Brian Eigel

Part 1: Executive Summary 2010 American Heart Association Guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care

The goal of therapy for bradycardia or tachycardia is to rapidly identify and treat patients who are hemodynamically unstable or symptomatic due to the arrhythmia. Drugs or, when appropriate, pacing may be used to control unstable or symptomatic bradycardia. Cardioversion or drugs or both may be used to control unstable or symptomatic tachycardia. ACLS providers should closely monitor stable patients pending expert consultation and should be prepared to aggressively treat those with evidence of decompensation.

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 …

Regional Systems of Care for Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest. A Policy Statement From the American Heart Association

Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest continues to be an important public health problem, with large and important regional variations in outcomes. Survival rates vary widely among patients treated with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest by emergency medical services and among patients transported to the hospital after return of spontaneous circulation. Most regions lack a well-coordinated approach to post-cardiac arrest care. Effective hospital-based interventions for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest exist but are used infrequently. Barriers to implementation of these interventions include lack of knowledge, experience, personnel, resources, and infrastructure. A well-defined relationship between an increased volume of patients or procedures and better outcomes among individual providers and hospitals has been observed for several other clinical disorders. Regional systems of care have improved provider experience and patient outcomes for those with ST-elevation myocardial infarction and life-threatening traumatic injury. This statement describes the rationale for regional systems of care for patients resuscitated from cardiac arrest and the preliminary recommended elements of such systems. Many more people could potentially survive out-of-hospital cardiac arrest if regional systems of cardiac resuscitation were established. A national process is necessary to develop and implement evidence-based guidelines for such systems that must include standards for the categorization, verification, and designation of components of such systems. The time to do so is now.

Part 1: Executive Summary

Mary Fran Hazinski, Co-Chair*; Jerry P. Nolan, Co-Chair*; John E. Billi; Bernd W. Böttiger; Leo Bossaert; Allan R. de Caen; Charles D. Deakin; Saul Drajer; Brian Eigel; Robert W. Hickey; Ian Jacobs; Monica E. Kleinman; Walter Kloeck; Rudolph W. Koster; Swee Han Lim; Mary E. Mancini; William H. Montgomery; Peter T. Morley; Laurie J. Morrison; Vinay M. Nadkarni; Robert E. O’Connor; Kazuo Okada; Jeffrey M. Perlman; Michael R. Sayre; Michael Shuster; Jasmeet Soar; Kjetil Sunde; Andrew H. Travers; Jonathan Wyllie; David Zideman

Implementation Strategies for Emergency Medical Services Within Stroke Systems of Care A Policy Statement From the American Heart Association/ American Stroke Association Expert Panel on Emergency Medical Services Systems and the Stroke Council

Stroke remains the third leading cause of death and a leading cause of long-term disability among Americans, despite advances in stroke prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and rehabilitation. Approximately 700 000 individuals suffer a new or recurrent stroke each year.1 Advances over the past decade in acute stroke care, including the introduction of fibrinolytic and other short-term therapies, have highlighted the critical roles of emergency medical services (EMS) agencies and emergency medical services systems (EMSS) in optimizing stroke care.2–7 In this context, the term “EMS” refers to the full scope of prehospital services necessary for the acute care of patients with stroke, including 9-1-1 activation and dispatch, emergency medical response, triage and stabilization in the field, and transport by ground or air ambulance to a hospital or between facilities. The term “EMSS” refers to the delivery systems for EMS that may be organized on a local, regional, statewide, or nationwide basis.8 EMSS involves the organization of public and private resources for the delivery of emergency medical care. These systems include the community, emergency medical and healthcare personnel, public safety agencies, emergency facilities, and critical care units. The dissemination of public information and education, provision of professional training, and development of disaster planning and standardized record keeping also are key elements of EMSS. Additionally, EMSS must address issues related to communication, transportation, access to care, patient transfer, mutual aid (the sharing of resources across EMSS), and system review and evaluation.9 The successful integration of one (and often multiple) EMSS is critical to ensuring the effectiveness of a stroke system of care. The American Stroke Association (ASA), a division of the American Heart Association (AHA), is dedicated to improving stroke prevention, treatment, and rehabilitation through research, education, advocacy, and the development of scientifically based standards and guidelines. In 2004, the …

Reducing Barriers for Implementation of Bystander-Initiated Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association for Healthcare Providers, Policymakers, and Community Leaders Regarding the Effectiveness of Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation

Sudden cardiac arrest (SCA) is a leading cause of death in the United States and Canada. In the United States, each year ≈330 000 people die of coronary heart disease out of the hospital or in emergency departments. Of these, >150 000 SCAs occur out of the hospital.1,2 Despite the development of electrical defibrillation and the more recent implementation of lay rescuer defibrillation programs, the vast majority of these victims do not leave the hospital alive. In studies over the past 15 years, only 1.4% of patients with out-of-hospital arrest in Los Angeles, Calif, survived to hospital discharge3; in Chicago, Ill, the number was 2%,4 and in Detroit, Mich, it was <1%.5 Conversely, a few municipalities such as Seattle, Wash, report much higher survival rates from SCA—more than 15% in 1 study6—which suggests that survival rates need not remain so low. Recent work in Europe and elsewhere has confirmed that a higher survival-to-hospital discharge rate is indeed a realistic goal, with survival rates as high as 9% reported in Amsterdam7 and 21% in Maribor, Slovenia.8 The American Heart Association (AHA) uses 4 links in the “chain of survival” to illustrate the time-sensitive actions required for victims of SCA: (1) early recognition of the emergency and activation of emergency medical services (EMS), (2) early bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), (3) early delivery of shock(s) from a defibrillator if indicated, and (4) early advanced life support and postresuscitation care. Immediate bystander recognition of the emergency and EMS activation are critical. In many communities, however, these actions may be followed by significant delays, because the time interval from activation of EMS to arrival of these medical personnel may be 7 to 8 minutes or longer.4 Therefore, initial care in the first critical minutes after …

Community Lay Rescuer Automated External Defibrillation Programs Key State Legislative Components and Implementation Strategies: A Summary of a Decade of Experience for Healthcare Providers, Policymakers, Legislators, Employers, and Community Leaders From the American Heart Association Emergency Cardiovascular Care Committee, Council on Clinical Cardiology, and Office of State Advocacy

Cardiovascular disease is a leading cause of death for adults > or =40 years of age. The American Heart Association (AHA) estimates that sudden cardiac arrest is responsible for about 250,000 out-of-hospital deaths annually in the United States. Since the early 1990s, the AHA has called for innovative approaches to reduce time to cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and defibrillation and improve survival from sudden cardiac arrest. In the mid-1990s, the AHA launched a public health initiative to promote early CPR and early use of automated external defibrillators (AEDs) by trained lay responders in community (lay rescuer) AED programs. Between 1995 and 2000, all 50 states passed laws and regulations concerning lay rescuer AED programs. In addition, the Cardiac Arrest Survival Act (CASA, Public Law 106-505) was passed and signed into federal law in 2000. The variations in state and federal legislation and regulations have complicated efforts to promote lay rescuer AED programs and in some cases have created impediments to such programs. Since 2000, most states have reexamined lay rescuer AED statutes, and many have passed legislation to remove impediments and encourage the development of lay rescuer AED programs. The purpose of this statement is to help policymakers develop new legislation or revise existing legislation to remove barriers to effective community lay rescuer AED programs. Important areas that should be considered in state legislation and regulations are highlighted, and sample legislation sections are included. Potential sources of controversy and the rationale for proposed legislative components are noted. This statement will not address legislation to support home AED programs. Such recommendations may be made after the conclusion of a large study of home AED use.

Outcomes After In-Hospital Cardiac Arrest in Children With Cardiac Disease A Report From Get With the Guidelines–Resuscitation

Background— Small studies suggest that children experiencing a cardiac arrest after undergoing cardiac surgery have better outcomes than other groups of patients, but the survival outcomes and periarrest variables of cardiac and noncardiac pediatric patients have not been compared. Methods and Results— All cardiac arrests in patients <18 years of age were identified from Get With the Guidelines–Resuscitation from 2000 to 2008. Cardiac arrests occurring in the neonatal intensive care unit were excluded. Of 3323 index cardiac arrests, 19% occurred in surgical-cardiac, 17% in medical-cardiac, and 64% in noncardiac (trauma, surgical-noncardiac, and medical-noncardiac) patients. Survival to hospital discharge was significantly higher in the surgical-cardiac group (37%) compared with the medical-cardiac group (28%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.8; 95% confidence interval, 1.3–2.5) and the noncardiac group (23%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.8; 95% confidence interval, 1.4–2.4). Those in the cardiac groups were younger and less likely to have preexisting noncardiac organ dysfunction, but were more likely to have ventricular arrhythmias as their first pulseless rhythm, to be monitored and hospitalized in the intensive care unit at the time of cardiac arrest, and to have extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation compared with those in the noncardiac group. There was no survival advantage for patients in the medical-cardiac group compared with those in the noncardiac group when adjusted for periarrest variables. Conclusion— Children with surgical-cardiac disease have significantly better survival to hospital discharge after an in-hospital cardiac arrest compared with children with medical-cardiac disease and noncardiac disease. # Clinical Perspective {#article-title-25}Background— Small studies suggest that children experiencing a cardiac arrest after undergoing cardiac surgery have better outcomes than other groups of patients, but the survival outcomes and periarrest variables of cardiac and noncardiac pediatric patients have not been compared. Methods and Results— All cardiac arrests in patients <18 years of age were identified from Get With the Guidelines–Resuscitation from 2000 to 2008. Cardiac arrests occurring in the neonatal intensive care unit were excluded. Of 3323 index cardiac arrests, 19% occurred in surgical-cardiac, 17% in medical-cardiac, and 64% in noncardiac (trauma, surgical-noncardiac, and medical-noncardiac) patients. Survival to hospital discharge was significantly higher in the surgical-cardiac group (37%) compared with the medical-cardiac group (28%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.8; 95% confidence interval, 1.3–2.5) and the noncardiac group (23%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.8; 95% confidence interval, 1.4–2.4). Those in the cardiac groups were younger and less likely to have preexisting noncardiac organ dysfunction, but were more likely to have ventricular arrhythmias as their first pulseless rhythm, to be monitored and hospitalized in the intensive care unit at the time of cardiac arrest, and to have extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation compared with those in the noncardiac group. There was no survival advantage for patients in the medical-cardiac group compared with those in the noncardiac group when adjusted for periarrest variables. Conclusion— Children with surgical-cardiac disease have significantly better survival to hospital discharge after an in-hospital cardiac arrest compared with children with medical-cardiac disease and noncardiac disease.

Part 3: Evidence evaluation process: 2010 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science with Treatment Recommendations

Introduction Since 2000, the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR) has published the International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations (CoSTR) every 5 years based on review of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) science. Seven task forces with representatives from the 7 member resuscitation organizations create the CoSTR that enables regional resuscitation organizations to create their individual guidelines. The different guidelines are based on the scientific evidence and incorporate or adjust for regional considerations.

Rates of cardiopulmonary resuscitation training in the United States.

IMPORTANCE Prompt bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) improves the likelihood of surviving an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Large regional variations in survival after an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest have been noted. OBJECTIVES To determine whether regional variations in county-level rates of CPR training exist across the United States and the factors associated with low rates in US counties. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS We used a cross-sectional ecologic study design to analyze county-level rates of CPR training in all US counties from July 1, 2010, through June 30, 2011. We used CPR training data from the American Heart Association, the American Red Cross, and the Health & Safety Institute. Using multivariable logistic regression models, we examined the association of annual rates of adult CPR training of citizens by these 3 organizations (categorized as tertiles) with a countys geographic, population, and health care characteristics. EXPOSURE Completion of CPR training. MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES Rate of CPR training measured as CPR course completion cards distributed and CPR training products sold by the American Heart Association, persons trained in CPR by the American Red Cross, and product sales data from the Health & Safety Institute. RESULTS During the study period, 13.1 million persons in 3143 US counties received CPR training. Rates of county training ranged from 0.00% to less than 1.29% (median, 0.51%) in the lower tertile, 1.29% to 4.07% (median, 2.39%) in the middle tertile, and greater than 4.07% or greater (median, 6.81%) in the upper tertile. Counties with rates of CPR training in the lower tertile were more likely to have a higher proportion of rural areas (adjusted odds ratio, 1.12 [95% CI, 1.10-1.15] per 5-percentage point [PP] change), higher proportions of black (1.09 [1.06-1.13] per 5-PP change) and Hispanic (1.06 [1.02-1.11] per 5-PP change) residents, a lower median household income (1.18 [1.04-1.34] per