European Resuscitation Council Guidelines for Resuscitation 2015

As with other Parts of the 2015 American Heart Association (AHA) Guidelines Update for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) and Emergency Cardiovascular Care (ECC), Part 5 is based on the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR) 2015 international evidence review process. ILCOR Basic Life Support (BLS) Task Force members identified and prioritized topics and questions with the newest or most controversial evidence, or those that were thought to be most important for resuscitation. This 2015 Guidelines Update is based on the systematic reviews and recommendations of the 2015 International Consensus on CPR and ECC Science With Treatment Recommendations , “Part 3: Adult Basic Life Support and Automated External Defibrillation.”1,2 In the online version of this document, live links are provided so the reader can connect directly to the systematic reviews on the ILCOR Scientific Evidence Evaluation and Review System (SEERS) website. These links are indicated by a combination of letters and numbers (eg, BLS 740). We encourage readers to use the links and review the evidence and appendix.

As with all AHA Guidelines, each 2015 recommendation is labeled with a Class of Recommendation (COR) and a Level of Evidence (LOE). The 2015 Guidelines Update uses the newest AHA COR and LOE classification system, which contains modifications of the Class III recommendation and introduces LOE B-R (randomized studies) and B-NR (nonrandomized studies) as well as LOE C-LD (based on limited data) and LOE C-EO (consensus of expert opinion).

The AHA process for identification and management of potential conflicts of interest was used, and potential conflicts for writing group members are listed at the end of each Part of the 2015 Guidelines Update. For additional information about the systematic review process or management of potential conflicts of interest, see “Part 2: Evidence Evaluation and Management of Conflicts of Interest” in this …

Part 5: Adult Basic Life Support and Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Quality: 2015 American Heart Association Guidelines Update for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care.

The "2010 American Heart Association Guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care" increased the focus on methods to ensure that high-quality cardiopulmonary resus...

Cardiopulmonary resuscitation quality: Improving cardiac resuscitation outcomes both inside and outside the hospital: A consensus statement from the American heart association

Z-WAVE INCLUSION 1. Install batteries and bring the 4-in-1 sensor within direct range of your Z-Wave gateway controller 2. Put your Z-Wave controller in inclusion mode 3. Press and release the Z-Wave button TWICE quickly 4. A new 4-in-1 sensor should appear on your controller's device list Troubleshooting Tips If you are unable to include the Z-Wave sensor to your controller, please try one of the following: Bring the 4-in-1 sensor closer to your ZWave controller Press and release the Z-Wave button quickly several times once you put the controller in the inclusion mode to ensure the command has gone through Put your controller in EXCLUSION mode and press and release the Z-Wave button TWICE quickly, then try adding it to your network again Make sure you are clicking the Z-Wave button located in the small opening on the bottom of the sensor and NOT the tamper switch located above the battery slot Z-WAVE EXCLUSION 1. Bring the 4-in-1 sensor within direct range of your Z-Wave gateway controller 2. Put your Z-Wave controller in exclusion mode 3. Press and release the Z-Wave button TWICE quickly 4. The device should disappear from your controller's device list. The LED indicator will flash 3 times when you take the batteries out and put them back in to indicate the device has been successfully excluded. Please repeat the process following all steps carefully if the LED indicator blinks only once when you re-insert the batteries.

User's Manual for

Background Asthma is a respiratory (airway) condition that affects an estimated 300 million people worldwide and is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Omalizumab is a monoclonal antibody that binds and inhibits free serum immunoglobulin E (IgE). It is called an 'anti-IgE' drug. IgE is an immune mediator involved in clinical manifestations of asthma. A recent update of National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance in 2013 recommends omalizumab for use as add-on therapy in adults and children over six years of age with inadequately controlled severe persistent allergic IgE-mediated asthma who require continuous or frequent treatment with oral corticosteroids. Objectives To assess the effects of omalizumab versus placebo or conventional therapy for asthma in adults and children. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials for potentially relevant studies. The most recent search was performed in June 2013. We also checked the reference lists of included trials and searched online trial registries and drug company websites. Selection criteria Randomised controlled trials examining anti-IgE administered in any manner for any duration. Trials with co-interventions were included, as long as they were the same in each arm. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently assessed study quality and extracted and entered data. Three modes of administration were identified from the published literature: inhaled, intravenous and subcutaneous injection. The main focus of the updated review is subcutaneous administration, as this route is currently used in clinical practice. Subgroup analysis was performed by asthma severity. Data were extracted from published and unpublished sources. Main results In all, 25 trials were included in the review, including 11 new studies since the last update, for a total of 19 that considered the efficacy of subcutaneous anti-IgE treatment as an adjunct to treatment with corticosteroids. For participants with moderate or severe asthma who were receiving background inhaled corticosteroid steroid (ICS) therapy, a significant advantage favoured subcutaneous omalizumab with regard to experiencing an asthma exacerbation (odds ratio (OR) 0.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.42 to 0.60; ten studies, 3261 participants). This represents an absolute reduction from 26% for participants suffering an exacerbation on placebo to 16% on omalizumab, over 16 to 60 weeks. A significant benefit was noted for subcutaneous omalizumab versus placebo with regard to reducing hospitalisations (OR 0.16, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.42; four studies, 1824 participants), representing an absolute reduction in risk from 3% with placebo to 0.5% with omalizumab over 28 to 60 weeks. No separate data on hospitalisations were available for the severe asthma subgroup, and all of these data were reported for participants with the diagnosis of moderate to severe asthma. Participants treated with subcutaneous omalizumab were also significantly more likely to be able to withdraw their ICS completely than those treated with placebo (OR 2.50, 95% CI 2.00 to 3.13), and a small but statistically significant reduction in daily inhaled steroid dose was reported for omalizumab-treated participants compared with those given placebo (weighted mean difference (WMD) -118 mcg beclomethasone dipropionate (BDP) equivalent per day, 95% CI -154 to -84). However, no significant difference between omalizumab and placebo treatment groups was seen in the number of participants who were able to withdraw from oral corticosteroid (OCS) therapy (OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.53 to 2.63). Participants treated with subcutaneous omalizumab as an adjunct to treatment with corticosteroids required a small but significant reduction in rescue beta2-agonist medication compared with placebo (mean difference (MD) -0.39 puffs per day, 95% CI -0.55 to -0.24; nine studies, 3524 participants). This benefit was observed in both the moderate to severe (MD -0.58, 95% CI -0.84 to -0.31) and severe (MD -0.30, 95% CI -0.49 to -0.10) asthma subgroups on a background therapy of inhaled corticosteroids; however, no significant difference between subcutaneous omalizumab and placebo was noted for this outcome in participants with severe asthma who were receiving a background therapy of inhaled plus oral corticosteroids. Significantly fewer serious adverse events were reported in participants assigned to subcutaneous omalizumab than in those receiving placebo (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.91; 15 studies, 5713 participants), but more injection site reactions were observed (from 5.6% with placebo to 9.1% with omalizumab). To reflect current clinical practice, discussion of the results is limited to subcutaneous use, and trials involving intravenous and inhaled routes have been archived. Authors' conclusions Omalizumab was effective in reducing asthma exacerbations and hospitalisations as an adjunctive therapy to inhaled steroids and during steroid tapering phases of clinical trials. Omalizumab was significantly more effective than placebo in increasing the numbers of participants who were able to reduce or withdraw their inhaled steroids. Omalizumab was generally well tolerated, although more injection site reactions were seen with omalizumab. Further assessment in paediatric populations is necessary, as is direct double-dummy comparison with ICS. Although subgroup analyses suggest that participants receiving prednisolone had better asthma control when they received omalizumab, it remains to be tested prospectively whether the addition of omalizumab has a prednisolone-sparing effect. It is also not clear whether there is a threshold level of baseline serum IgE for optimum efficacy of omalizumab. Given the high cost of the drug, identification of biomarkers predictive of response is of major importance for future research.

Omalizumab for asthma in adults and children.

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 …

https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.110.971101

Part 14: Pediatric Advanced Life Support 2010 American Heart Association Guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care

Background Anticholinergic medications such as ipratropium improve the pulmonary function of patients with acute exacerbations of asthma, but their effect on hospitalization rates is uncertain. Methods We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of 434 children (2 to 18 years old) who had acute exacerbations of moderate or severe asthma treated in the emergency department. All the children received a nebulized solution of albuterol (2.5 or 5 mg per dose, depending on body weight) every 20 minutes for three doses and then as needed. A corticosteroid (2 mg of prednisone or prednisolone per kilogram of body weight) was given orally with the second dose of albuterol. Children in the treatment group received 500 μg (2.5 ml) of ipratropium bromide with the second and third doses of albuterol; children in the control group received 2.5 ml of normal saline at these times. Results Overall, the rate of hospitalization was lower in the ipratropium group (59 of 215 children [27.4 percent]) than ...

Effect of Nebulized Ipratropium on the Hospitalization Rates of Children with Asthma

Comparative efficacy of oral dexamethasone versus oral prednisone in acute pediatric asthma.

Objectives.–Our goals were (1) to investigate the causes of acute headache in childhood from the emergency department perspective and (2) to search for clinical clues that might distinguish headache associated with serious underlying disease.



Background.–The clinical presentation of headache in children and adolescents can be separated into 5 temporal patterns: acute, acute-recurrent, chronic progressive, chronic nonprogressive, and mixed. Few data exist regarding acute headache in children.



Methods.–Consecutive children who presented to our emergency department with the abrupt onset of severe headache were prospectively evaluated. The headache character, location, severity, and associated symptoms, as well as underlying causes, were recorded using a standardized survey.



Results.–One hundred fifty children, aged from 2 to 18 years, 87 boys and 63 girls, were enrolled over a 10-month period. Upper respiratory tract infection with fever (viral upper respiratory tract infection 39%, sinusitis 9%, streptococcal pharyngitis 9%) was the most frequently identified cause of acute headache (57%). Other causes included migraine (18%), viral meningitis (9%), posterior fossa tumors (2.6%), ventriculoperitoneal shunt malfunction (2%), epileptic seizure (postictal headache) (1.3%), concussion (postconcussive headache) (1.3%), intracranial hemorrhage (1.3%), and undetermined (7%). Two clinical features were found to have statistically significant associations with serious underlying disease: occipital location of headache and an inability of the patient to describe the quality of the head pain. All children with surgically remediable conditions had clear and objective neurological signs.



Conclusions.–In children and adolescents, the abrupt onset of severe headache is most frequently caused by upper respiratory tract infection with fever, sinusitis, or migraine. Special attention is warranted if the acute headache is occipital in location and if the affected patient is unable to describe the quality of the pain. Serious underlying processes such as brain tumor or intracranial hemorrhage are uncommon and, when present, are accompanied by multiple neurological signs (ataxia, hemiparesis, papilledema).

Acute headache in children and adolescents presenting to the emergency department.

https://www.annemergmed.com/article/S0196-0644(05)00138-1/pdf

Faiqa Qureshi

Papers

Part 14: Pediatric Advanced Life Support 2010 American Heart Association Guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care

Effect of Nebulized Ipratropium on the Hospitalization Rates of Children with Asthma

Comparative efficacy of oral dexamethasone versus oral prednisone in acute pediatric asthma.

Acute headache in children and adolescents presenting to the emergency department.

Clinical Efficacy of Racemic Albuterol Versus Levalbuterol for the Treatment of Acute Pediatric Asthma