Part 8 : Advanced life support : 2010 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations

https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.110.971051

Part 8: Advanced Life Support: 2010 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations

Alexis A. Topjian, MD, MSCE, Chair; Tia T. Raymond, MD, Vice-Chair; Dianne Atkins, MD; Melissa Chan, MD; Jonathan P. Duff, MD, Med; Benny L. Joyner Jr, MD, MPH; Javier J. Lasa, MD; Eric J. Lavonas, MD, MS; Arielle Levy, MD, Med; Melissa Mahgoub, PhD; Garth D. Meckler, MD, MSHS; Kathryn E. Roberts, MSN, RN; Robert M. Sutton, MD, MSCE; Stephen M. Schexnayder, MD; On behalf of the Pediatric Basic and Advanced Life Support Collaborators

https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1161/CIR.0000000000000916

Part 4: Pediatric Basic and Advanced Life Support: 2020 American Heart Association Guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care

Basic life support (BLS) is the foundation for saving lives following cardiac arrest. Fundamental aspects of BLS include immediate recognition of sudden cardiac arrest (SCA) and activation of the emergency response system, early cardiopulmonary resuscitation ( CPR ), and rapid defibrillation with an automated external defibrillator ( AED) . Initial recognition and response to heart attack and stroke are also considered part of BLS. This section presents the 2010 adult BLS guidelines for lay rescuers and healthcare providers. Key changes and continued points of emphasis from the 2005 BLS Guidelines include the following: 

Despite important advances in prevention, SCA continues to be a leading cause of death in many parts of the world.1 SCA has many etiologies (ie, cardiac or noncardiac causes), circumstances (eg, witnessed or unwitnessed), and settings (eg, out-of-hospital or in-hospital). This heterogeneity suggests that a single …

Part 5: Adult Basic Life Support

Complications of Cardiac Resuscitation

Objective. —To describe and compare with standard cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) in humans a new form of CPR that involves both active compression and active decompression of the chest. Design. —Patients in cardiac arrest in whom standard advanced cardiac life support failed were randomized to receive 2 minutes of either standard or active compression-decompression (ACD) CPR using a custom, hand-held suction device, followed by 2 minutes of the alternate technique. The ACD device was applied midsternum and used to perform CPR according to the guidelines of the American Heart Association: 80 compressions per minute, compression depth of 3.8 to 5 cm, 50% duty cycle, and constant-volume ventilation. Mechanical Thumper CPR was also compared in five patients. End-tidal carbon dioxide (ETco2) concentrations and hemodynamic variables were measured. Transesophageal Doppler echocardiography was used to assess contractility, the velocity time integral (an analogue of cardiac output), and diastolic myocardial filling times. Results. —Ten patients were enrolled. The mean±SD ETco2 was 4.3±3.8 mm Hg with standard CPR and 9.0±3.9 mm Hg with ACD CPR (P Conclusion. —ACD CPR is a simple manual technique that improved cardiopulmonary circulation in 10 patients during cardiac arrest. Although ACD CPR may have produced a return of spontaneous circulation in three patients refractory to standard measures, its impact on survival when used early in cardiac arrest remains to be determined. (JAMA. 1992;267:2916-2923)

https://jamanetwork.com/HttpHandlers/ArticlePdfHandler.ashx?journal=JAMA&articleId=397586&pdfFileName=jama_267_21_036.pdf

Active Compression-Decompression: A New Method of Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation

Complications of CPR.

Nine hundred ninety-four patients were enrolled in a field trial in which ambulance crews were randomly assigned to use simultaneous compression-ventilation (SC-V) CPR or conventional CPR procedures in the prehospital setting. Survival to hospital admission and to discharge was superior in the conventional CPR group vs. the experimental group (p less than .01). In a subset of adult cases whose causes of arrest were nontraumatic, survivor rates still favored the conventional CPR group: 33.5% of 337 vs. 22.5% of 365 (p less than .001). In limited cases where cardiac arrest was due to other heart disease, was vascular in origin or secondary to other natural diseases or from hypertensive cardiovascular disease, or when ECG on arrival was an agonal rhythm, survival was better (but not statistically significantly) in the experimental group. There were no statistically significant differences in the Glasgow coma scores between surviving patients in either group at 24 h post-hospital admission or discharge. It is concluded that survival in the SC-V CPR group was lower, likely reflecting a deleterious effect of the experimental technique of resuscitation. Also noted was that 14% of the control patients and 6% of the experimental patients survived with manual CPR alone.

E G Fine

Papers

Complications of CPR.

Comparison of prehospital conventional and simultaneous compression-ventilation cardiopulmonary resuscitation.