical Care, Oslo University Hospital and Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo, slo, Norway Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, Catholic University School of Medicine, Rome, Italy

Part 8: Advanced Life Support

art 8: Advanced life support 010 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency ardiovascular Care Science with Treatment Recommendations , harles D. Deakin (Co-chair) ∗,1 , Laurie J. Morrison (Co-chair)1 , Peter T. Morley , Clifton W. Callaway , ichard E. Kerber, Steven L. Kronick, Eric J. Lavonas, Mark S. Link, Robert W. Neumar, Charles W. Otto, ichael Parr, Michael Shuster, Kjetil Sunde, Mary Ann Peberdy, Wanchun Tang, aje erry L. Vanden Hoek, Bernd W. Böttiger, Saul Dr dvanced Life Support Chapter Collaborators

The ongoing variability in blood transfusion practices in cardiac surgery

BACKGROUND: Although blood utilization has been under considerable scrutiny for the past two decades, particularly for surgery, studies comparing perioperative blood transfusion practices between countries are rare, and the evolution of international standards remains unknown. Therefore, the objective of this evaluation was to compare the perioperative transfusion of blood components in cardiac surgery in multiple centers in different countries.

Postresuscitation care with mild therapeutic hypothermia and coronary intervention after out-of-hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a prospective registry analysis

IntroductionMild therapeutic hypothermia (MTH) has been shown to result in better neurological outcome after cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) may also be beneficial in patients after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA).MethodsA selected cohort study of 2,973 prospectively documented adult OHCA patients within the German Resuscitation Registry between 2004 and 2010. Data were analyzed by backwards stepwise binary logistic regression to identify the impact of MTH and PCI on both 24-hour survival and neurological outcome that was based on cerebral performance category (CPC) at hospital discharge. Odds ratios (95% confidence intervals) were calculated adjusted for the following confounding factors: age, location of cardiac arrest, presumed etiology, bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation, witnessing, first electrocardiogram rhythm, and thrombolysis.ResultsThe Preclinical care dataset included 2,973 OHCA patients with 44% initial return of spontaneous circulation (n = 1,302) and 35% hospital admissions (n = 1,040). Seven hundred and eleven out of these 1,040 OHCA patients (68%) were also registered within the Postresuscitation care dataset. Checking for completeness of datasets required the exclusion of 127 Postresuscitation care cases, leaving 584 patients with complete data for final analysis. In patients without PCI (n = 430), MTH was associated with increased 24-hour survival (8.24 (4.24 to 16.0), P < 0.001) and the proportion of patients with CPC 1 or CPC 2 at hospital discharge (2.13 (1.17 to 3.90), P < 0.05) as an independent factor. In normothermic patients (n = 405), PCI was independently associated with increased 24-hour survival (4.46 (2.26 to 8.81), P < 0.001) and CPC 1 or CPC 2 (10.81 (5.86 to 19.93), P < 0.001). Additional analysis of all patients (n = 584) revealed that 24-hour survival was increased by MTH (7.50 (4.12 to 13.65), P < 0.001) and PCI (3.88 (2.11 to 7.13), P < 0.001), while the proportion of patients with CPC 1 or CPC 2 was significantly increased by PCI (5.66 (3.54 to 9.03), P < 0.001) but not by MTH (1.27 (0.79 to 2.03), P = 0.33), although an unadjusted Fisher exact test suggested a significant effect of MTH (unadjusted odds ratio 1.83 (1.23 to 2.74), P < 0.05).ConclusionsPCI may be an independent predictor for good neurological outcome (CPC 1 or CPC 2) at hospital discharge. MTH was associated with better neurological outcome, although subsequent logistic regression analysis did not show statistical significance for MTH as an independent predictor for good neurological outcome. Thus, postresuscitation care on the basis of standardized protocols including coronary intervention and hypothermia may be beneficial after successful resuscitation. One of the main limitations may be a selection bias for patients subjected to PCI and MTH.