Mary E. Mancini

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 …

Part 1: Executive summary: 2015 American Heart Association guidelines update for cardiopulmonary resuscitation and emergency cardiovascular care

Publication of the 2015 American Heart Association (AHA) Guidelines Update for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) and Emergency Cardiovascular Care (ECC) marks 49 years since the first CPR guidelines were published in 1966 by an Ad Hoc Committee on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation established by the National Academy of Sciences of the National Research Council.1 Since that time, periodic revisions to the Guidelines have been published by the AHA in 1974,2 1980,3 1986,4 1992,5 2000,6 2005,7 2010,8 and now 2015. The 2010 AHA Guidelines for CPR and ECC provided a comprehensive review of evidence-based recommendations for resuscitation, ECC, and first aid. The 2015 AHA Guidelines Update for CPR and ECC focuses on topics with significant new science or ongoing controversy, and so serves as an update to the 2010 AHA Guidelines for CPR and ECC rather than a complete revision of the Guidelines. The purpose of this Executive Summary is to provide an overview of the new or revised recommendations contained in the 2015 Guidelines Update. This document does not contain extensive reference citations; the reader is referred to Parts 3 through 9 for more detailed review of the scientific evidence and the recommendations on which they are based. There have been several changes to the organization of the 2015 Guidelines Update compared with 2010. “Part 4: Systems of Care and Continuous Quality Improvement” is an important new Part that focuses on the integrated structures and processes that are necessary to create systems of care for both in-hospital and out-of-hospital resuscitation capable of measuring and improving quality and patient outcomes. This Part replaces the “CPR Overview” Part of the 2010 Guidelines. Another new Part of the 2015 Guidelines Update is “Part 14: Education,” which focuses on evidence-based recommendations to facilitate widespread, consistent, efficient and effective implementation …

Part 12: Education, Implementation, and Teams 2010 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations

Cardiac arrest occurs in a wide variety of settings, from the unanticipated event in the out-of-hospital setting to anticipated arrests in the intensive care unit. Outcome from cardiac arrest is a function of many factors including the willingness of bystanders to perform cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), the ability of rescuers to integrate knowledge and psychomotor skills, the quality of performance delivered by individual rescuers and teams, and the efficiency and effectiveness of post–cardiac arrest care. The Chain of Survival is a metaphor used to organize and describe the integrated set of time-sensitive, coordinated actions necessary to maximize survival from cardiac arrest. The use of evidence-based education and implementation strategies can optimize the links of that chain. Strengthening the Chain of Survival in the prehospital setting requires focus on prevention and immediate recognition of cardiac arrest, increasing the likelihood of high-quality bystander CPR and early defibrillation, and improving regional systems of care. In the hospital setting, organized efforts targeting early identification and prevention of deterioration in patients at risk can decrease the incidence of cardiac arrest. The challenge for resuscitation programs is twofold: to ensure that providers acquire and maintain the necessary knowledge, skills, and team behavior to maximize resuscitation outcome; and to assist response systems in developing, implementing, and sustaining an evidence-based Chain of Survival. Maximizing survival from cardiac arrest requires improvement in resuscitation education and the implementation of systems that support the delivery of high-quality resuscitation and postarrest care, including mechanisms to systematically evaluate resuscitation performance. Well-designed resuscitation education can encourage the delivery of high-quality CPR. In addition continuous quality improvement processes should close the feedback loop and narrow the gap between ideal and actual performance. Community- and hospital-based resuscitation programs should systematically monitor cardiac arrests, the level of resuscitation care provided, and outcomes. The cycle of measurement, benchmarking, feedback, …

Part 3: Ethics 2010 American Heart Association Guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care

The goals of resuscitation are to preserve life, restore health, relieve suffering, limit disability, and respect the individuals decisions, rights, and privacy. Decisions about cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) efforts are often made in seconds by rescuers who may not know the victim of cardiac arrest or whether an advance directive exists. As a result, administration of CPR may be contrary to the individuals desires or best interests.1,–,3 However, practice is evolving as more emergency physicians reportedly honor legal advance directives in decisions about resuscitation.4,–,7 This section provides guidelines for healthcare providers who are faced with the difficult decision to provide or withhold emergency cardiovascular care. Healthcare professionals should consider ethical, legal, and cultural factors8,9 when caring for those in need of CPR. Although healthcare providers must play a role in resuscitation decision making, they should be guided by science, the individual patient or surrogate preferences, local policy, and legal requirements. ### Principle of Respect for Autonomy10 The principle of respect for autonomy is an important social value in medical ethics and law. The principle is based on societys respect for a competent individuals ability to make decisions about his or her own healthcare. Adults are presumed to have decision-making capability unless they are incapacitated or declared incompetent by a court of law. Truly informed decisions require that individuals receive and understand accurate information about their condition and prognosis, as well as the nature, risks, benefits, and alternatives of any proposed interventions. The individual must deliberate and choose among alternatives by linking the decision to his or her framework of values. Truly informed decisions require a strong healthcare provider–patient relationship/communication and a 3-step process: (1) the patient receives and understands accurate information about his or her condition, prognosis, the nature of any proposed interventions, alternatives, …

Part 16: Education, Implementation, and Teams 2010 American Heart Association Guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care

Optimizing the links in the Chain of Survival improves outcomes and saves lives. The use of evidence-based education and implementation strategies will allow organizations and communities to strengthen these links in the most effective and efficient manner.

Part 12: Education, Implementation, and Teams

Note From the Writing Group: Throughout this article, the reader will notice combinations of superscripted letters and numbers (eg, “Precourse Preparation”). These callouts are hyperlinked to evidence-based worksheets, which were used in the development of this article. An appendix of worksheets, applicable to this article, is located at the end of the text. The worksheets are available in PDF format and are open access.

A systematic review of retention of adult advanced life support knowledge and skills in healthcare providers

OBJECTIVE Advanced life support (ALS) guidelines are widely adopted for healthcare provider training with recommendations for retraining every two years or longer. This systematic review studies the retention of adult ALS knowledge and skills following completion of an ALS course in healthcare providers. METHODS We retrieved original articles using Medline, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, and PubMed, and reviewed reference citations to identify additional studies. We extracted data from included articles using a structured approach and organized outcomes by evaluation method, and knowledge and skills retention. RESULTS Among 336 articles retrieved, 11 papers were included. Most studies used multiple-choice questionnaires to evaluate knowledge retention and cardiac arrest simulation or other skills tests to evaluate skills retention. All studies reported variable rates of knowledge or skills deterioration over time, from 6 weeks to 2 years after training. Two studies noted retention of knowledge at 18 months and up to 2 years, and one reported skills retention at 3 months. Clinical experience, either prior to or after the courses, has a positive impact on retention of knowledge and skills. CONCLUSION There is a lack of large well-designed studies examining the retention of adult ALS knowledge and skills in healthcare providers. The available evidence suggests that ALS knowledge and skills decay by 6 months to 1 year after training and that skills decay faster than knowledge. Additional studies are needed to help provide evidence-based recommendations for assessment of current knowledge and skills and need for refresher training to maximize maintenance of ALS competency.

Teaching adult resuscitation in the United States—time for a rethink

The purpose of resuscitation education is to translate the science of resuscitation into classroom performance with transfer of the knowledge and skills to clinical practice. The ultimate goal of the process is to improve survival from cardiac arrest. Shortly after the 1961 publication by Kouwenhoven, Jude and Knickerbocker of their landmark paper describing cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) [1], CPR training began in the United States [2–4], first for healthcare professionals, later for lay citizens [5]. Since that time CPR has been taught to tens of millions of Americans. The Advanced Cardiac Life Support training program, introduced by the American Heart Association (AHA) in 1975 [6,7], has been taught to hundreds of thousands of healthcare professionals. Since 1966 all basic and advanced resuscitation training programs in the US have followed AHA Standards and Guidelines [8]. Are the educational programs effective? Do trainees learn? Does training affect performance in actual resuscitations? Is patient survival improved? Unfortunately, the answers to these questions are not unequivocally affirmative. In this article we shall review studies evaluating the effectiveness of the AHA adult resuscitation training programs. We shall question the appropriateness of the current programs, and propose both essential elements of effective training programs and future directions. 1. Effect of training on resuscitation performance and survival from cardiac arrest

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.

Automated External Defibrillators and Survival After In-Hospital Cardiac Arrest

CONTEXT Automated external defibrillators (AEDs) improve survival from out-of-hospital cardiac arrests, but data on their effectiveness in hospitalized patients are limited. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the association between AED use and survival for in-hospital cardiac arrest. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS Cohort study of 11,695 hospitalized patients with cardiac arrests between January 1, 2000, and August 26, 2008, at 204 US hospitals following the introduction of AEDs on general hospital wards. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE Survival to hospital discharge by AED use, using multivariable hierarchical regression analyses to adjust for patient factors and hospital site. RESULTS Of 11,695 patients, 9616 (82.2%) had nonshockable rhythms (asystole and pulseless electrical activity) and 2079 (17.8%) had shockable rhythms (ventricular fibrillation and pulseless ventricular tachycardia). AEDs were used in 4515 patients (38.6%). Overall, 2117 patients (18.1%) survived to hospital discharge. Within the entire study population, AED use was associated with a lower rate of survival after in-hospital cardiac arrest compared with no AED use (16.3% vs 19.3%; adjusted rate ratio [RR], 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.78-0.92; P < .001). Among cardiac arrests due to nonshockable rhythms, AED use was associated with lower survival (10.4% vs 15.4%; adjusted RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.65-0.83; P < .001). In contrast, for cardiac arrests due to shockable rhythms, AED use was not associated with survival (38.4% vs 39.8%; adjusted RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.88-1.13; P = .99). These patterns were consistently observed in both monitored and nonmonitored hospital units where AEDs were used, after matching patients to the individual units in each hospital where the cardiac arrest occurred, and with a propensity score analysis. CONCLUSION Among hospitalized patients with cardiac arrest, use of AEDs was not associated with improved survival.