Michael W. Donnino

Part 9: Post–Cardiac Arrest Care 2010 American Heart Association Guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care

The goal of immediate post-cardiac arrest care is to optimize systemic perfusion, restore metabolic homeostasis, and support organ system function to increase the likelihood of intact neurological survival. The post-cardiac arrest period is often marked by hemodynamic instability as well as metabolic abnormalities. Support and treatment of acute myocardial dysfunction and acute myocardial ischemia can increase the probability of survival. Interventions to reduce secondary brain injury, such as therapeutic hypothermia, can improve survival and neurological recovery. Every organ system is at risk during this period, and patients are at risk of developing multiorgan dysfunction. The comprehensive treatment of diverse problems after cardiac arrest involves multidisciplinary aspects of critical care, cardiology, and neurology. For this reason, it is important to admit patients to appropriate critical-care units with a prospective plan of care to anticipate, monitor, and treat each of these diverse problems. It is also important to appreciate the relative strengths and weaknesses of different tools for estimating the prognosis of patients after cardiac arrest.

Part 8: Post-cardiac arrest care: 2015 American Heart Association guidelines update for cardiopulmonary resuscitation and emergency cardiovascular care

The recommendations in this 2015 American Heart Association (AHA) Guidelines Update for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care are based on an extensive evidence review process that was begun by the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR) after the publication of the 2010 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations 1,2 and was completed in February 2015.3,4 In this in-depth evidence review process, ILCOR examined topics and then generated a prioritized list of questions for systematic review. Questions were first formulated in PICO (population, intervention, comparator, outcome) format,5 and then search strategies and inclusion and exclusion criteria were defined and a search for relevant articles was performed. The evidence was evaluated by the ILCOR task forces by using the standardized methodological approach proposed by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group.6 The quality of the evidence was categorized based on the study methodologies and the 5 core GRADE domains of risk of bias, inconsistency, indirectness, imprecision, and other considerations (including publication bias). Then, where possible, consensus-based treatment recommendations were created. To create this 2015 Guidelines Update, the AHA formed 15 writing groups, with careful attention to manage conflicts of interest, to assess the ILCOR treatment recommendations and to write AHA treatment recommendations by using the AHA Class of Recommendation (COR) and Level of Evidence (LOE) system. The recommendations made in the Guidelines are informed by the ILCOR recommendations and GRADE classification, in the context of the delivery of medical care in North America. The AHA writing group made new recommendations only on topics specifically reviewed by ILCOR in 2015. This chapter delineates instances where the AHA writing group developed recommendations that are significantly stronger or weaker than the ILCOR statements. In the online …

Part 12: Cardiac Arrest in Special Situations 2010 American Heart Association Guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care

This section of the 2010 AHA Guidelines for CPR and ECC addresses cardiac arrest in situations that require special treatments or procedures beyond those provided during basic life support (BLS) and advanced cardiovascular life support (ACLS). We have included 15 specific cardiac arrest situations. The first several sections discuss cardiac arrest associated with internal physiological or metabolic conditions, such as asthma (12.1), anaphylaxis (12.2), pregnancy (12.3), morbid obesity (12.4), pulmonary embolism (PE) (12.5), and electrolyte imbalance (12.6). The next several sections relate to resuscitation and treatment of cardiac arrest associated with external or environmentally related circumstances, such as ingestion of toxic substances (12.7), trauma (12.8), accidental hypothermia (12.9), avalanche (12.10), drowning (12.11), and electric shock/lightning strikes (12.12). The last 3 sections review management of cardiac arrest that may occur during special situations affecting the heart, including percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) (12.13), cardiac tamponade (12.14), and cardiac surgery (12.15). Asthma is responsible for more than 2 million visits to the emergency department (ED) in the United States each year, with 1 in 4 patients requiring admission to a hospital.1 Annually there are 5,000 to 6,000 asthma-related deaths in the United States, many occurring in the prehospital setting.2 Severe asthma accounts for approximately 2% to 20% of admissions to intensive care units, with up to one third of these patients requiring intubation and mechanical ventilation.3 This section focuses on the evaluation and treatment of patients with near-fatal asthma. Several consensus groups have developed excellent guidelines for the management of asthma that are available on the World Wide Web: ### Pathophysiology The pathophysiology of asthma consists of 3 key abnormalities: Complications of severe asthma, such as tension pneumothorax, lobar atelectasis, pneumonia, and pulmonary edema, can contribute to fatalities. Severe asthma exacerbations are commonly associated with …

Part 7: Adult Advanced Cardiovascular Life Support 2015 American Heart Association Guidelines Update for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care

Basic life support (BLS), advanced cardiovascular life support (ACLS), and post–cardiac arrest care are labels of convenience that each describe a set of skills and knowledge that are applied sequentially during the treatment of patients who have a cardiac arrest. There is overlap as each stage of care progresses to the next, but generally ACLS comprises the level of care between BLS and post–cardiac arrest care. ACLS training is recommended for advanced providers of both prehospital and in-hospital medical care. In the past, much of the data regarding resuscitation was gathered from out-of-hospital arrests, but in recent years, data have also been collected from in-hospital arrests, allowing for a comparison of cardiac arrest and resuscitation in these 2 settings. While there are many similarities, there are also some differences between in- and out-of-hospital cardiac arrest etiology, which may lead to changes in recommended resuscitation treatment or in sequencing of care. The consideration of steroid administration for in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) versus out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is one such example discussed in this Part. The recommendations in this 2015 American Heart Association (AHA) Guidelines Update for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) and Emergency Cardiovascular Care (ECC) are based on an extensive evidence review process that was begun by the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR) after the publication of the ILCOR 2010 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations 1 and was completed in February 2015.2 In this in-depth evidence review process, the ILCOR task forces examined topics and then generated prioritized lists of questions for systematic review. Questions were first formulated in PICO (population, intervention, comparator, outcome) format,3 and then a search strategy and inclusion and exclusion criteria were defined and a search for relevant articles was performed. The evidence was evaluated by using …

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 …

Primary Outcomes for Resuscitation Science Studies A Consensus Statement From the American Heart Association

Background and Purpose— The guidelines presented in this consensus statement are intended to serve researchers, clinicians, reviewers, and regulators in the selection of the most appropriate primary outcome for a clinical trial of cardiac arrest therapies. The American Heart Association guidelines for the treatment of cardiac arrest depend on high-quality clinical trials, which depend on the selection of a meaningful primary outcome. Because this selection process has been the subject of much controversy, a consensus conference was convened with national and international experts, the National Institutes of Health, and the US Food and Drug Administration. Methods— The Research Working Group of the American Heart Association Emergency Cardiovascular Care Committee nominated subject leaders, conference attendees, and writing group members on the basis of their expertise in clinical trials and a diverse perspective of cardiovascular and neurological outcomes (see the online-only Data Supplement). Approval was obtained from the Emergency Cardiovascular Care Committee and the American Heart Association Manuscript Oversight Committee. Preconference position papers were circulated for review; the conference was held; and postconference consensus documents were circulated for review and comments were invited from experts, conference attendees, and writing group members. Discussions focused on (1) when after cardiac arrest the measurement time point should occur; (2) what cardiovascular, neurological, and other physiology should be assessed; and (3) the costs associated with various end points. The final document underwent extensive revision and peer review by the Emergency Cardiovascular Care Committee, the American Heart Association Science Advisory and Coordinating Committee, and oversight committees. Results— There was consensus that no single primary outcome is appropriate for all studies of cardiac arrest. The best outcome measure is the pairing of a time point and physiological condition that will best answer the question under study. Conference participants were asked to assign an outcome to each of 4 hypothetical cases; however, there was not complete agreement on an ideal outcome measure even after extensive discussion and debate. There was general consensus that it is appropriate for earlier studies to enroll fewer patients and to use earlier time points such as return of spontaneous circulation, simple “alive versus dead,” hospital mortality, or a hemodynamic parameter. For larger studies, a longer time point after arrest should be considered because neurological assessments fluctuate for at least 90 days after arrest. For large trials designed to have a major impact on public health policy, longer-term end points such as 90 days coupled with neurocognitive and quality-of-life assessments should be considered, as should the additional costs of this approach. For studies that will require regulatory oversight, early discussions with regulatory agencies are strongly advised. For neurological assessment of post–cardiac arrest patients, researchers may wish to use the Cerebral Performance Categories or modified Rankin Scale for global outcomes. Conclusions— Although there is no single recommended outcome measure for trials of cardiac arrest care, the simple Cerebral Performance Categories or modified Rankin Scale after 90 days provides a reasonable outcome parameter for many trials. The lack of an easy-to-administer neurological functional outcome measure that is well validated in post–cardiac arrest patients is a major limitation to the field and should be a high priority for future development.

Central venous-arterial carbon dioxide difference as an indicator of cardiac index

Abstract Objective: The mixed venous-arterial (v-a) pCO2 difference has been shown to be inversely correlated with the cardiac index (CI). A central venous pCO2, which is easier to obtain, may provide similar information. The purpose of this study was to examine the correlation between the central venous-arterial pCO2 difference and CI. Design: Prospective, cohort study. Setting: Intensive care unit of an urban tertiary care hospital. Patients and participants: Eighty-three consecutive intensive care unit patients. Measurements: Simultaneous blood gases from the arterial, pulmonary artery (PA), and central venous (CV) catheters were obtained. At the same time point, cardiac indices were measured by the thermodilution technique (an average of three measurements). The cardiac indices obtained by the venous-arterial differences were compared with those determined by thermodilution. Results: The correlation (R2) between the mixed venous-arterial pCO2 difference and cardiac index was 0.903 ( p <0.0001), and the correlation between the central venous-arterial pCO2 difference and cardiac index was 0.892 ( p <0.0001). The regression equations for these relationships were natural log (CI)=1.837−0.159 (v-a) CO2 for the PA and natural log (CI)=1.787−0.151 (v-a) CO2 for the CV ( p <0.0001 for both). The root-mean-squared error for the PA and CV regression equations were 0.095 and 0.101, respectively. Conclusion: Venous-arterial pCO2 differences obtained from both the PA and CV circulations inversely correlate with the cardiac index. Substitution of a central for a mixed venous-arterial pCO2 difference provides an accurate alternative method for calculation of cardiac output.

Part 4: Advanced life support

The International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR) Advanced Life Support (ALS) Task Force performed detailed systematic reviews based on the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies1 and using the methodological approach proposed by the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group.2 Questions to be addressed (using the PICO [population, intervention, comparator, outcome] format)3 were prioritized by ALS Task Force members (by voting). Prioritization criteria included awareness of significant new data and new controversies or questions about practice. Questions about topics no longer relevant to contemporary practice or where little new research has occurred were given lower priority. The ALS Task Force prioritized 42 PICO questions for review. With the assistance of information specialists, a detailed search for relevant articles was performed in each of 3 online databases (PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library). By using detailed inclusion and exclusion criteria, articles were screened for further evaluation. The reviewers for each question created a reconciled risk of bias assessment for each of the included studies, using state-of-the-art tools: Cochrane for randomized controlled trials (RCTs),4 Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS)-2 for studies of diagnostic accuracy,5 and GRADE for observational studies that inform both therapy and prognosis questions.6 GRADE evidence profile tables7 were then created to facilitate an evaluation of the evidence in support of each of the critical and important outcomes. The quality of the evidence (or confidence in the estimate of the effect) was categorized as high, moderate, low, or very low,8 based on the study methodologies and the 5 core GRADE domains of risk of bias, inconsistency, indirectness, imprecision, and other considerations (including publication bias).9 These evidence profile tables were then used to create a …

Neurologic recovery after therapeutic hypothermia in patients with post-cardiac arrest myoclonus

Early myoclonus in comatose survivors of cardiac arrest, even when it is not myoclonic status epilepticus (MSE), is considered a sign of severe global brain ischemia and has been associated with high rates of mortality and poor neurologic outcomes. We report on three survivors of primary circulatory cardiac arrests who had good neurologic outcomes (two patients with a CPC score=1 and one patient with a CPC score=2) after mild therapeutic hypothermia, despite exhibiting massive myoclonus within the first 4h after return of spontaneous circulation. The concept that early myoclonus heralds a uniformly poor prognosis may need to be reconsidered in the era of post-cardiac arrest mild therapeutic hypothermia.

Part 10: Special Circumstances of Resuscitation: 2015 American Heart Association Guidelines Update for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care.

This Part of the 2015 American Heart Association (AHA) Guidelines Update for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) and Emergency Cardiovascular Care (ECC) addresses cardiac arrest in situations that require special treatments or procedures other than those provided during basic life support (BLS) and advanced cardiovascular life support (ACLS). This Part summarizes recommendations for the management of resuscitation in several critical situations, including cardiac arrest associated with pregnancy (Part 10.1), pulmonary embolism (PE) (10.2), and opioid-associated resuscitative emergencies, with or without cardiac arrest (10.3). Part 10.4 provides recommendations on intravenous lipid emulsion (ILE) therapy, an emerging therapy for cardiac arrest due to drug intoxication. Finally, updated guidance for the management of cardiac arrest during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is presented in Part 10.5. A table of all recommendations made in this 2015 Guidelines Update as well as those made in the 2010 Guidelines is contained in the Appendix. The special situations of resuscitation section (Part 12) of the 2010 AHA Guidelines for CPR and ECC 1 covered 15 distinct topic areas. The following topics were last updated in 2010: Additional information about drowning is presented in Part 5 of this publication, “Adult Basic Life Support and Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Quality.” The recommendations in this 2015 Guidelines Update are based on an extensive evidence review process that was begun by the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR) with the publication of the ILCOR 2010 International Consensus on CPR and ECC Science With Treatment …