Network


Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.

Hotspot


Dive into the research topics where Michael R. Sayre is active.

Publication


Featured researches published by Michael R. Sayre.


Circulation | 2010

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

John M. Field; Mary Fran Hazinski; Michael R. Sayre; Leon Chameides; Stephen M. Schexnayder; Robin Hemphill; Ricardo A. Samson; John Kattwinkel; Robert A. Berg; Farhan Bhanji; Diana M. Cave; Edward C. Jauch; Peter J. Kudenchuk; Robert W. Neumar; Mary Ann Peberdy; Jeffrey M. Perlman; Elizabeth Sinz; Andrew H. Travers; Marc D. Berg; John E. Billi; Brian Eigel; Robert W. Hickey; Monica E. Kleinman; Mark S. Link; Laurie J. Morrison; Robert E. O'Connor; Michael Shuster; Clifton W. Callaway; Brett Cucchiara; Jeffrey D. Ferguson

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.


Circulation | 2010

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

Mary Fran Hazinski; Jerry P. Nolan; 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 Morley; Laurie J. Morrison; Vinay 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

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 …


Annals of Emergency Medicine | 1995

A Rapid Diagnostic and Treatment Center for Patients With Chest Pain in the Emergency Department

W. Brian Gibler; John Paul Runyon; Richard Levy; Michael R. Sayre; Raymond Kacich; Charles R. Hattemer; Cathy Hamilton; Julie W Gerlach; Richard A. Walsh

STUDY OBJECTIVE To evaluate a comprehensive diagnostic 9-hour evaluation (Heart ER Program) for patients with possible acute ischemic coronary syndromes. DESIGN Retrospective review of consecutive patients. SETTING Urban tertiary care emergency department. PARTICIPANTS A total of 1,010 patients with symptoms suggestive of acute ischemic coronary syndrome was enrolled in the Heart ER Program over the first 32 months of operation. Patients with history of coronary artery disease, hemodynamic instability, acute ST-segment elevation or depression of more than 1 mm, or a clinical syndrome consistent with unstable angina were directly admitted to the hospital. INTERVENTION Patients underwent serial testing for creatine kinase (CK-MB) on presentation to the Heart ER and 3, 6, and 9 hours later with continuous 12-lead ECGs/serial ST-segment trend monitoring for 9 hours. Two-dimensional echocardiography and graded exercise testing were performed in the ED after the 9-hour evaluation period. RESULTS Of 1,010 patients, 829 (82.1%) were released home from the ED; 153 (15.1%) required admission for further cardiac evaluation. Fifty-two of 153 (33.9%) admitted patients were found to have a cardiac cause for their symptoms; 43 had acute ischemic coronary syndromes (12, acute myocardial infarction; 31, angina or unstable angina). CONCLUSION The Heart ER program provides an effective method for evaluating low- to moderate-risk patients with possible acute ischemic coronary syndrome in the ED setting.


Circulation | 2010

Part 4: CPR Overview: 2010 American Heart Association Guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care

Andrew H. Travers; Thomas D. Rea; Bentley J. Bobrow; Dana P. Edelson; Robert A. Berg; Michael R. Sayre; Marc D. Berg; Leon Chameides; Robert E. O'Connor; Robert A. Swor

Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is a series of lifesaving actions that improve the chance of survival following cardiac arrest.1 Although the optimal approach to CPR may vary, depending on the rescuer, the victim, and the available resources, the fundamental challenge remains: how to achieve early and effective CPR. Given this challenge, recognition of arrest and prompt action by the rescuer continue to be priorities for the 2010 AHA Guidelines for CPR and ECC. This chapter provides an overview of cardiac arrest epidemiology, the principles behind each link in the Chain of Survival, an overview of the core components of CPR (see Table 1), and the approaches of the 2010 AHA Guidelines for CPR and ECC to improving the quality of CPR. The goal of this chapter is to integrate resuscitation science with real-world practice in order to improve the outcomes of CPR. View this table: Table 1. Summary of Key BLS Components for Adults, Children and Infants Despite important advances in prevention, cardiac arrest remains a substantial public health problem and a leading cause of death in many parts of the world.2 Cardiac arrest occurs both in and out of the hospital. In the US and Canada, approximately 350 000 people/year (approximately half of them in-hospital) suffer a cardiac arrest and receive attempted resuscitation.3,–,7 This estimate does not include the substantial number of victims who suffer an arrest without attempted resuscitation. While attempted resuscitation is not always appropriate, there are many lives and life-years lost because appropriate resuscitation is not attempted. The estimated incidence of EMS-treated out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in the US and Canada is about 50 to 55/100 000 persons/year and approximately 25% of these present with pulseless ventricular arrhythmias.3,8 The estimated incidence of in-hospital cardiac arrest is 3 to 6/1000 admissions4,– …


Circulation | 2010

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

Graham Nichol; Tom P. Aufderheide; Brian Eigel; Robert W. Neumar; Keith G. Lurie; Vincent J. Bufalino; Clifton W. Callaway; Venugopal Menon; Robert R. Bass; Benjamin S. Abella; Michael R. Sayre; Cynthia M. Dougherty; Edward M. Racht; Monica E. Kleinman; Robert E. O'Connor; John P. Reilly; Eric W. Ossmann; Eric D. Peterson; Vascular Biology

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.


Circulation | 2008

Hands-Only (Compression-Only) Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation: A Call to Action for Bystander Response to Adults Who Experience Out-of-Hospital Sudden Cardiac Arrest. A Science Advisory for the Public From the American Heart Association Emergency Cardiovascular Care Committee

Michael R. Sayre; Robert A. Berg; Diana M. Cave; Richard L. Page; Jerald Potts; Roger D. White

Bystanders who witness the sudden collapse of an adult should activate the emergency medical services (EMS) system and provide high-quality chest compressions by pushing hard and fast in the middle of the victim’s chest, with minimal interruptions. This recommendation is based on evaluation of recent scientific studies and consensus of the American Heart Association Emergency Cardiovascular Care (ECC) Committee. This science advisory is published to amend and clarify the “2005 American Heart Association (AHA) Guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) and Emergency Cardiovascular Care (ECC)” for bystanders who witness an adult out-of-hospital sudden cardiac arrest. Ten years ago, the AHA commissioned a working group of resuscitation scientists to reappraise the Association’s inclusion of ventilations in the recommended sequence for bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). The working group evaluated peer-reviewed reports of laboratory and human research and summarized their findings in a 1997 statement.1 The key conclusion of that statement was that “Current guidelines for performing mouth-to-mouth ventilation during CPR should not be changed at this time.”1 In the animal studies cited in the 1997 statement, when ventricular fibrillation arrest was of short (under 6 minutes) duration, the addition of rescue ventilations to chest compressions did not improve outcome compared with chest compressions alone (LOE 6*).2–8 Analysis of human data from a national out-of-hospital CPR registry documented no survival advantage to ventilations plus compressions compared with the provision of chest compressions alone during bystander resuscitation (LOE 4*).9,10 Although these studies were not deemed sufficient to justify the elimination of ventilations from the bystander CPR sequence, the 1997 statement strongly encouraged further research that would focus on “… the timing, rate, and depth [of ventilations] as well as conditions under which respiratory assistance should be used .” The statement also recommended “… more research on real-world obstacles to learning, remembering, …


Circulation | 2010

Part 1: Executive Summary

John M. Field; Mary Fran Hazinski; Michael R. Sayre; Leon Chameides; Stephen M. Schexnayder; Robin Hemphill; Ricardo A. Samson; John Kattwinkel; Robert A. Berg; Farhan Bhanji; Diana M. Cave; Edward C. Jauch; Peter J. Kudenchuk; Robert W. Neumar; Mary Ann Peberdy; Jeffrey M. Perlman; Elizabeth Sinz; Andrew H. Travers; Marc D. Berg; John E. Billi; Brian Eigel; Robert W. Hickey; Monica E. Kleinman; Mark S. Link; Laurie J. Morrison; Robert E. O'Connor; Michael Shuster; Clifton W. Callaway; Brett Cucchiara; Jeffrey D. Ferguson

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


Annals of Emergency Medicine | 1998

Field trial of endotracheal intubation by basic EMTs

Michael R. Sayre; John C Sackles; Alan F Mistler; Janice L Evans; Anthony Kramer; Arthur Pancioli

STUDY OBJECTIVE The 1994 basic-EMT (EMT-B) curriculum recommended teaching EMT-Bs the skill of endotracheal intubation. In this study we assessed the success and complication rates of endotracheal intubations in the field by EMT-Bs. METHODS We conducted a prospective clinical trial over a period of 28 months in an urban out-of-hospital EMS system. Four first-responder EMT-B engine companies with paramedic backup received 10 hours; intubation training in three sessions spread over at least 2 weeks. The training module was similar to that of the 1994 EMT-B curriculum and included at least 10 intubations on manikins. The EMTs used manikins with closed chest cavities to learn assessment of endotracheal-tube placement. Patients were eligible for intubation by the EMTs if they were apneic and older than 15 years. We calculated 95% confidence interval (CIs) for intubation success rates. RESULTS Sixty-six EMT-Bs passed the training examinations and were authorized to perform intubation in the field. Endotracheal intubation was attempted by EMTs in 103 patients; the attempt was successful in 53 (95% CI, 42% to 61%). All patients who were not intubated by EMT-Bs were intubated by paramedics, with the exception of six cases. One attempt at intubation was made in 52 patients, two attempts in 44, and three in 7. Three unrecognized esophageal intubations occurred. CONCLUSION EMT-Bs trained in a short course successfully intubated about half the patients they encountered in this study. This low intubation success rate calls into question the validity of the endotracheal-intubation training module in the 1994 EMT-B national curriculum.


Circulation | 2010

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

Laurie J. Morrison; Gerald Kierzek; Douglas S. Diekema; Michael R. Sayre; Scott M. Silvers; Ahamed H. Idris; Mary E. Mancini

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, …


Circulation | 2011

Importance and Implementation of Training in Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Automated External Defibrillation in Schools: A Science Advisory From the American Heart Association

Diana M. Cave; Tom P. Aufderheide; Jeff Beeson; Alison Ellison; Andrew Gregory; Mary Fran Hazinski; Loren F. Hiratzka; Keith G. Lurie; Laurie J. Morrison; Vincent N. Mosesso; Vinay Nadkarni; Jerald Potts; Ricardo A. Samson; Michael R. Sayre; Stephen M. Schexnayder

In 2003, the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation published a consensus document on education in resuscitation that strongly recommended that “…instruction in CPR [cardiopulmonary resuscitation] be incorporated as a standard part of the school curriculum.”1 The next year the American Heart Association (AHA) recommended that schools “…establish a goal to train every teacher in CPR and first aid and train all students in CPR” as part of their preparation for a response to medical emergencies on campus.2 Since that time, there has been an increased interest in legislation that would mandate that school curricula include training in CPR or CPR and automated external defibrillation. Laws or curriculum content standards in 36 states (as of the 2009–2010 school year) now encourage the inclusion of CPR training programs in school curricula. The language in those laws and standards varies greatly, ranging from a suggestion that students “recognize” the steps of CPR to a requirement for certification in CPR. Not surprisingly, then, implementation is not uniform among states, even those whose laws or standards encourage CPR training in schools in the strongest language. This statement recommends that training in CPR and familiarization with automated external defibrillators (AEDs) should be required elements of secondary school curricula and provides the rationale for implementation of CPR training, as well as guidance in overcoming barriers to implementation. Sudden cardiac arrest is a leading cause of death in the United States and Canada. It is estimated that each year emergency medical services (EMS) personnel assess 294 851 (quasi-confidence intervals, 236 063 to 325 007) out-of-hospital cardiac arrests (OHCAs) in the United States. Survival, which is defined as being discharged alive from the hospital, varies widely by region (3.0% to 16.3%; median, 8.4%), but the overall average rate of survival to discharge from the hospital is estimated …

Collaboration


Dive into the Michael R. Sayre's collaboration.

Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Robert A. Berg

Children's Hospital of Philadelphia

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Vinay Nadkarni

Children's Hospital of Philadelphia

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Brian Eigel

American Heart Association

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Graham Nichol

American Heart Association

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Researchain Logo
Decentralizing Knowledge