Peter Morley

Therapeutic Hypothermia After Cardiac Arrest: An Advisory Statement by the Advanced Life Support Task Force of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation

On the basis of the published evidence to date, the Advanced Life Support (ALS) Task Force of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR) made the following recommendations in October 2002: Induction of moderate hypothermia (28°C to 32°C) before cardiac arrest has been used successfully since the 1950s to protect the brain against the global ischemia that occurs during some open-heart surgeries. Successful use of therapeutic hypothermia after cardiac arrest in humans was also described in the late 1950s1–3 but was subsequently abandoned because of uncertain benefit and difficulties with its use.4 Since then, induction of hypothermia after return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) has been associated with improved functional recovery and reduced cerebral histological deficits in various animal models of cardiac arrest.5–8 Additional promising preliminary human studies have been completed.9–16 At the time of publication of the Guidelines 2000 for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care , the evidence was insufficient to recommend use of therapeutic hypothermia after resuscitation from cardiac arrest.17 In 2002 the results of 2 prospective randomized trials were published that compared mild hypothermia with normothermia in comatose survivors of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.18,19 One study was undertaken in 9 centers in 5 European countries19; the other was conducted in 4 hospitals in Melbourne, Australia.18 The criteria for entry into these trials were similar: ROSC, patients remaining intubated and ventilated, with persistent coma after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest due to VF. In the European study, the median Glasgow Coma Scale score on hospital admission in both groups …

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 …

2005 American Heart Association (AHA) guidelines for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and emergency cardiovascular care (ECC) of pediatric and neonatal patients: Pediatric advanced life support

This publication presents the 2005 American Heart Association (AHA) guidelines for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and emergency cardiovascular care (ECC) of the pediatric patient and the 2005 American Academy of Pediatrics/AHA guidelines for CPR and ECC of the neonate. The guidelines are based on the evidence evaluation from the 2005 International Consensus Conference on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations, hosted by the American Heart Association in Dallas, Texas, January 23–30, 2005. The “2005 AHA Guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care” contain recommendations designed to improve survival from sudden cardiac arrest and acute life-threatening cardiopulmonary problems. The evidence evaluation process that was the basis for these guidelines was accomplished in collaboration with the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR). The ILCOR process is described in more detail in the “International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations.” The recommendations in the “2005 AHA Guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care” confirm the safety and effectiveness of many approaches, acknowledge that other approaches may not be optimal, and recommend new treatments that have undergone evidence evaluation. These new recommendations do not imply that care involving the use of earlier guidelines is unsafe. In addition, it is important to note that these guidelines will not apply to all rescuers and all victims in all situations. The leader of a resuscitation attempt may need to adapt application of the guidelines to unique circumstances. The following are the major pediatric advanced life support changes in the 2005 guidelines: There is further caution about the use of endotracheal tubes. Laryngeal mask airways are acceptable when used by experienced providers. Cuffed endotracheal tubes may be used in infants (except newborns) and children in in-hospital settings provided that cuff inflation pressure is kept <20 cm H2O. Confirmation of tube placement requires clinical assessment and assessment of exhaled carbon dioxide (CO2); esophageal detector devices may be considered for use in children weighing >20 kg who have a perfusing rhythm. Correct placement must be verified when the tube is inserted, during transport, and whenever the patient is moved. During CPR with an advanced airway in place, rescuers will no longer perform “cycles” of CPR. Instead, the rescuer performing chest compressions will perform them continuously at a rate of 100/minute without pauses for ventilation. The rescuer providing ventilation will deliver 8 to 10 breaths per minute (1 breath approximately every 6–8 seconds). Timing of 1 shock, CPR, and drug administration during pulseless arrest has changed and now is identical to that for advanced cardiac life support. Routine use of high-dose epinephrine is not recommended. Lidocaine is de-emphasized, but it can be used for treatment of ventricular fibrillation/pulseless ventricular tachycardia if amiodarone is not available. Induced hypothermia (32–34°C for 12–24 hours) may be considered if the child remains comatose after resuscitation. Indications for the use of inodilators are mentioned in the postresuscitation section. Termination of resuscitative efforts is discussed. It is noted that intact survival has been reported following prolonged resuscitation and absence of spontaneous circulation despite 2 doses of epinephrine. The following are the major neonatal resuscitation changes in the 2005 guidelines: Supplementary oxygen is recommended whenever positive-pressure ventilation is indicated for resuscitation; free-flow oxygen should be administered to infants who are breathing but have central cyanosis. Although the standard approach to resuscitation is to use 100% oxygen, it is reasonable to begin resuscitation with an oxygen concentration of less than 100% or to start with no supplementary oxygen (ie, start with room air). If the clinician begins resuscitation with room air, it is recommended that supplementary oxygen be available to use if there is no appreciable improvement within 90 seconds after birth. In situations where supplementary oxygen is not readily available, positive-pressure ventilation should be administered with room air. Current recommendations no longer advise routine intrapartum oropharyngeal and nasopharyngeal suctioning for infants born to mothers with meconium staining of amniotic fluid. Endotracheal suctioning for infants who are not vigorous should be performed immediately after birth. A self-inflating bag, a flow-inflating bag, or a T-piece (a valved mechanical device designed to regulate pressure and limit flow) can be used to ventilate a newborn. An increase in heart rate is the primary sign of improved ventilation during resuscitation. Exhaled CO2 detection is the recommended primary technique to confirm correct endotracheal tube placement when a prompt increase in heart rate does not occur after intubation. The recommended intravenous (IV) epinephrine dose is 0.01 to 0.03 mg/kg per dose. Higher IV doses are not recommended, and IV administration is the preferred route. Although access is being obtained, administration of a higher dose (up to 0.1 mg/kg) through the endotracheal tube may be considered. It is possible to identify conditions associated with high mortality and poor outcome in which withholding resuscitative efforts may be considered reasonable, particularly when there has been the opportunity for parental agreement. The following guidelines must be interpreted according to current regional outcomes: When gestation, birth weight, or congenital anomalies are associated with almost certain early death and when unacceptably high morbidity is likely among the rare survivors, resuscitation is not indicated. Examples are provided in the guidelines. In conditions associated with a high rate of survival and acceptable morbidity, resuscitation is nearly always indicated. In conditions associated with uncertain prognosis in which survival is borderline, the morbidity rate is relatively high, and the anticipated burden to the child is high, parental desires concerning initiation of resuscitation should be supported. Infants without signs of life (no heartbeat and no respiratory effort) after 10 minutes of resuscitation show either a high mortality rate or severe neurodevelopmental disability. After 10 minutes of continuous and adequate resuscitative efforts, discontinuation of resuscitation may be justified if there are no signs of life.

Recommended guidelines for uniform reporting of data from drowning: the “Utstein style”

This document presents the consensus of a group of international investigators who met to establish guidelines for the uniform reporting of data from studies of drowning incidents. The consensus process consisted of formal discussions at 3 international meetings as well as expert review, endorsements from multiple organizations, and invited recommendations from other interested parties. The concept of using consensus workshops to formulate guidelines is not new. Similar consensus guidelines for reporting surveillance and resuscitation research have been developed for both adult and pediatric cardiac arrest.1–3 The principal purpose of the recommendations in this advisory is to establish consistency in the reporting of drowning-related studies, both in terms of nomenclature and guidelines for reporting data. These recommendations are intended to improve the clarity of scientific communication and the comparability of scientific investigations. Improved clarity and comparability of future scientific reports will advance the clinical and epidemiological knowledge base. In turn, such studies can help identify appropriate prevention strategies as well as the best treatment for victims of drowning and can ultimately save lives. Laboratory and clinical investigators from many different specialties contribute to the multidisciplinary knowledge base of injury prevention and resuscitation science. Although diversity can be a strength, it can also be an obstacle because of the lack of a common language and communication between investigators from different backgrounds. In response to these problems, in June 1990 an international group of scientists concerned with research involving out-of-hospital cardiac arrest met at the Utstein Abbey in Stavanger, Norway. Participants discussed the lack of standardized nomenclature and definitions as a key problem in research reports. A second meeting, the Utstein Consensus Conference, was held in December 1990 in Brighton, England. Recommendations from this follow-up conference were published simultaneously in American and European journals.4,5 The report included uniform definitions, terminology, and …

Part 4: Advanced life support: 2015 International consensus on cardiopulmonary resuscitation and emergency cardiovascular care science with treatment recommendations

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 …

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

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 5: Adult Basic Life Support

Note From the Writing Group: Throughout this article, the reader will notice combinations of superscripted letters and numbers (eg, “Initial Recognition ”). 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.