Vinay Nadkarni

Part 13: Pediatric Basic Life Support 2010 American Heart Association Guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care

In contrast to adults, cardiac arrest in infants and children does not usually result from a primary cardiac cause. More often it is the terminal result of progressive respiratory failure or shock, also called an asphyxial arrest. Asphyxia begins with a variable period of systemic hypoxemia, hypercapnea, and acidosis, progresses to bradycardia and hypotension, and culminates with cardiac arrest.1 Another mechanism of cardiac arrest, ventricular fibrillation (VF) or pulseless ventricular tachycardia (VT), is the initial cardiac rhythm in approximately 5% to 15% of pediatric in-hospital and out-of-hospital cardiac arrests;2,–,9 it is reported in up to 27% of pediatric in-hospital arrests at some point during the resuscitation.6 The incidence of VF/pulseless VT cardiac arrest rises with age.2,4 Increasing evidence suggests that sudden unexpected death in young people can be associated with genetic abnormalities in myocyte ion channels resulting in abnormalities in ion flow (see “Sudden Unexplained Deaths,” below). Since 2010 marks the 50th anniversary of the introduction of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR),10 it seems appropriate to review the progressive improvement in outcome of pediatric resuscitation from cardiac arrest. Survival from in-hospital cardiac arrest in infants and children in the 1980s was around 9%.11,12 Approximately 20 years later, that figure had increased to 17%,13,14 and by 2006, to 27%.15,–,17 In contrast to those favorable results from in-hospital cardiac arrest, overall survival to discharge from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in infants and children has not changed substantially in 20 years and remains at about 6% (3% for infants and 9% for children and adolescents).7,9 It is unclear why the improvement in outcome from in-hospital cardiac arrest has occurred, although earlier recognition and management of at-risk patients on general inpatient units …

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 …

Survival From In-Hospital Cardiac Arrest During Nights and Weekends

CONTEXT Occurrence of in-hospital cardiac arrest and survival patterns have not been characterized by time of day or day of week. Patient physiology and process of care for in-hospital cardiac arrest may be different at night and on weekends because of hospital factors unrelated to patient, event, or location variables. OBJECTIVE To determine whether outcomes after in-hospital cardiac arrest differ during nights and weekends compared with days/evenings and weekdays. DESIGN AND SETTING We examined survival from cardiac arrest in hourly time segments, defining day/evening as 7:00 am to 10:59 pm, night as 11:00 pm to 6:59 am, and weekend as 11:00 pm on Friday to 6:59 am on Monday, in 86,748 adult, consecutive in-hospital cardiac arrest events in the National Registry of Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation obtained from 507 medical/surgical participating hospitals from January 1, 2000, through February 1, 2007. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The primary outcome of survival to discharge and secondary outcomes of survival of the event, 24-hour survival, and favorable neurological outcome were compared using odds ratios and multivariable logistic regression analysis. Point estimates of survival outcomes are reported as percentages with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). RESULTS A total of 58,593 cases of in-hospital cardiac arrest occurred during day/evening hours (including 43,483 on weekdays and 15,110 on weekends), and 28,155 cases occurred during night hours (including 20,365 on weekdays and 7790 on weekends). Rates of survival to discharge (14.7% [95% CI, 14.3%-15.1%] vs 19.8% [95% CI, 19.5%-20.1%], return of spontaneous circulation for longer than 20 minutes (44.7% [95% CI, 44.1%-45.3%] vs 51.1% [95% CI, 50.7%-51.5%]), survival at 24 hours (28.9% [95% CI, 28.4%-29.4%] vs 35.4% [95% CI, 35.0%-35.8%]), and favorable neurological outcomes (11.0% [95% CI, 10.6%-11.4%] vs 15.2% [95% CI, 14.9%-15.5%]) were substantially lower during the night compared with day/evening (all P values < .001). The first documented rhythm at night was more frequently asystole (39.6% [95% CI, 39.0%-40.2%] vs 33.5% [95% CI, 33.2%-33.9%], P < .001) and less frequently ventricular fibrillation (19.8% [95% CI, 19.3%-20.2%] vs 22.9% [95% CI, 22.6%-23.2%], P < .001). Among in-hospital cardiac arrests occurring during day/evening hours, survival was higher on weekdays (20.6% [95% CI, 20.3%-21%]) than on weekends (17.4% [95% CI, 16.8%-18%]; odds ratio, 1.15 [95% CI, 1.09-1.22]), whereas among in-hospital cardiac arrests occurring during night hours, survival to discharge was similar on weekdays (14.6% [95% CI, 14.1%-15.2%]) and on weekends (14.8% [95% CI, 14.1%-15.2%]; odds ratio, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.94-1.11]). CONCLUSION Survival rates from in-hospital cardiac arrest are lower during nights and weekends, even when adjusted for potentially confounding patient, event, and hospital characteristics.

Recommended Guidelines for Reviewing, Reporting, and Conducting Research on In-Hospital Resuscitation: The In-Hospital ‘Utstein Style’ A Statement for Healthcare Professionals From the American Heart Association, the European Resuscitation Council, the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, the Australian Resuscitation Council, and the Resuscitation Councils of Southern Africa

This scientific statement is the product of the Utstein ’95 Symposium held June 23-24, 1995, at Utstein Abbey, Island of Mosteroy, Rogaland County, Norway. Draft versions were circulated for comment to participants of the Utstein ’95 Symposium; the European Resuscitation Council Executive Committee; the Emergency Cardiac Care Committee of the American Heart Association; the Executive Committees of the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, the Australian Resuscitation Council, and the Resuscitation Councils of Southern Africa; and several outside reviewers. The development of this statement was authorized by the Science Advisory and Coordinating Committee of the AHA and the Executive Committee of the European Resuscitation Council. We do not know the true effectiveness of in-hospital resuscitation. Observed results of the many published studies vary greatly. Studies originate from different settings and have different patient populations. Reports suffer from nonuniform nomenclature and variable inclusion definitions. Patients differ in the extent of comorbid conditions and interventions in place at the time of cardiac arrest. These differences prevent valid interhospital and intrahospital comparisons and make determining the effectiveness of current resuscitation techniques impossible. To develop these guidelines the task force used a consensus development process that originated with the “Utstein style” for reporting outcome data from out-of-hospital resuscitation events. Task force members performed an integrated review of published studies. An initial draft was prepared, discussed, and revised at a 2-day conference. Further drafts were revised and circulated among task force members and discussed face-to-face at three subsequent meetings. The task force defined a set of data elements that are essential or desirable for documenting in-hospital cardiac arrest. Data categories are hospital variables, patient variables, arrest variables, and outcome variables. The “In-Hospital Utstein-Style Template” was developed to summarize these data and recommendations for reporting a specific set of survival rates and outcomes. The task force …

Conventional and chest-compression-only cardiopulmonary resuscitation by bystanders for children who have out-of-hospital cardiac arrests: a prospective, nationwide, population-based cohort study

BACKGROUND The American Heart Association recommends cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) by bystanders with chest compression only for adults who have cardiac arrests, but not for children. We assessed the effect of CPR (conventional with rescue breathing or chest compression only) by bystanders on outcomes after out-of-hospital cardiac arrests in children. METHODS In a nationwide, prospective, population-based, observational study, we enrolled 5170 children aged 17 years and younger who had an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest from Jan 1, 2005, to Dec 31, 2007. Data collected included age, cause, and presence and type of CPR by bystander. The primary endpoint was favourable neurological outcome 1 month after an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, defined as Glasgow-Pittsburgh cerebral performance category 1 or 2. FINDINGS 3675 (71%) children had arrests of non-cardiac causes and 1495 (29%) cardiac causes. 1551 (30%) received conventional CPR and 888 (17%) compression-only CPR. Data for type of CPR by bystander were not available for 12 children. Children who were given CPR by a bystander had a significantly higher rate of favourable neurological outcome than did those not given CPR (4.5% [110/2439] vs 1.9% [53/2719]; adjusted odds ratio [OR] 2.59, 95% CI 1.81-3.71). In children aged 1-17 years who had arrests of non-cardiac causes, favourable neurological outcome was more common after bystander CPR than no CPR (5.1% [51/1004] vs 1.5% [20/1293]; OR 4.17, 2.37-7.32). However, conventional CPR produced more favourable neurological outcome than did compression-only CPR (7.2% [45/624] vs 1.6% [six of 380]; OR 5.54, 2.52-16.99). In children aged 1-17 years who had arrests of cardiac causes, favourable neurological outcome was more common after bystander CPR than no CPR (9.5% [42/440] vs 4.1% [14/339]; OR 2.21, 1.08-4.54), and did not differ between conventional and compression-only CPR (9.9% [28/282] vs 8.9% [14/158]; OR 1.20, 0.55-2.66). In infants (aged <1 year), outcomes were uniformly poor (1.7% [36/2082] with favourable neurological outcome). INTERPRETATION For children who have out-of-hospital cardiac arrests from non-cardiac causes, conventional CPR (with rescue breathing) by bystander is the preferable approach to resuscitation. For arrests of cardiac causes, either conventional or compression-only CPR is similarly effective. FUNDING Fire and Disaster Management Agency and the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (Japan).

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.

Rhythms and outcomes of adult in-hospital cardiac arrest*

Objective:To determine the relationship of electrocardiographic rhythm during cardiac arrest with survival outcomes. Design:Prospective, observational study. Setting:Total of 411 hospitals in the National Registry of Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation. Patients:Total of 51,919 adult patients with pulseless cardiac arrests from April 1999 to July 2005. Measurements and Main Results:Registry data collected included first documented rhythm, patient demographics, pre-event data, event data, and survival and neurologic outcome data. Of 51,919 indexed cardiac arrests, first documented pulseless rhythm was ventricular tachycardia (VT) in 3810 (7%), ventricular fibrillation (VF) in 8718 (17%), pulseless electrical activity (PEA) in 19,262 (37%) and asystole 20,129 (39%). Subsequent VT/VF (that is, VT or VF occurring during resuscitation for PEA or asystole) occurred in 5154 (27%), with first documented rhythm of PEA and 4988 (25%) with asystole. Survival to hospital discharge rate was not different between those with first documented VF and VT (37% each, adjusted odds ratio [OR]) 1.08; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.95–1.23). Survival to hospital discharge was slightly more likely after PEA than asystole (12% vs. 11%, adjusted OR 1.1; 95% CI 1.00–1.18), Survival to discharge was substantially more likely after first documented VT/VF than PEA/asystole (adjusted OR 1.68; 95% CI 1.55–1.82). Survival to discharge was also more likely after PEA/asystole without subsequent VT/VF compared with PEA/asystole with subsequent VT/VF (14% vs. 7% for PEA without vs. with subsequent VT/VF; 12% vs. 8% for asystole without vs. with subsequent VT/VF; adjusted OR 1.60; 95% CI, 1.44–1.80). Conclusions:Survival to hospital discharge was substantially more likely when the first documented rhythm was shockable rather than nonshockable, and slightly more likely after PEA than asystole. Survival to hospital discharge was less likely following PEA/asystole with subsequent VT/VF compared to PEA/asystole without subsequent VT/VF.

Recommended guidelines for reviewing, reporting, and conducting research on in-hospital resuscitation: The in-hospital 'Utstein style'

This scientific statement is the product of the Utstein ’95 Symposium held June 23-24, 1995, at Utstein Abbey, Island of Mosteroy, Rogaland County, Norway. Draft versions were circulated for comment to participants of the Utstein ’95 Symposium; the European Resuscitation Council Executive Committee; the Emergency Cardiac Care Committee of the American Heart Association; the Executive Committees of the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, the Australian Resuscitation Council, and the Resuscitation Councils of Southern Africa; and several outside reviewers. The development of this statement was authorized by the Science Advisory and Coordinating Committee of the AHA and the Executive Committee of the European Resuscitation Council. We do not know the true effectiveness of in-hospital resuscitation. Observed results of the many published studies vary greatly. Studies originate from different settings and have different patient populations. Reports suffer from nonuniform nomenclature and variable inclusion definitions. Patients differ in the extent of comorbid conditions and interventions in place at the time of cardiac arrest. These differences prevent valid interhospital and intrahospital comparisons and make determining the effectiveness of current resuscitation techniques impossible. To develop these guidelines the task force used a consensus development process that originated with the “Utstein style” for reporting outcome data from out-of-hospital resuscitation events. Task force members performed an integrated review of published studies. An initial draft was prepared, discussed, and revised at a 2-day conference. Further drafts were revised and circulated among task force members and discussed face-to-face at three subsequent meetings. The task force defined a set of data elements that are essential or desirable for documenting in-hospital cardiac arrest. Data categories are hospital variables, patient variables, arrest variables, and outcome variables. The “In-Hospital Utstein-Style Template” was developed to summarize these data and recommendations for reporting a specific set of survival rates and outcomes. The task force …

Incidence of treated cardiac arrest in hospitalized patients in the United States.

Objective:The incidence and incidence over time of cardiac arrest in hospitalized patients is unknown. We sought to estimate the event rate and temporal trends of adult inhospital cardiac arrest treated with a resuscitation response. Design:Three approaches were used to estimate the inhospital cardiac arrest event rate. First approach: calculate the inhospital cardiac arrest event rate at hospitals (n = 433) in the Get With The Guidelines-Resuscitation registry, years 2003–2007, and multiply this by U.S. annual bed days. Second approach: use the Get With The Guidelines-Resuscitation inhospital cardiac arrest event rate to develop a regression model (including hospital demographic, geographic, and organizational factors), and use the model coefficients to calculate predicted event rates for acute care hospitals (n = 5445) responding to the American Hospital Association survey. Third approach: classify acute care hospitals into groups based on academic, urban, and bed size characteristics, and determine the average event rate for Get With The Guidelines-Resuscitation hospitals in each group, and use weighted averages to calculate the national inhospital cardiac arrest rate. Annual event rates were calculated to estimate temporal trends. Setting:Get With The Guidelines-Resuscitation registry. Patients:Adult inhospital cardiac arrest with a resuscitation response. Measurements and Main Results:The mean adult treated inhospital cardiac arrest event rate at Get With The Guidelines-Resuscitation hospitals was 0.92/1000 bed days (interquartile range 0.58 to 1.2/1000). In hospitals (n = 150) contributing data for all years of the study period, the event rate increased from 2003 to 2007. With 2.09 million annual U.S. bed days, we estimated 192,000 inhospital cardiac arrests throughout the United States annually. Based on the regression model, extrapolating Get With The Guidelines-Resuscitation hospitals to hospitals participating in the American Hospital Association survey projected 211,000 annual inhospital cardiac arrests. Using weighted averages projected 209,000 annual U.S. inhospital cardiac arrests. Conclusions:There are approximately 200,000 treated cardiac arrests among U.S. hospitalized patients annually, and this rate may be increasing. This is important for understanding the burden of inhospital cardiac arrest and developing strategies to improve care for hospitalized patients.