Skip to main content
Review Article
Originally Published 11 November 2021
Free Access

2021 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations: Summary From the Basic Life Support; Advanced Life Support; Neonatal Life Support; Education, Implementation, and Teams; First Aid Task Forces; and the COVID-19 Working Group

Myra H. Wyckoff, MD, NLS Chair, Eunice M. Singletary, MD, FA Chair, Jasmeet Soar, MA, MB, BChir, ALS Chair, Theresa M. Olasveengen, MD, PhD, BLS Chair, Robert Greif, MD, MME, EIT Chair, Helen G. Liley, MBChB, NLS Vice Chair, David Zideman, LVO, QHP(C), MBBS, FA Vice Chair, Show All , Farhan Bhanji, MD, MSc(Ed), EIT Vice Chair, Lars W. Andersen, MD, MPH, PhD, DMSc, Suzanne R. Avis, B App Sc, MPH, Khalid Aziz, MBBS, MA, Med(IT), Jason C. Bendall, MBBS, MM, PhD, David C. Berry, PhD, MHA, Vere Borra, PhD, Bernd W. Böttiger, MD, ML, DEAA, Richard Bradley, MD, Janet E. Bray, RN, PhD, Jan Breckwoldt, MD, MME, Jestin N. Carlson, MD, MS, Pascal Cassan, MD, Maaret Castrén, MD, PhD, Wei-Tien Chang, MD, PhD, Nathan P. Charlton, MD, Adam Cheng, MD, Sung Phil Chung, MD, PhD, Julie Considine, RN, PhD, Daniela T. Costa-Nobre, MD, MHS, Keith Couper, RN, PhD, Katie N. Dainty, MSc, PhD, Peter G. Davis, MD, Maria Fernanda de Almeida, MD, PhD, Allan R. de Caen, MD, Edison F. de Paiva, MD, PhD, Charles D. Deakin, MA, MD, Therese Djärv, MD, PhD, Matthew J. Douma, PhD(c), RN, Ian R. Drennan, ACP, PhD, Jonathan P. Duff, MD, Kathryn J. Eastwood, PhD, BParamedicStud, BNurs, Walid El-Naggar, MD, Jonathan L. Epstein, MEMS, NRP, Raffo Escalante, MD, Jorge G. Fabres, MD, MSPH, Joe Fawke, MBChB, Judith C. Finn, PhD, RN, Elizabeth E. Foglia, MD, MA, MSCE, Fredrik Folke, MD, PhD, Karoline Freeman, PhD, Elaine Gilfoyle, MD, MMEd, Craig A. Goolsby, MD, MEd, Amy Grove, PhD, CPsychol, Ruth Guinsburg, MD, PhD, Tetsuo Hatanaka, MD, PhD, Mary Fran Hazinski, RN, MSN, George S. Heriot, PhD, Karen G. Hirsch, MD, Mathias J. Holmberg, MD, MPH, Shigeharu Hosono, MD, PhD, Ming-Ju Hsieh, MD, MSc, PhD, Kevin K.C. Hung, MBChB, MPH, Cindy H. Hsu, MD, PhD, Takanari Ikeyama, MD, Tetsuya Isayama, MD, MSc, PhD, Vishal S. Kapadia, MD, MSCS, Mandira Daripa Kawakami, MD, PhD, Han-Suk Kim, MD, PhD, David A. Kloeck, MBBCh, FCPaed, Crit Care (SA), Peter J. Kudenchuk, MD, Anthony T. Lagina, MD, Kasper G. Lauridsen, MD, Eric J. Lavonas, MD, MS, Andrew S. Lockey, MBChB, PhD, Carolina Malta Hansen, MD, PhD, David Markenson, MD, MBA, Tasuku Matsuyama, MD, PhD, Christopher J.D. McKinlay, PhD, MBChB, Amin Mehrabian, PharmD, Raina M. Merchant, MD, MSHP, Daniel Meyran, MD, Peter T. Morley, MBBS, Laurie J. Morrison, MD, MSc, Kevin J. Nation, NZRN, Michael Nemeth, AEMCA(f), MA, Robert W. Neumar, MD, PhD, Tonia Nicholson, MBBS, BscPsych, Susan Niermeyer, MD, MPH, Nikolaos Nikolaou, MD, Chika Nishiyama, RN, DrPH, Brian J. O’Neil, MD, Aaron M. Orkin, MD, MSc, MPH, PhD(c), Osokogu Osemeke, MD, PhD, Michael J. Parr, MB, BS, Catherine Patocka, MDCM, MHPE, Jeffrey L. Pellegrino, PhD, MPH, Gavin D. Perkins, MB, ChB, MMEd, MD, Jeffrey M. Perlman, MBChB, Yacov Rabi, MD, Joshua C. Reynolds, MD, MS, Giuseppe Ristagno, MD, PhD, Charles C. Roehr, MD, PhD, Tetsuya Sakamoto, MD, PhD, Claudio Sandroni, MD, Taylor Sawyer, DO, MEd, Georg M. Schmölzer, MD, PhD, Sebastian Schnaubelt, MD, Federico Semeraro, MD, Markus B. Skrifvars, MD, PhD, Christopher M. Smith, MD, MSc, Michael A. Smyth, BSc(hons), MSc, PhD, Roger F. Soll, MD, Takahiro Sugiura, MD, PhD, Sian Taylor-Phillips, PhD, Daniele Trevisanuto, MD, Christian Vaillancourt, MD, MSc, Tzong-Luen Wang, MD, PhD, JM, Gary M. Weiner, MD, Michelle Welsford, MD, BSc, Jane Wigginton, MD, MSCS, Jonathan P. Wyllie, MBChB, Joyce Yeung, PhD, RN, Jerry P. Nolan, MBChB, and Katherine M. Berg, MD CollaboratorsAuthor Info & Affiliations
This article has been corrected.
VIEW CORRECTION

Abstract

The International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation initiated a continuous review of new, peer-reviewed published cardiopulmonary resuscitation science. This is the fifth annual summary of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations; a more comprehensive review was done in 2020. This latest summary addresses the most recently published resuscitation evidence reviewed by International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation task force science experts. Topics covered by systematic reviews in this summary include resuscitation topics of video-based dispatch systems; head-up cardiopulmonary resuscitation; early coronary angiography after return of spontaneous circulation; cardiopulmonary resuscitation in the prone patient; cord management at birth for preterm and term infants; devices for administering positive-pressure ventilation at birth; family presence during neonatal resuscitation; self-directed, digitally based basic life support education and training in adults and children; coronavirus disease 2019 infection risk to rescuers from patients in cardiac arrest; and first aid topics, including cooling with water for thermal burns, oral rehydration for exertional dehydration, pediatric tourniquet use, and methods of tick removal. Members from 6 International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation task forces have assessed, discussed, and debated the quality of the evidence, according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria, and their statements include consensus treatment recommendations or good practice statements. Insights into the deliberations of the task forces are provided in Justification and Evidence-to-Decision Framework Highlights sections. In addition, the task forces listed priority knowledge gaps for further research.
This is the fifth in a series of annual International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR) International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations (CoSTR) summary publications that summarize the ILCOR task force analyses of published resuscitation evidence. This 2021 review includes 13 topics addressed with systematic reviews (SysRevs) by the 6 ILCOR task forces and an additional topic reviewed by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) working group. Although only a SysRev can generate a full CoSTR and updated treatment recommendations, many other topics were reviewed via more streamlined approaches, detailed below.
Draft CoSTRs for all topics evaluated with SysRevs were posted on a rolling basis from November 2020 through March 2021 on the ILCOR website1 and included the data reviewed and draft treatment recommendations, with comments accepted for at least 2 weeks after each posting date. The 9 draft CoSTR statements were viewed ≈11 000 times, and 154 comments were provided as feedback. These CoSTRs are now available online, adding to the existing CoSTR statements.
This summary contains the final wording of the treatment recommendations and good practice statements as approved by the task forces and by the ILCOR member councils, but it differs in several respects from the online CoSTRs: The language used to describe the evidence in this summary is not restricted to standard Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) terminology, thereby making it more transparent to a wider audience; in some cases, only the high-priority outcomes are reported; the Justification and Evidence-to-Decision Framework Highlights sections are in some cases shortened but aim to provide insight into the rationale behind the treatment recommendations; and finally, the task forces have prioritized knowledge gaps requiring future research. Links to the published reviews and full online CoSTR are provided in the individual sections.
The CoSTRs are based on task force analysis of the data using the GRADE approach.1 Each analysis has been detailed either in a SysRev conducted by a Knowledge Synthesis Unit or a systematic reviewer or as a task force–led SysRev, and always with input from ILCOR content experts. This GRADE approach rates the certainty of evidence supporting the intervention (predefined by the population, intervention, comparator, outcome [PICO] question) as high, moderate, low, or very low. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) begin the analysis as high-certainty evidence, and observational studies begin as low-certainty evidence. Certainty of evidence can be downgraded for risk of bias, inconsistency, indirectness, imprecision, or publication bias; it can be upgraded for a large effect, a dose-response effect, or if any residual confounding would be thought to reduce the detected effect.
In addition to the certainty of evidence, each statement includes the pertinent outcome data. The format for the data varies by what is available but ideally includes both risk ratio (RR) with 95% CI and risk difference with 95% CI. The risk difference is the absolute difference between the risks and is calculated by subtracting the risk in the control group from the risk in the intervention group. This absolute effect enables a more clinically useful assessment of the magnitude of the effect of an intervention and enables calculation of the number needed to treat (number needed to treat=1/risk difference). In cases when the data do not enable absolute effect estimates to be determined, alternative measures of effect such as odds ratios (ORs) are reported.
Treatment recommendations are generated by the task forces after weighing the evidence and after task force discussion. The strength of a recommendation is determined by the task force and is not necessarily tied to the certainty of evidence. Although ILCOR generally has not produced any guidance when the evidence is insufficient to support a recommendation, in some cases good practice statements have been provided for topics thought to be of particular interest to the resuscitation community. Good practice statements are not recommendations but represent expert opinion in light of very limited data.
ILCOR’s goal is to review at least 20% of all PICO questions each year so that the CoSTRs reflect current and emerging science. To facilitate this goal and acknowledging that many PICO topics will not have sufficient new evidence to warrant a SysRev, ILCOR implemented 2 additional levels of evidence review in 2020, which were also used for 2021. Scoping reviews (ScopRevs) are undertaken when there is a lack of clarity on the amount and type of evidence on a broader topic. ScopRevs are broad searches done in multiple databases with a rigor similar to that of a SysRev but do not include bias assessments or meta-analyses. The third and least rigorous form of evidence evaluation is the evidence update (EvUp), in which a PubMed search is carried out to screen for significant new data and assess whether there has been sufficient new science to warrant a new ScopRev or SysRev. Both ScopRevs and EvUps can inform a decision about whether a SysRev should be undertaken but are not used to generate a new or updated CoSTR because they do not include bias assessment, GRADE evaluation, or meta-analyses. In some instances, ScopRevs done for the 2021 review did generate good practice statements. In this document, the results of ScopRevs are included in a more concise form than in the online version, similar to the SysRevs. EvUps are tabulated by topic at the end of each task force section, with the associated documents provided in the appendix.
The following topics are addressed in this CoSTR summary:

Basic Life Support

Video-based dispatch system (new: SysRev)
Head-up cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) (new: SysRev)
Bystander CPR in drowning (BLS 856: ScopRev)
In-water resuscitation in drowning (BLS 856: ScopRev)
Resuscitation on a boat after drowning (BLS 856: ScopRev)
Airway management in drowning (BLS 856: ScopRev)
Prehospital oxygen in drowning (BLS 856: ScopRev)
Automated external defibrillator (AED) use in drowning (BLS 856: ScopRev)
Mechanical ventilation in drowning (BLS 856: ScopRev)
Extracorporeal membrane oxygenator (ECMO) in drowning (BLS 856: ScopRev)
Criteria for discharge in drowning (BLS 856: ScopRev)
Paddle size and placement for defibrillation (new: EvUp)
CPR before call for help (BLS 1527: EvUp)
Barrier devices (BLS 342: EvUp)
Chest compression rate (BLS 343: EvUp)
Rhythm check timing (BLS 345: EvUp)
Timing of CPR cycles (2 minutes versus other) (BLS 346: EvUp)
Public-access AED programs (BLS 347: EvUp)
Check for circulation during basic life support (BLS) (BLS 348: EvUp)
Rescuer fatigue in chest compression–only CPR (BLS 349: EvUp)
Harm from CPR to victims not in arrest (BLS 353: EvUp)
Harm to rescuers from CPR (BLS 354: EvUp)
Hand position during compressions (BLS 357: EvUp)
Dispatcher instructions (BLS 359: EvUp)
Emergency medical services (EMS) chest compression–only CPR versus conventional CPR (BLS 360: EvUp)
Feedback for CPR quality (BLS 361: EvUp)
Compression-to-ventilation ratio (BLS 362: EvUp)
CPR before defibrillation (BLS 363: EvUp)
Chest compression depth (BLS 366: EvUp)
Chest wall recoil (BLS 367: EvUp)
Foreign body airway obstruction (BLS 368: EvUp)
Firm surface for CPR (BLS 370: EvUp)
Analysis of rhythm during chest compression (BLS 373: EvUp)
Alternative compression techniques (cough, precordial thump, fist pacing) (BLS 374: EvUp)
Tidal volumes and ventilation rates (BLS 546: EvUp)
Lay rescuer chest compression–only CPR versus standard CPR (BLS 547: EvUp)
Starting CPR (compression-airway-breathing compared with airway-breathing-compression) (BLS 661: EvUp)
Dispatcher recognition of cardiac arrest (BLS 740: EvUp)
Resuscitation care for suspected opioid-associated emergencies (BLS 811: EvUp)
Drowning (BLS 856: EvUp)
Dispatcher-assisted continuous chest compressions CPR versus conventional CPR (new: EvUp)

Advanced Life Support

Early coronary angiography (CAG) after return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) (ACS 340, 885: SysRev)
CPR and defibrillation in the prone patient (new: SysRev)
Consciousness during CPR (new: ScopRev)
Transition from shockable to nonshockable rhythm (ALS 444: EvUp)
Oxygen dose during CPR (ALS 889: EvUp)
Steroids during CPR (ALS 433: EvUp)
Confirmation of tracheal tube position (ALS 469: EvUp)
Automatic ventilators versus manual ventilation during CPR (ALS 490: EvUp)
Cardiac arrest and asthma (ALS 492: EvUp)
Extracorporeal CPR (ECPR) versus manual or mechanical CPR (ALS 723: EvUp)
Steroids after ROSC (ALS 446: EvUp)
Oxygen dose after ROSC (ALS 448: EvUp)
Neuroprognostication after ROSC (ALS 450, 458, 460, 484, 487, 713: EvUp)

Pediatric Life Support

The Pediatric Life Support Task Force did not complete any primary SysRevs before the deadline for publication of the 2021 CoSTR (although several reviews are in progress). The following SysRevs include children and were done in collaboration with the Pediatric Life Support Task Force members: duration of cooling with water for thermal burns as a first aid intervention (First Aid), pediatric tourniquets (First Aid), and CPR in the prone patient (ALS).

Neonatal Life Support

Cord management at birth for preterm infants (NLS 787: SysRev)
Cord management at birth for term and late preterm infants (NLS 1551: SysRev)
Devices for administering positive-pressure ventilation (PPV) at birth (NLS 870: SysRev)
Family presence during neonatal resuscitation (NLS 1590: SysRev)

Education, Implementation, and Teams

Self-directed, digitally based BLS education and training in adults and children (EIT 647: SysRev)
EMS practitioner’s experience or exposure (EIT 437: EvUp)
High-fidelity training (EIT 623: EvUp)
Cardiac arrest centers (EIT 624: EvUp)
Timing for retraining (EIT 628: EvUp)
Cognitive aids during resuscitation (EIT 629: EvUp)
Termination of resuscitation for in-hospital cardiac arrest (EIT 4002 EvUp)
Precourse preparation for advanced courses (EIT 637: EvUp)
System performance improvements (EIT 640: EvUp)
Community initiatives to promote BLS implementation (EIT 641: EvUp)
Prehospital termination of resuscitation rules (EIT 642: EvUp)
CPR feedback devices during training (EIT 648: EvUp)
BLS training in high-risk populations (EIT 649: EvUp)
Technology to engage first responders (EIT 878: EvUp)
Resuscitation team with advanced life support (ALS) course training (EIT 4000: EvUp)
Opioid overdose first aid education (EIT 4001: EvUp)
Facilitators and barriers to bystander CPR (EIT 4003: EvUp)
Virtual reality, augmented reality, and gamified learning (EIT 4005: EvUp)
In situ training (EIT 4007: EvUp)

First Aid

Duration of cooling with water for thermal burns as a first aid intervention (FA 770: SysRev)
Exertion-related dehydration and rehydration (FA 584: SysRev)
Pediatric tourniquet types (FA 768: SysRev)
Methods of tick removal (new: SysRev Adolopment)
Use of cryotherapy for acute epistaxis in the first aid setting (new: ScopRev)
Pressure immobilization bandaging for venomous snakebites (FA 1001: EvUp)
Second dose of epinephrine for anaphylaxis (FA 500: EvUp)
Dietary sugars for treatment of hypoglycemia (FA 795: EvUp)

COVID-19 Working Group

COVID-19 infection risk to rescuers from patients in cardiac arrest (new: SysRev)
Readers are encouraged to monitor the ILCOR website1 to provide feedback on planned SysRevs and to provide comments when additional draft reviews are posted.

Basic Life Support

Video-Based Dispatch System (SysRev)

Rationale for Review

Because new communication technologies offer promising new avenues in emergency medical dispatch, the BLS Task Force considered it important to review any available evidence evaluating the use of video to enhance communication and improve lay-rescuer CPR in the out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) setting. The SysRev was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; Registration CRD42020219112).
The full text of this CoSTR can be found on the ILCOR website.2

PICO, Study Design, and Time Frame

Population: Adults and children with presumed cardiac arrest in the out-of-hospital setting
Intervention: Patients/cases or EMS systems through which dispatcher-assisted CPR (DA-CPR) is offered by video and audio communication between dispatcher center and scene
Comparator: Patients/cases or EMS systems through which DA-CPR is offered by audio-only communication between dispatcher center and scene
Outcome: Any clinical outcome (survival with favorable neurological outcome, survival, ROSC, and CPR quality)
Study design: RCTs and nonrandomized studies (non-RCTs, interrupted time series, controlled before-and-after studies, cohort studies) were eligible for inclusion; unpublished studies (eg, conference abstracts, trial protocols) were excluded.
Time frame: All years and all languages were included as long as there was an English abstract. Literature search was updated to February 8, 2021.

Consensus on Science

Only 1 observational study was identified.3 For the critical outcome of good neurological function at discharge, we identified very low–certainty evidence from 1 observational study enrolling 1720 adult OHCAs, which showed benefit from the use of video-based dispatch compared with standard audio-based dispatch (OR, 1.89 [95% CI, 1.18–3.04]; P<0.01). However, the benefit was not observed after multivariable statistical adjustment (OR, 1.28 [95% CI, 0.73–2.26]) or propensity score–matching analysis (OR, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.51–1.64]). Similarly, the group receiving video-based dispatch had higher rates of survival to discharge and ROSC compared with the group receiving standard audio-based dispatch in unadjusted analysis, but there were no significant differences between the groups after multivariable statistical adjustment and propensity score–matching analysis.3
We also identified 13 manikin simulation studies that compared video-based with audio-based dispatch.4–16 The simulation studies showed improved CPR quality parameters such as compression rate and time to compression in the video-based dispatch group but did not show any significant differences in chest compression depth, correct compression depth, correct hand position, correct chest release, or time to defibrillation.

Treatment Recommendations

We suggest that the usefulness of video-based dispatch systems be assessed in clinical trials or research initiatives (weak recommendation, very low–certainty evidence).

Justification and Evidence-to-Decision Framework Highlights

The evidence-to-decision table is included in Supplemental Appendix A1.
Only a single human observational study was identified, so the evidence informing the guideline is very uncertain. Despite limited evidence, the BLS Task Force considered it important to encourage research in this important area and therefore provided a conditional recommendation for video-based dispatch systems to be assessed in clinical trials or research initiatives.
Several manikin simulation studies were identified comparing video-based with audio-based dispatch. Lin et al17 published a SysRev of simulation studies comparing the effect of video-based dispatch with the effect of audio-based dispatch on quality of DA-CPR. The review included 6 simulation studies that showed that video-based DA-CPR significantly improved the chest compression rate compared with audio-based dispatch, and a trend toward more correct hand position was also observed. However, video-based dispatch was associated with a delay in the start of bystander-initiated CPR.17 Although not directly informing clinical practice, these simulation studies provide important information about the aspects that need to be addressed and evaluated in future clinical studies evaluating video-based dispatch.

Task Force Knowledge Gaps

RCT evidence comparing video-based dispatch with audio-based dispatch in any patient population
Further observational evidence evaluating the use of video communication in emergency medical dispatch
Whether 2 rescuers are needed to effectively process video-based DA-CPR: 1 to provide chest compressions and 1 to handle the mobile phone and assist with communication. This might lead to varying feasibility of implementing video-based dispatcher CPR according to location of arrest (crowded public place versus at home) and other variables.

Head-Up CPR (SysRev)

Rationale for Review

This topic was prioritized by the BLS Task Force because of increasing interest and debate surrounding head-up CPR within the resuscitation community. Head-up CPR has been suggested as an alternative CPR method, potentially improving cerebral perfusion by facilitating venous return from the brain. The BLS Task Force was aware of the growing body of animal research addressing head-up CPR18–23 and that this strategy is currently being used in some EMS systems. The evidence review was performed in collaboration with the ALS Task Force. Because there was no intent to publish this SysRev outside of the 2021 CoSTR, PROSPERO registration was not done.
The full text of this CoSTR can be found on the ILCOR website.24

PICO, Study Design, and Time Frame

Population: Adults in any setting (in hospital or out of hospital) with cardiac arrest
Intervention: Head-up CPR
Comparator: Standard or compression-only CPR in the supine position
Outcome: Survival to hospital discharge with good neurological outcome and survival to hospital discharge were ranked as critical outcomes. ROSC was ranked as an important outcome.
Study design: RCTs and nonrandomized studies (non-RCTs, interrupted time series, controlled before-and-after studies, cohort studies) were eligible for inclusion.
Time frame: All years and all languages were included as long as there was an English abstract; unpublished studies (eg, conference abstracts, trial protocols) were excluded. Literature search was updated to January 22, 2021.

Consensus on Science

Only 1 observational study was identified.25 For the important outcome of survival to hospital admission, we identified very low–certainty evidence from 1 observational (before-and-after) study enrolling 1835 adult OHCAs; the study showed an increased rate of ROSC at hospital arrival in patients receiving −20° head-up CPR compared with standard care (RR, 1.90 [95% CI, 1.61–2.26]; P<0.001; absolute risk reduction, 16.1% [95% CI, 20.0%–12.2%], or 161 [95% CI, 109–225] more patients per 1000 survived with the intervention more). Notably, both head-up CPR and standard resuscitation in this study were bundled with mechanical CPR and the use of an impedance threshold device. Head-up CPR, but not standard care, was also accompanied by deferred PPV for several minutes and the deployment of a pit-crew approach for more efficient placement of the mechanical CPR device. No studies were identified that compared head-up CPR alone with standard care.
This technique has also been evaluated in animal laboratory studies (also in concert with mechanical CPR and an impedance threshold device) with mixed outcomes, but those studies were not included in this review, which focused on clinical data.18–23

Treatment Recommendations

We suggest against the routine use of head-up CPR during CPR (weak recommendation, very low–certainty evidence).
We suggest that the usefulness of head-up CPR during CPR be assessed in clinical trials or research initiatives (weak recommendation, very low–certainty evidence).

Justification and Evidence-to-Decision Framework Highlights

The evidence-to-decision table is included in Supplemental Appendix A1.
The limited observational evidence identified in this review suggests that head-up CPR might have the potential to improve short-term outcome from cardiac arrest, but the certainty of evidence is very low with very high risk of bias. Head-up CPR was assessed only as a bundle with mechanical CPR with active decompression and the use of an impedance threshold device, making the generalizability of the results to other systems questionable. With a before-and-after design, the study findings may have been influenced by unrelated and unreported changes in practice over time—in particular, a change in ventilation strategy and potentially more efficient deployment of the mechanical CPR that accompanied the intervention. Outcome measures were also limited to ROSC at the time of hospital arrival, without any information on longer-term survival or functional outcomes.
Implementation of the head-up CPR bundle requires purchase of equipment (mechanical CPR and the impedance threshold device), along with education and training in the use of this equipment and the technique for deploying head-up CPR. Without a demonstrable improvement in longer-term outcomes, it is unlikely to be an acceptable strategy for key stakeholders. The BLS Task Force does not find the current evidence sufficient to recommend routine use of this strategy and encourages further research before its clinical deployment.

Task Force Knowledge Gaps

Comparisons of head-up CPR alone with standard care
RCT evidence evaluating the effect of head-up CPR either alone or as part of a bundle of care
The effect of head-up CPR on longer-term outcomes such as survival and neurologically intact survival to hospital discharge or 30 days

Bystander CPR in Drowning (BLS 856: ScopRev)

Rationale for Review

Drowning is the third leading cause of unintentional injury death worldwide, accounting for >360 000 deaths annually.26 Submersion in water leads to the rapid onset of hypoxemia. If someone who has drowned is left untreated, cardiac arrest occurs within minutes. The initiation of CPR by a bystander allows treatment to be delivered before EMS arrives, but its effects on outcomes after drowning are uncertain. The BLS Task Force, in collaboration with several experts on drowning, considered it timely to undertake a ScopRev of the literature to identify any new evidence on multiple BLS topics in the context of drowning.27
The full text of this ScopRev can be found on the ILCOR website.28

PICO, Study Design, and Time Frame

Population: Adults and children who are submerged in water
Intervention: Bystander CPR
Comparator: No bystander CPR
Outcome: Any clinical outcome (eg, survival, survival with a favorable neurological outcome, hospitalization)
Study design: RCTs and nonrandomized studies (non-RCTs, interrupted time series, controlled before-and-after studies, cohort studies) were eligible for inclusion. Manikin studies were included only if no human studies were available.
Time frame: From 2000 onward. All languages were included as long as there was an English abstract; unpublished studies (eg, conference abstracts, trial protocols), narrative reviews, and animal studies were excluded. Literature search was updated to October 2019.

Summary of Evidence

Eighteen studies were identified that discussed bystander CPR as an intervention for 16 303 adults and children after drowning.29–46 There were 2 prospective observational studies,36,41 9 retrospective observational studies,30–32,37,38,43–46 and 7 retrospective case reviews.29,33–35,39,40,42 All studies reported survival status after OHCA caused by drowning, and 13 reported neurological outcomes.29,31–33,36,39–45
Only 2 cohort studies were designed to directly assess the impact of bystander CPR, and both found statistically significant associations between bystander CPR and improved outcomes.43,45 One study documented improved neurologically favorable survival (RR, 2.19; P=0.0076), 1-month survival (RR, 1.55; P=0.0150), and prehospital ROSC (RR, 1.30; P=0.0296).45 The second study also documented an association between bystander CPR and neurologically favorable survival (adjusted OR, 3.02; P<0.001).43
Four other studies found significant associations with bystander CPR and survival.32,38,41,44 Five studies found a positive trend toward survival,29,34,36,39,42 and 3 found no association between bystander CPR and good outcomes.29,30,33,40 One of those studies did find a significant association between survival and the time from witnessing arrest to BLS initiation (P<0.001).33 Several studies compared the effect on survival of conventional CPR by bystanders with the effect on survival of compression-only CPR by bystanders.36,41,46 One study documented a highly positive association with bystander ventilation and survival (OR, 6.742; P=0.002),41 and another documented a trend favoring conventional CPR for both survival (adjusted OR, 1.87 [95% CI, 0.83–4.20]) and neurologically favorable outcome (adjusted OR, 2.35 [95% CI, 0.52–10.62]).36 Another study documented similar outcomes for conventional CPR and compression-only CPR: Both were better than no CPR.46 A more recent study, published after the literature search was conducted, reported that compared with compression-only CPR, conventional CPR improved survival to discharge (all patients, adjusted OR, 1.54 [95% CI, 1.01–2.36]; P=0.046) and neurological outcomes in children (adjusted OR, 2.68 [95% CI, 1.10–6.77]; P=0.03).48

Task Force Insights

The evidence identified suggests that bystander CPR for drowning is feasible and appears effective. The apparent superiority of conventional CPR, which includes ventilation, has biological plausibility because cardiac arrest attributable to drowning is caused primarily by hypoxemia. The findings of this review are consistent with the 2020 ILCOR recommendation that chest compressions be performed for all patients in cardiac arrest.49 ILCOR suggests that those who are trained, able, and willing to give rescue breaths and chest compressions do so for all adult patients in cardiac arrest.49 Rescue breaths are likely to be particularly important in patients who sustain a cardiac arrest attributable to hypoxemia after drowning. The evidence base identified in this ScopRev suggests that a SysRev on this topic should be considered.

Treatment Recommendations

There was no previous treatment recommendation on bystander CPR in drowning, and a SysRev will be pursued by the BLS Task Force.
In the meantime, we highlight our 2020 recommendation and suggest that bystanders who are trained, able, and willing to give rescue breaths and chest compressions do so for all adult patients in cardiac arrest (weak recommendation, very low–certainty evidence).

In-Water Resuscitation in Drowning (BLS 856: ScopRev)

Rationale for Review

The 2005 ILCOR treatment recommendation stated that in-water, expired-air resuscitation may be considered by trained rescuers, preferably with a flotation device, but chest compressions should not be attempted in the water.50
The full text of this ScopRev can be found on the ILCOR website.51

PICO, Study Design, and Time Frame

Population: Adults and children who are submerged in water
Intervention: Starting resuscitation while the person is still in the water
Comparator: Delaying resuscitation until the person is rescued from the water
Outcome: Any clinical outcome (eg, survival, survival with a favorable neurological outcome, hospitalization), CPR quality, physiological end points
Study design: RCTs and nonrandomized studies (non-RCTs, interrupted time series, controlled before-and-after studies, cohort studies) were eligible for inclusion. Manikin studies were included only if no human studies were available.
Time frame: From 2000 onward. All languages were included as long as there was an English abstract; unpublished studies (eg, conference abstracts, trial protocols), narrative reviews, and animal studies were excluded. Literature search was updated to October 2019.

Summary of Evidence

Five studies evaluating in-water resuscitation were identified. A single retrospective observational study reported the outcomes of adults and children who were rescued unconscious and not breathing from the ocean in Brazil.52 The other 4 studies were manikin studies conducted in swimming pools53,54 and open water.55,56
The clinical study reported survival status and neurological outcome of 19 patients who received in-water resuscitation compared with 27 patients who did not.52 The in-water resuscitation protocol recommended performing up to 1 minute of ventilation before attempting to bring the unconscious and not-breathing patient to the shore. For patients in deep water, in-water resuscitation required the availability of rescue flotation equipment or at least 2 rescuers. In the prehospital setting, initial survival was significantly higher in the in-water resuscitation group (94.7% versus 37.0%; P<0.001). The rate of survival at hospital discharge was higher in the in-water resuscitation group (87.5% versus 25%; P<0.005), as was favorable neurological outcome (52.6% versus 7.4%; P<0.001).52
All other studies were crossover trials that evaluated the capacity of lifeguards53–56 and laypeople54 to perform in-water resuscitation while simulating a water rescue with a manikin. In-water resuscitation was technically difficult and physically demanding, particularly in open water. Some trained lifeguards55 and laypeople54 were unable to complete the rescue. In-water resuscitation increased rescue time and the number of submersions and aspiration of water by the manikin.54–56 The use of ventilation adjuncts by well-trained lifeguards might facilitate in-water resuscitation.55,56

Task Force Insights

From the available evidence, in suitable water conditions, in-water resuscitation by highly trained rescue teams with water rescue equipment seems feasible.
The evidence base identified in this ScopRev suggests that a SysRev on this topic should be considered.

Treatment Recommendations

The 2005 treatment recommendation is unchanged: In-water, expired-air resuscitation may be considered by trained rescuers, preferably with a flotation device, but chest compressions should not be attempted in the water.50

Resuscitation on a Boat After Drowning (BLS 856: ScopRev)

Rationale for Review

Starting resuscitation on a rescue boat is one approach to enable early initiation of resuscitation. However, the feasibility and effectiveness of CPR on a boat have not previously been explored.
The full text of this ScopRev can be found on the ILCOR website.57

PICO, Study Design, and Time Frame

Population: Adults and children who are submerged in water
Intervention: Delivering resuscitation on a boat
Comparator: Delaying resuscitation until on dry land
Outcome: Any clinical outcome (eg, survival, survival with a favorable neurological outcome, hospitalization), CPR quality, physiological end points
Study design: RCTs and nonrandomized studies (non-RCTs, interrupted time series, controlled before-and-after studies, cohort studies) were eligible for inclusion. Manikin studies were included only if no human studies were available.
Time frame: From 2000 onward. All languages were included as long as there was an English abstract; unpublished studies (eg, conference abstracts, trial protocols), narrative reviews, and animal studies were excluded. Literature search was updated to October 2019.

Summary of Evidence

Six studies evaluating resuscitation on a boat were identified. Two were clinical studies undertaken in the Netherlands58 and Hawaii,59 and 4 were manikin studies.60–63 A case series from the Royal Dutch Lifeboat Institution reported 37 patients who had received resuscitation from lifeboat crews.58 Among these, 24 cases included resuscitation on a lifeboat or another ship. There were only 3 survivors, none of whom received resuscitation on a boat. An AED was used on 12 patients (7 drowned, 4 not drowned, 1 unknown), and 3 shocks were delivered. CPR quality was reported as suboptimal (high compression frequency and long pauses in chest compressions). In the other case series, 6 resuscitations were attempted on a boat or lifeboat; there was only 1 survivor after 1 month who received BLS, ALS, and tracheal intubation on board.59
Three simulation crossover studies evaluated the capacity of lifeguards61,62 and fishermen60 to perform CPR on inflatable rescue boats or traditional fishing boats. These studies showed that resuscitation on a boat was feasible; however, the quality of the resuscitation was affected by boat speed60,61 and sea conditions.62 CPR was physically demanding.60–62 The motion-induced interruptions and early fatigue affected mainly ventilation.62 A further simulation study showed that AED use on rigid inflatable rescue boats on calm water was feasible.63

Task Force Insights

From the available evidence, resuscitation on a boat seems feasible if safety conditions, number of crew, and deck space allow, but those who are providing resuscitation need to focus on high-quality CPR and be alert to the development of fatigue.
The evidence base identified in this ScopRev suggests that a SysRev on this topic should be considered.

Treatment Recommendations

There was no previous treatment recommendation on resuscitation on a boat after drowning; a SysRev will be pursued by the BLS Task Force.
In the meantime, we highlight our 2020 recommendation and suggest that bystanders who are trained, able, and willing to give rescue breaths and chest compressions do so for all adults patients in cardiac arrest (weak recommendation, very low–certainty evidence).

Airway Management in Drowning (BLS 856: ScopRev)

Rationale for Review

Airway management in drowning is pivotal to effective resuscitation, but the optimal strategy is unclear.
The full text of this ScopRev can be found on the ILCOR website.64

PICO, Study Design, and Time Frame

Population: Adults and children who are submerged in water
Intervention: Advanced airway management
Comparator: No advanced airway management
Outcome: Any clinical outcome (eg, survival, survival with a favorable neurological outcome, hospitalization), CPR quality, physiological end points
Study design: RCTs and nonrandomized studies (non-RCTs, interrupted time series, controlled before-and-after studies, cohort studies) were eligible for inclusion. Manikin studies were included only if no human studies were available.
Time frame: From 2000 onward. All languages were included as long as there was an English abstract; unpublished studies (eg, conference abstracts, trial protocols), narrative reviews, and animal studies were excluded. Literature search was updated to October 2019.

Summary of Evidence

No studies specifically examining the effect of any particular airway management strategy over another in the management of a submerged casualty were identified. Five observational studies indirectly examined airway management strategies in 699 adults and children after drowning events.40,41,65–67 One study reported outcomes in adults and children,41 whereas the other 4 studies reported only pediatric cases.40,65–67 Some studies reported only those who sustained cardiac arrest attributable to drowning.41,67 All studies reported survival—specifically, survival with good neurological outcome,65 survival to hospital admission,41 and good outcome versus bad outcome (death or neurological sequelae).40
In all studies, tracheal intubation was an indication of the severity of the injury, with the most severely injured being intubated during cardiac arrest or facilitated with anesthesia, without comprehensive adjustment for confounders. Two studies showed that tracheal intubation was associated with worse outcome (OR for good outcome, 0.25 [95% CI, 0.08–0.83]67; OR, 0.04 [95% CI, 0.01–0.2]).40 One study showed that mobile medical team ventilation was associated with better outcomes (44% versus 17% survival to admission).65

Task Force Insights

The studies reviewed show that tracheal intubation is a feasible intervention after a water submersion incident. The association between tracheal intubation and poor outcomes is almost certainly confounded by the fact that tracheal intubation is limited to more severe drowning.
The limited evidence base identified in the ScopRev suggests little benefit from a full SysRev to evaluate advanced airway management compared with no advanced airway management after drowning. In the absence of data supporting an alternative strategy, there is no reason to deviate from the ALS Task Force recommendations for airway management.68

Treatment Recommendations

There was no previous treatment recommendation on advanced airway management after drowning. The lack of evidence in the drowning setting supports the use of standard ALS Task Force recommendations for airway management.68

Prehospital Oxygen in Drowning (BLS 856: ScopRev)

Rationale for Review

The use of prehospital oxygen has the potential to reverse hypoxemia and may improve outcomes. However, providing access to oxygen therapy has substantial resource implications to cover the costs of equipment and training. Without access to pulse oximetry or arterial blood gas analysis, identifying patients who may benefit from oxygen therapy can be difficult.
The full text of this ScopRev can be found on the ILCOR website.69

PICO, Study Design, and Time Frame

Population: Adults and children who are submerged in water
Intervention: Prehospital oxygen administration
Comparator: No prehospital oxygen administration
Outcome: Any clinical outcome (eg, survival, survival with a favorable neurological outcome, hospitalization), physiological end points
Study design: RCTs and nonrandomized studies (non-RCTs, interrupted time series, controlled before-and-after studies, cohort studies) were eligible for inclusion. Manikin studies were included only if no human studies were available.
Time frame: From 2000 onward. All languages were included as long as there was an English abstract; unpublished studies (eg, conference abstracts, trial protocols), narrative reviews, and animal studies were excluded. Literature search was updated to October 2019.

Summary of Evidence

Indirect evidence from 4 observational studies found associations among hypoxemia, oxygen administration, and worse outcomes. One study documented a higher rate of hospital admission in patients with an initial oxygen saturation measured by pulse oximetry (Spo2) no higher than 95% on arrival in the emergency department (92% versus 52%; adjusted OR, 6.8 [95% CI, 1.07–43.8]).70 Hospital admission rates were also higher (91% versus 34%) among 71 children with an initial Spo2 <92% at the scene or on arrival in the emergency department in univariate but not multivariate analysis.71 In contrast, another study did not find an association between Pao2/fraction of inspired oxygen (Fio2) ratio and the duration of hospital stay among 43 adults and children.72 In an observational study involving 31 adults, lower blood oxygen saturations (87% versus 76%; P=0.007) and Pao2/Fio2 ratios (255 versus 133; P=0.004) were associated with reduced survival with favorable neurological outcome.73

Task Force Insights

The review found no direct evidence to guide the prehospital use of oxygen therapy in drowning. Yet, the primary cause of death from drowning is insufficient oxygen delivery to the heart and brain, and prompt restoration of oxygen delivery is of paramount importance. The indirect evidence identified in this review suggests frequent need for supplemental oxygen in patients who have drowned. Work in other domains of resuscitation science has identified adverse outcomes associated with both sustained hypoxia and hyperoxia. Pulse oximetry can be unreliable, particularly after cold-water immersion,74 but when feasible can enable continuous titration of Fio2 after restoration of spontaneous circulation.

Treatment Recommendations

There was no previous treatment recommendation on prehospital use of oxygen therapy in drowning. The lack of evidence for a different approach to prehospital oxygen therapy in the drowning setting supports the use of standard ALS Task Force recommendations to avoid hypoxemia and hyperoxia by using 100% inspired oxygen until arterial oxygen saturation or the partial pressure of arterial oxygen can be measured, after which oxygen can be titrated to maintain an arterial oxygen saturation in the normal range.68

AED Use in Drowning (BLS 856: ScopRev)

Rationale for Review

Although the most common cause of cardiac arrest associated with drowning is hypoxemia, in some cases, a primary cardiac arrythmia may be the precipitating event. The use of an AED in such cases may be lifesaving, but this needs to be balanced against the risk of harm from interruptions to CPR for patients with nonshockable rhythms. Although ILCOR recommends the use of AEDs, their role in the setting of resuscitation from drowning is not clearly defined.
The full text of this ScopRev can be found on the ILCOR website.75

PICO, Study Design, and Time Frame

Population: Adults and children who are submerged in water
Intervention: AED use
Comparator: No AED use
Outcome: Any clinical outcome (eg, survival, survival with a favorable neurological outcome, hospitalization), CPR quality, physiological end points
Study design: RCTs and nonrandomized studies (non-RCTs, interrupted time series, controlled before-and-after studies, cohort studies) were eligible for inclusion. Manikin studies were included only if no human studies were available.
Time frame: From 2000 onward. All languages were included as long as there was an English abstract; unpublished studies (eg, conference abstracts, trial protocols), narrative reviews, and animal studies were excluded. Literature search was updated to October 2019.

Summary of Evidence

There were no interventional, observational, or case series showing direct evidence on the outcome from on-site AED use in OHCA attributable to drowning before the arrival of EMS. Indirect evidence of AED use was found from 15 observational studies. Four studies involving 1044 patients showed a range of AED use in cases of suspected drowning before the arrival of EMS of 5% to 32%.37,43,58,76 In 12 studies involving 14 920 patients, a shockable rhythm in OHCA attributable to drowning was uncommon, with a reported range of ventricular fibrillation/ventricular tachycardia between 2% and 14%.30,33,35,37–39,43,45,58,67,76,77 Among 7 observational studies involving 1846 patients in cardiac arrest after drowning, a shockable rhythm was not associated with better survival.30,33,43,58,67,76,77 In 1 study with 776 drowning survivors, only 0.4% were defibrillated at the emergency department.78 In 1 study involving 529 patients in a multivariable analysis, although a shockable rhythm did not improve survival to hospital admission, there was an association between shockable rhythm and increased 30-day survival (OR, 4.12 [95% CI, 1.13–13.71]).38
In 1 simulation study testing 6 AEDs on 3 different boats in moderate sea conditions, use of AEDs seemed feasible.63 In 1 simulation study with 616 lifeguards, mean time from arrival to defibrillation was 62 seconds (SD, 20 seconds).79 In 1 study, a case of inappropriate shock delivered to a patient in asystole with artifacts on the ECG resulting from movements was described, with no obvious consequences.58
No adverse events were reported in the studies identified in this review.

Task Force Insights

Studies reviewed showed that using AEDs in cardiac arrest in the drowning setting appears to be feasible and safe, although the chances of a shockable rhythm may be lower (2%–14%) than for a primary cardiac cause. The current ILCOR treatment recommendation suggests a short period of CPR until the defibrillator is ready for analysis or until defibrillation in unmonitored cardiac arrest. This may be particularly important in situations in which the cardiac arrest was caused by drowning.49

Treatment Recommendations

There was no previous treatment recommendation on AED use after drowning; a SysRev will be pursued by the BLS Task Force.
In the meantime, we highlight our 2020 recommendation suggesting that delivery of a shock with an AED during BLS is safe.

Mechanical Ventilation in Drowning (BLS 856: ScopRev)

Rationale for Review

Patients with severe lung injury after submersion may require support from a mechanical ventilator, but the optimal ventilation strategy is unclear.
The full text of this ScopRev can be found on the ILCOR website.80

PICO, Study Design, and Time Frame

Population: Adults and children who are submerged in water
Intervention: Mechanical ventilation
Comparator: No mechanical ventilation
Outcome: Any clinical outcome (eg, survival, survival with a favorable neurological outcome, hospitalization), physiological end points
Study design: RCTs and nonrandomized studies (non-RCTs, interrupted time series, controlled before-and-after studies, cohort studies) were eligible for inclusion. Manikin studies were included only if no human studies were available.
Time frame: From 2000 onward. All languages were included as long as there was an English abstract; unpublished studies (eg, conference abstracts, trial protocols), narrative reviews, and animal studies were excluded. Literature search was updated to October 2019.

Summary of Evidence

Four studies were identified that examined the use of ventilation strategies in 93 adults or children after drowning.81–84 The studies included 1 retrospective observational study with 88 patients,84 1 case series comprising 3 children,81 and 2 case reports.82,83 All articles reported survival status at hospital discharge. Two articles reported neurological outcome (Glasgow Coma Scale) and severity of oxygen impairment.82,84 Three studies reported the feasibility of noninvasive ventilation (NIV) use in patients with respiratory failure after drowning.81,82,84
In a multicenter, retrospective observational study across 7 French intensive care units (ICUs), 48 adults received NIV (both continuous positive airway pressure and bilevel positive airway pressure; average positive end-expiratory pressure [PEEP], 8±2 cm H2O) to treat moderate to severe lung injury (mean Pao2/Fio2 ratio, 156 mm Hg).84 Compared with patients treated with invasive mechanical ventilation, those receiving NIV had a better initial neurological and hemodynamic status. NIV was successful in 92% (44 of 48), with an average duration of ventilation of 1.4 days. Both mechanical ventilation and NIV were associated with rapid improvement of oxygenation (within 6 hours) and short ICU length of stay. Two further articles reported successful use of NIV to treat drowning-related acute lung injury in hemodynamically stable adults82,83 and children.81

Task Force Insights

NIV appears feasible as a treatment for moderate to severe lung injury caused by drowning. The published experience involves mostly patients with higher Glasgow Coma Scale scores who were hemodynamically stable. Patients appear to respond within 12 to 24 hours. The indications for the optimal time to transition to invasive ventilation if NIV is unsuccessful require further research.

Treatment Recommendations

There was no previous treatment recommendation on mechanical ventilation after drowning. The lack of evidence in the drowning setting supports the use of standard general recommendations for the management of acute respiratory distress syndrome.85

ECMO in Drowning (BLS 856: ScopRev)

Rationale for Review

ECMO and ECPR have been used in the treatment of severe drowning with refractory hypoxia or cardiac arrest.
The full text of this ScopRev can be found on the ILCOR website.86

PICO, Study Design, and Time Frame

Population: Adults and children who are submerged in water
Intervention: ECMO
Comparator: No ECMO
Outcome: Any clinical outcome (eg, survival, survival with a favorable neurological outcome, hospitalization), CPR quality, physiological end points
Study design: RCTs and nonrandomized studies (non-RCTs, interrupted time series, controlled before-and-after studies, cohort studies) were eligible for inclusion. Manikin studies were included only if no human studies were available.
Time frame: From 2000 onward. All languages were included as long as there was an English abstract; unpublished studies (eg, conference abstracts, trial protocols), narrative reviews, and animal studies were excluded. Literature search was updated to October 2019.

Summary of Evidence

Thirteen studies were identified that examined the use of extracorporeal support in 658 adults and children after drowning.87–99 The studies included 2 retrospective observational studies88,89 and 11 case series.87,90–99 Some articles reported overlapping data: 1 study91 reported cases from 3 other case series,90,92,98 whereas 2 studies appear to report the same cases.90,92 All 13 articles reported survival status, and 9 reported neurological outcomes.87,89–92,94,96–99 Outcome measures reported for neurological outcome were the Glasgow Coma Scale98,99 or the Cerebral Performance Category (CPC)89 or were undefined.
Most studies reported the use of venoarterial ECMO for patients who were in cardiac arrest,89–93,95–99 whereas 3 studies reported using venoarterial ECMO for patients in cardiac arrest and venovenous ECMO for respiratory failure.87,88,94 Most uses of ECMO appeared in the context of patients who had been submerged in cold water leading to hypothermia (core temperature range, 13 °C–31 °C).89,90,92,95,96,99 When reported, the duration of submersion ranged between 15 and 90 minutes.89,90,92,93,95,96,99 The duration of ECMO treatment was between 2 and 260 hours.89,90,98,99
The Extracorporeal Life Support Organization registry reported the use of ECMO among 251 patients treated for drowning from multiple centers around the world between 1986 and 2015.88 Survival to discharge (71.4%) was highest for patients who did not have a cardiac arrest. Survival was 57% for patients who required CPR before ECMO and 23.4% in patients who received ECPR. Survival rates across the other studies for patients with cardiac arrest ranged from 10% to 100%. Survival with a favorable neurological outcome was between 5% and 57%. Outcomes were better for patients who required ECMO for respiratory support rather than conventional ECPR.94
Factors reported as associated with worse outcomes were the requirement for ECPR,88 hyperkalemia,91,96 hypoxemia as the primary cause of cardiac arrest,91,97 asystole as an initial rhythm,90 submersion duration of >10 minutes,96 low pH,90 renal failure,88 and requirement for CPR while on ECMO.88 Factors associated with good outcomes were profound hypothermia (core body temperature <26 °C) and normal potassium.89

Task Force Insights

Extracorporeal oxygenation to treat cardiac arrest or severe respiratory failure caused by drowning is feasible, but further research is required to refine the indications and optimal timing for initiating ECMO in adults and children who develop cardiac arrest or severe lung injury after drowning. The evidence identified supports the existing ILCOR treatment recommendation.68 Similarly, the evidence identified for severe respiratory failure is consistent with guidelines suggesting the use of ECMO in select patients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (weak recommendation, very low–certainty evidence).85

Treatment Recommendations

There was no previous treatment recommendation on ECMO after drowning. The evidence identified supports the ILCOR treatment recommendation that states “ECPR may be considered as a rescue therapy for selected patients with cardiac arrest when conventional CPR is failing in settings in which it can be implemented (weak recommendation, very low–certainty evidence).”68 A SysRev will be pursued by the BLS and ALS Task Forces.

Criteria for Discharge in Drowning (BLS 856: ScopRev)

Rationale for Review

Submersion leads to a spectrum of presentations from no or mild symptoms to severe hypoxemia or cardiac arrest. Patients with milder symptoms may not require hospitalization. Some investigators have suggested discharge criteria that can be used to guide the decision about whether to admit or discharge from the scene or emergency department.
The full text of this ScopRev can be found on the ILCOR website.86

PICO, Study Design, and Time Frame

Population: Adults and children who are submerged in water
Intervention: Criteria for discharge after submersion
Comparator: Other criteria for discharge after submersion
Outcome: Any clinical outcome (eg, survival, survival with a favorable neurological outcome, hospitalization)
Study design: RCTs and nonrandomized studies (non-RCTs, interrupted time series, controlled before-and-after studies, cohort studies) were eligible for inclusion. Manikin studies were included only if no human studies were available.
Time frame: From 2000 onward. All languages were included as long as there was an English abstract; unpublished studies (eg, conference abstracts, trial protocols), narrative reviews, and animal studies were excluded. Literature search was updated to October 2019.

Summary of Evidence

Five studies were identified for final data abstraction,70,71,100–102 all of which were retrospective observational studies, including 1 with both derivation and validation arms.102 Four studies were performed in the United States,70,100–102 and 1 was performed in Israel.71 In total, 834 patients were analyzed, all of whom were <18 years of age.
All studies correlated objective clinical findings to determine factors that could predict safe discharge early in the clinical phase. These factors include pulmonary examination (744 patients),71,100–102 oxygen saturation in air (834 patients),70,71,100–102 pulse rate (673 patients),100–102 blood pressure (673 patients),100–102 mental status (744 patients),71,100–102 need for airway support (535 patients),70,102 and dyspnea (744 patients).71,100–102 Three studies evaluated specific safe discharge times, specifically 6 hours71,100 and 8 hours,102 with the remaining studies solely comparing discharged patients to admitted patients. Additional objective factors that were analyzed were chest radiography (341 patients)70,71,101 and arterial blood gas results (161 patients).70,71
Pooled together, these studies found that for drowning patients <18 years of age presenting to the emergency department with normal mentation, an observation period of at least 6 hours appears to be sufficient to allow any clinical deterioration to be revealed. Patients who remain with normal mentation, no need for supplemental oxygen, and normal age-adjusted vital signs can be considered for discharge at that time.

Task Force Insights

This small body of evidence demonstrated associations between clinical and physiological factors and the likelihood of hospital admission after a submersion incident. Of the studies identified, none prospectively tested a clinical decision rule to identify patients who can be safely discharged. Future studies should consider creating and validating clinical decision rules.

Treatment Recommendations

There was no treatment recommendation on criteria for discharge after submersion; a SysRev will be pursued by the BLS Task Force.

Topics Reviewed by EvUps

The topics reviewed by EvUps are summarized in Table 1, and complete EvUps are provided in Supplemental Appendix B1.
Table 1. BLS Topics Reviewed by EvUps
Topic/PICOYear(s) last updatedExisting treatment recommendationRCTs since last review, nObservational studies since last review, nSufficient data to warrant SysRev?
Paddle size and placement for defibrillation (new)2010 CoSTR;2020ScopRevIt is reasonable to place pads on the exposed chest in an anterior-lateral position. An acceptable alternative position is anterior-posterior. In large-breasted individuals, it is reasonable to place the left electrode pad lateral to or underneath the left breast, avoiding breast tissue. Consideration should be given to the rapid removal of excessive chest hair before the application of pads, but emphasis must be on minimizing delay in shock delivery.
There is insufficient evidence to recommend a specific electrode size for optimal external defibrillation in adults. However, it is reasonable to use a pad size >8 cm.
00No
CPR before call for help (BLS 1527)2020CoSTRWe recommend that a lone bystander with a mobile phone should dial EMS, activate the speaker or other hands-free option on the mobile phone, and immediately begin CPR with dispatcher assistance, if required (strong recommendation, very low–certainty evidence).00No
Barrier devices (BLS 342)2005CoSTRProviders should take appropriate safety precautions when feasible and when resources are available to do so, especially if a victim is known to have a serious infection (eg, HIV, tuberculosis, HBV, or SARS).04No
Chest compression rate (BLS 343)2015CoSTR;2020ScopRevWe recommend a manual chest compression rate of 100–120/min (strong recommendation, very low–quality evidence).00No
Rhythm check timing (BLS 345)2020CoSTRWe suggest against the checking of cardiac rhythm immediately after defibrillation (weak recommendation, very low–certainty evidence).00No
Timing of CPR cycles (2 min vs other) (BLS 346)2020CoSTRWe suggest pausing chest compressions every 2 min to assess the cardiac rhythm (weak recommendation, low-certainty evidence).00No
Public-access AED programs (BLS 347)2020CoSTRWe recommend the implementation of public-access defibrillation programs for patients with OHCAs (strong recommendation, low-certainty evidence).02No
Check for circulation during BLS (BLS 348)2015CoSTR;2020EvUpOutside of the ALS environment where invasive monitoring is available, there are insufficient data on the value of a pulse check while performing CPR. We therefore do not make a treatment recommendation on the value of a pulse check.00No
Rescuer fatigue in chest compression–only CPR (BLS 349)2010CoSTRNo treatment recommendation3 (simulation)1 (simulation)No
Harm from CPR to victims not in cardiac arrest (BLS 353)2020CoSTRWe recommend that laypersons initiate CPR for presumed cardiac arrest without concerns of harm to patients not in cardiac arrest (strong recommendation, very low–certainty evidence).02No
Harm to rescuers from CPR (BLS 354)2010CoSTR;2020ScopRevEvidence supporting rescuer safety during CPR is limited. The few isolated reports of adverse effects resulting from the widespread and frequent use of CPR suggest that performing CPR is relatively safe. Delivery of defibrillator shock with an AED during BLS is also safe. The incidence and morbidity of defibrillator-related injuries in the rescuers are low.00No
Hand position during compressions (BLS 357)2020CoSTRThis treatment recommendation is unchanged from 2015: We suggest performing chest compressions on the lower half of the sternum on adults in cardiac arrest (weak recommendation, very low–certainty evidence).02No
Dispatcher instructions in CPR (BLS 359)2019CoSTRWe recommend that emergency medical dispatch centers have systems in place to enable call handlers to provide CPR instructions for adult patients in cardiac arrest (strong recommendation, very low–certainty evidence).
We recommend that emergency medical call takers provide CPR instructions (when deemed necessary) for adult patients in cardiac arrest (strong recommendation, very low–certainty evidence).
08No
EMS chest compression–only vs conventional CPR (BLS 360)2017CoSTRWe recommend that EMS providers perform CPR with 30 compressions to 2 breaths (30:2 ratio) or continuous chest compressions with PPV delivered without pausing chest compressions until a tracheal tube or supraglottic device has been placed (strong recommendation, high-certainty evidence).
We suggest that when EMS systems have adopted minimally interrupted cardiac resuscitation, this strategy is a reasonable alternative to conventional CPR for witnessed shockable OHCA (weak recommendation, very low–certainty evidence).
00No
Feedback for CPR quality (BLS 361)2020CoSTRWe suggest the use of real-time audiovisual feedback and prompt devices during CPR in clinical practice as part of a comprehensive quality improvement program for cardiac arrest designed to ensure high-quality CPR delivery and resuscitation care across an EMS system (weak recommendation, very low–certainty evidence).
We suggest against the use of real-time audiovisual feedback and prompt devices in isolation (ie, not part of a comprehensive quality improvement program) (weak recommendation, very low–certainty evidence).
03Yes
CV ratio (BLS 362)2017CoSTRWe suggest a CV ratio of 30:2 compared with any other CV ratio in patients with cardiac arrest (weak recommendation, very low–quality evidence).00No
CPR before defibrillation (BLS 363)2020CoSTRWe suggest a short period of CPR until the defibrillator is ready for analysis or defibrillation in unmonitored cardiac arrest (weak recommendation, low-certainty evidence).00No
Chest compression depth (BLS 366)2015CoSTRWe recommend a chest compression depth of ≈5 cm (2 in) (strong recommendation, low-quality evidence) while avoiding excessive chest compression depths (>6 cm [>2.4 in] in an average adult) (weak recommendation, low-quality evidence) during manual CPR.00No
Chest wall recoil (BLS 367)2015CoSTRWe suggest that rescuers performing manual CPR avoid leaning on the chest between compressions to allow full chest wall recoil (weak recommendation, very low–quality evidence).00No
Removal of FBAO (BLS 368)2020CoSTRWe suggest that back slaps are used initially in adults and children with an FBAO and an ineffective cough (weak recommendation, very low–certainty evidence).
We suggest that abdominal thrusts are used in adults and children (>1 y of age) with an FBAO and an ineffective cough when back slaps are ineffective (weak recommendation, very low–certainty evidence).
We suggest that rescuers consider the manual extraction of visible items in the mouth (weak recommendation, very low–certainty evidence).
We suggest against the use of blind finger sweeps in patients with an FBAO (weak recommendation, very low–certainty evidence).
We suggest that appropriately skilled health care providers use Magill forceps to remove an FBAO in patients with OHCA from FBAO (weak recommendation, very low–certainty evidence).
We suggest that chest thrusts be used in unconscious adults and children with an FBAO (weak recommendation, very low–certainty evidence).
We suggest that bystanders undertake interventions to support FBAO removal as soon as possible after recognition (weak recommendation, very low–certainty evidence).
We suggest against the routine use of suction-based airway clearance devices (weak recommendation, very low–certainty evidence).
04No
Firm surface for CPR (BLS 370)2020CoSTRWe suggest performing manual chest compressions on a firm surface when possible (weak recommendation, very low–certainty evidence).
During IHCA, we suggest that when a bed has a CPR mode that increases mattress stiffness, it should be activated (weak recommendation, very low–certainty evidence).
During IHCA, we suggest against moving a patient from a bed to the floor to improve chest compression depth (weak recommendation, very low–certainty evidence).
The confidence in effect estimates is so low that the task force was unable to make a recommendation about the use of a backboard strategy.
01No
Analysis of rhythm during chest compression (BLS 373)2020CoSTRWe suggest against the routine use of artifact-filtering algorithms for analysis of electrocardiographic rhythm during CPR (weak recommendation, very low–certainty evidence).
We suggest that the usefulness of artifact-filtering algorithms for analysis of electrocardiographic rhythm during CPR be assessed in clinical trials or research initiatives (weak recommendation, very low–certainty evidence).
02Yes
Alternative compression techniques (cough CPR, precordial thump, fist pacing) (BLS 374)2020CoSTRWe recommend against the routine use of cough CPR for cardiac arrest (strong recommendation, very low–certainty evidence).
We suggest that cough CPR may be considered only as a temporizing measure in exceptional circumstance of a witnessed, monitored IHCA (eg, in a cardiac catheterization laboratory) if a nonperfusing rhythm is recognized promptly before loss of consciousness (weak recommendation, very low–certainty evidence).
We recommend against fist pacing for cardiac arrest (strong recommendation, very low–certainty evidence).
We suggest that fist pacing may be considered only as a temporizing measure in the exceptional circumstance of a witnessed, monitored IHCA (eg, in a cardiac catheterization laboratory) attributable to bradyasystole if such a nonperfusing rhythm is recognized promptly before loss of consciousness (weak recommendation, very low–certainty evidence).
We recommend against the use of a precordial thump for cardiac arrest (strong recommendation, very low–certainty evidence).
00No
Tidal volumes and ventilation rates (BLS 546)2010CoSTRFor mouth-to-mouth ventilation for adult victims using exhaled air or bag-mask ventilation with room air or oxygen, it is reasonable to give each breath within a 1-s inspiratory time and with an approximate volume of 600 mL to achieve chest rise. It is reasonable to use the same initial tidal volume and rate in patients regardless of the cause of the cardiac arrest.00No
Lay rescuer chest compression–only vs standard CPR (BLS 547)2017CoSTRWe continue to recommend that bystanders perform chest compressions for all patients in cardiac arrest (good practice statement)
We suggest that bystanders who are trained, able, and willing to give rescue breaths and chest compressions do so for all adults in cardiac arrest (weak recommendation, very low–certainty evidence).
2
(simulation)
4No
Starting CPR (C-A-B vs A-B-C) (BLS 661)2020CoSTRWe suggest starting CPR with compressions rather than ventilation (weak recommendation, very low–certainty evidence).00No
Dispatch diagnosis of cardiac arrest (BLS 740)2020CoSTRWe recommend that dispatch centers implement a standardized algorithm or standardized criteria to determine immediately if a patient is in cardiac arrest at the time of emergency call (strong recommendation, very low–certainty evidence).
We suggest that dispatch centers monitor and track diagnostic capability. We suggest that dispatch centers look for ways to optimize sensitivity (minimize false-negatives).
We recommend high-quality research that examines gaps in this area.
16Yes
Resuscitation care for suspected opioid-associated emergencies (BLS 811)2020CoSTRWe suggest that CPR be started without delay in any unconscious person not breathing normally and that naloxone be used by lay rescuers in suspected opioid-related respiratory or circulatory arrest (weak recommendation based on expert consensus).00No
Drowning (BLS 856)2020CoSTRWe recommend that submersion duration be used as a prognostic indicator when making decisions on search and rescue resource management/operations (strong recommendation, moderate-certainty evidence).
We suggest against the use of age, EMS response time, water type (fresh or salt), water temperature, and witness status when making prognostic decisions (weak recommendation, very low–certainty evidence.
We acknowledge that this review excluded exceptional and rare case reports that identify good outcomes after prolonged submersion in icy water.
00No
Dispatcher-assisted continuous chest compressions vs conventional CPR (new)2017CoSTRWe recommend that dispatchers provide chest compression–only CPR instructions to callers for adults with suspected OHCA (strong recommendation, low-quality evidence).00No
A-B-C indicates airway-breaths-compressions; AED, automated external defibrillator; ALS, advanced life support; BLS, basic life support; CoSTR, Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations; C-A-B, compressions-airway-breaths; CPR, cardiopulmonary resuscitation; CV, compression-to-ventilation; EMS, emergency medical services; EvUps, evidence updates; FBAO, foreign body airway obstruction; HBV, hepatitis B virus; IHCA, in-hospital cardiac arrest; OHCA, out-of-hospital cardiac arrest; PICO, population, intervention, comparator, outcome; PPV, positive-pressure ventilation; RCT, randomized controlled trial; SARS, severe acute respiratory syndrome; ScopRev, scoping review; and SysRev, systematic review.
CoSTR documents are available at https://costr.ilcor.org/.

Advanced Life Support

Early CAG After ROSC (SysRev)

Rationale for Review

In 2015, ILCOR recommended early CAG for patients with ROSC after cardiac arrest and ST-segment elevation on ECG.103,104 For select post-ROSC patients without ST-segment elevation but with suspected cardiac cause of cardiac arrest, early CAG was suggested, although the evidence was acknowledged to be of very low–certainty and at high risk of bias. It was also acknowledged that it was very unclear which patients might benefit, and the evidence at that time was primarily observational. Because of the recent publication of additional evidence, including RCTs, on the question of CAG after ROSC after cardiac arrest, this SysRev was undertaken to evaluate the impact of early CAG on key clinical outcomes in patients who remain comatose after ROSC following cardiac arrest of presumed cardiac origin. The review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020160152).
The full text of this CoSTR can be found on the ILCOR website.105

PICO, Study Design, and Time Frame

Population: Unresponsive* adults (>18 years of age) with ROSC after cardiac arrest
Intervention: Emergency or early CAG with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) if indicated; early CAG defined as within 2 to 6 hours
Comparator: Delayed CAG defined as within 24 hours; both time intervals start at hospital arrival or from ROSC
Outcome: Any clinical outcome prioritized as critical or important by the ALS Task Force
Study design: RCTs and nonrandomized studies (non-RCTs, interrupted time series, controlled before-and-after studies, cohort studies) were eligible for inclusion. Unpublished studies (eg, conference abstracts, trial protocols) were excluded.
Time frame: The original SysRev search included dates from January 1990 through July 18, 2019, and the literature search was updated on April 20, 2020. All languages were included as long as there was an English abstract.

Consensus on Science

Because of the known importance of the presence or absence of ST-segment elevation in determining the need for emergency CAG in the absence of cardiac arrest, the evidence is presented by the 3 patient populations of most clinical relevance: (1) no ST-segment elevation and any initial rhythm, (2) no ST-segment elevation and initial shockable rhythm, and (3) ST-segment elevation. We have included the cohort of undifferentiated ECG and all rhythms as well as an undifferentiated ECG and initial shockable rhythm because this addressed the original PICO, study design, time frame. Because of variation in the timing and occurrence of angiography in the comparator groups in the studies identified, the comparator group was changed to late (>6 hours after ROSC) or no angiography.
Data from observational studies with a serious or very serious risk of bias are included as supplementary material in Supplemental Appendix C1, and a table summarizing the characteristics for every study or trial included in this CoSTR is provided in Supplemental Appendix C2.

After ROSC, Without ST-Segment Elevation on ECG, and All Initial Rhythms

For this patient population, 2 small RCTs106,107 were identified, only 1 of which106 reported outcomes considered critical by the ALS Task Force. No significant difference was found between groups for any of these outcomes in the 99 patients included. Evidence was deemed low certainty for all outcomes, and key data are presented in Table 2.
Table 2. RCT106 Data for Effect of Early CAG Compared With No Early CAG on Critical Outcomes in Patients Without ST-Segment Elevation After ROSC, All Initial Rhythms
OutcomeOR (95% CI)RR (95% CI)Absolute difference, n patients/1000 (95% CI)
Survival at hospital discharge1.33 (0.60–2.93)1.15 (0.78–1.68)71 more (122 fewer–257 more)
CPC 1–2* at hospital discharge1.22 (0.56–2.69)1.11 (0.74–1.67)50 more (142 fewer–237 more)
Survival at 30 d1.44 (0.65–3.18)1.20 (0.81–1.77)91 more (103 fewer–275 more)
CPC 1–2* at 30 d1.35 (0.59–3.08)1.21 (0.71–2.07)68 more (117 fewer–247 more)
Survival at 180 d1.50 (0.66–3.40)1.25 (0.80–1.96)100 more (98 fewer–288 more)
CPC 1–2* at 180 d1.38 (0.58–3.29)1.26 (0.68–2.33)67 more (111 fewer–239 more)
Evidence was low certainty for all outcomes.
CAG indicates coronary angiography; CPC, Cerebral Performance Category; OR, odds ratio; RCT, randomized controlled trial; ROSC, return of spontaneous circulation; and RR, risk ratio.
*
CPC 1 to 2 is considered a favorable neurological outcome in most studies.
Very low–certainty evidence from the second pilot RCT107 enrolling 78 patients with ROSC after OHCA found no improvement in the important outcome of 24-hour survival with early CAG compared with late or no CAG (OR, 2.06 [95% CI, 0.48–8.90]; RR, 1.08 [95% CI, 0.92–1.27]; absolute survival difference, 0.07 [95% CI, −0.08 to 0.22], or 71 of 1000 more patients survived at 24 hours [95% CI, 80 fewer–221 more]).

After ROSC, Without ST-Segment Elevation on ECG, and Shockable Initial Rhythm

A single RCT108 enrolling 538 patients was identified for patients without ST-segment elevation after ROSC with an initial shockable rhythm. The outcomes and certainty of evidence for this RCT are presented in Table 3.
Table 3. RCT108 Data for Effect of Early CAG Compared With Late or No CAG on Outcomes in Patients Without ST-Segment Elevation After ROSC, Initial Shockable Rhythm
OutcomeCertainty of evidenceOR (95% CI)RR (95% CI)Absolute difference, npatients/1000 (95% CI)
Survival at hospital dischargeLow0.85 (0.60–1.22)0.95 (0.84–1.07)36 fewer (119 fewer–41 more)
Survival at 90 dLow0.89 (0.62–1.27)0.96 (0.85–1.08)26 fewer (113 fewer–50 more)
CPC 1–2* at ICU dischargeLow0.80 (0.56–1.14)0.90 (0.77–1.06)55 fewer (144 fewer–32 more)
CPC 1–2* at 90 dLow0.94 (0.66–1.33)0.98 (0.86–1.11)14 fewer (97 fewer–60 more)
Percutaneous intervention frequencyHigh1.54 (1.06–2.25)1.37 (1.04–1.79)88 more (11–176 more)
Coronary artery bypass graftingModerate0.87 (0.45–1.67)0.88 (0.48–1.60)10 fewer (46 fewer–157 more)
CAG indicates coronary angiography; CPC, Cerebral Performance Category; ICU, intensive care unit; OR, odds ratio; RCT, randomized controlled trial; ROSC, return of spontaneous circulation; and RR, risk ratio.
*
CPC 1 to 2 considered a favorable neurological outcome in most studies.
Results are from intention-to-treat analysis. A per-protocol analysis was also performed and is included in the online CoSTR.
For the critical outcome of survival with favorable neurological outcome at hospital discharge (CPC 1), 1 observational study109 including 4029 patients provided low-certainty evidence of benefit with early CAG compared with late or no CAG (adjusted OR, 1.60 [95% CI, 1.14–2.26], no raw data provided). An additional study110 including 203 patients also provided very low–certainty evidence of benefit for favorable neurological outcome (CPC 1–2) at ICU discharge associated with early CAG (adjusted OR, 2.77 [95% CI, 1.31–5.85], no raw data provided).

After ROSC, With ST-Segment Elevation on ECG

For the critical outcome of survival to hospital discharge, we identified very low–certainty evidence from 1 observational study110 of 112 patients that found no effect with early CAG compared with late or no CAG (OR, 1.89 [95% CI, 0.48–7.40]).
The same observational study110 found no difference in the critical outcome of favorable neurological outcome at hospital discharge (CPC no greater than 2) (OR, 1.12 [95% CI, 0.3–4.19]).

After ROSC, All ECGs (Undifferentiated)

For the critical outcome of survival at 30 days, 1 observational study111 enrolling 1722 patients provided low- certainty evidence of benefit from the use of early CAG compared with late or no CAG (OR, 1.43 [95% CI, 1.12–1.83]; absolute difference, 64 more patients of 1000 survived with the intervention [95% CI, 19–116]). The same observational study111 provided very low–certainty evidence showing no difference in the critical outcome of survival at 1 to 3 years (adjusted OR, 1.79 [95% CI, 0.93–3.45]; absolute difference, 77 more patients of 1000 survived with the intervention [95% CI, 8 fewer–201 more]).
For the critical outcome of survival with favorable neurological outcome at discharge, we identified very low–certainty evidence from 3 observational studies109,112,113 enrolling 8124 patients that found benefit from early CAG compared with late or no CAG (OR, 1.93 [95% CI, 1.20–3.10]).
For the critical outcome of survival with favorable neurological outcome at 3 to 6 months (CPC 1–2), we identified very low–certainty evidence from 1 observational study114 including 544 patients that reported no effect of early CAG compared with late or no CAG (OR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.69–1.18]).
For the important outcome of successful PCI, we identified very low–certainty evidence from 3 non-RCTs114–116 including 1117 patients that found higher frequency of successful PCI in the intervention group compared with the control group (intention-to-treat analysis OR, 6.21 [95% CI, 4.45–8.67]; RR, 4.08 [95% CI, 3.09–5.40]; absolute risk difference [ARD], 0.31 [95% CI, 0.26–0.35], or 308 more patients/1000 had successful PCI in the intervention group [95% CI, 260–354 more]). A per-protocol analysis including only patients who underwent CAG is included in the online CoSTR.

After ROSC, All ECGs (Undifferentiated) With Initial Shockable Rhythm

For the critical outcome of survival with favorable neurological outcome at hospital discharge (CPC 1), we identified very low–certainty evidence from 1 observational study109 of 4029 patients who identified benefit with early CAG (OR, 1.47 [95% CI, 1.36–1.72]).
Evidence for adverse events is reported in the online CoSTR.

Treatment Recommendations

When CAG is considered for comatose postarrest patients without ST-segment elevation, we suggest that either an early or a delayed approach for CAG is reasonable (weak recommendation, low-certainty evidence).
We suggest early CAG in comatose post–cardiac arrest patients with ST-segment elevation (good practice statement).

Justification and Evidence-to-Decision Framework Highlights

The evidence-to-decision table is provided in Supplemental Appendix A2.
Without ST-Segment Elevation
In making the above recommendations, the task force weighed the fact that we did not find sufficient evidence to demonstrate improved outcomes with early CAG for post–cardiac arrest patients without ST-segment elevation regardless of presenting cardiac arrest rhythm (shockable or nonshockable). Patients in cardiogenic shock after cardiac arrest were excluded from all studies, and there is unlikely ever to be sufficient clinical equipoise to support a randomized trial of delayed intervention in the shock cohort. There may be subgroups of patients without ST-segment elevation with high-risk features who would benefit from earlier CAG.
It may be that survival and functional survival may not be the right outcomes to measure harm or benefit from an intervention that adjusts the timing of PCI in postarrest patients. For most patients admitted after CA who subsequently die, the cause of death is usually neurological injury rather than cardiac complications. There are no significant differences in adverse event rates with either time interval.
With ST-Segment Elevation
For comatose patients with ST-segment elevation, there is no randomized clinical evidence for the timing of CAG. The ALS Task Force acknowledges that early CAG, with PCI if indicated, is the current standard of care for patients with ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction who did not have a cardiac arrest. We found no evidence to change this approach in patients with ST-segment elevation after cardiac arrest.

Task Force Knowledge Gaps

Whether early CAG improves survival or survival with favorable neurological outcome for postarrest patients with ST-segment elevation
Whether CAG compared with no CAG improves outcomes in postarrest patients
Whether CAG and PCI improve outcomes in the no–ST-elevation cohort who present in shock
Whether early CAG compared with late or no CAG is beneficial after cardiac arrest occurring in the in-hospital setting
Whether CAG and PCI are beneficial compared with thrombolysis and what the impact of the treatment interval is on the outcome from these interventions
Whether postarrest CAG and PCI have an effect on longer-term outcomes
The effect of postarrest CAG and PCI on health-related quality-of-life outcomes
Whether timing of CAG has an effect on more novel outcomes such as functional or biochemical measures

CPR and Defibrillation in the Prone Position (SysRev)

Rationale for Review

Evidence from clinical trials suggests that placing patients with severe hypoxemic respiratory failure in the prone position can improve oxygenation and survival.117 Prone positioning has been used increasingly during the COVID-19 pandemic, both for patients requiring mechanical ventilation and for patients with hypoxemia not yet requiring mechanical ventilation. When a patient has a cardiac arrest while in the prone position, there is little guidance on whether it is preferable to begin CPR while the patient is still prone or to supinate the patient immediately and begin CPR in the more standard supine position. This task force–led SysRev was undertaken to attempt to answer this question, and the review was registered on PROSPERO (registration CRD42021230691).
The full text of this CoSTR is available on the ILCOR website.118

PICO, Study Design, and Time Frame

Population: Adults and children with cardiac arrest occurring while in the prone position
Intervention: Performing CPR or defibrillation while the patient remains in the prone position
Comparator: Turning the patient supine before initiation of CPR or defibrillation
Outcome: Arterial blood pressure during CPR, time to initiation of CPR, time to defibrillation for shockable rhythms during CPR, end-tidal capnography during CPR, ROSC, survival, and survival with favorable neurological outcome to discharge or ≥30 days
Study design: RCTs and nonrandomized studies (non-RCTs, interrupted time series, controlled before-and-after studies, cohort studies), case series, and case reports were eligible for inclusion. Case series and reports were included because the writing group is aware that the human data on prone CPR are extremely limited and there is a need for guidance, given the use of prone position for patients severely ill with COVID-19. Unpublished studies (eg, conference abstracts, trial protocols) and editorials were excluded, although case reports published in letter form could be included. ScopRevs and SysRevs were included for discussion and to ensure that no primary articles were missed, but data were not extracted primarily from these reviews.
Time frame: All years and all languages were included as long as there was an English abstract. The literature search was conducted on December 9, 2020.

Consensus on Science

Of 20 adult case reports, 12 patients had chest compressions started in the prone position,119–130 and 8 were supinated before chest compressions were started.131–137 Of the 12 pediatric case reports, 11 children had chest compressions started while prone,114,124–127,129–132,136 whereas 1 was supinated first.128 Of all 32 case reports, 31 were of patients in a prone position in the operating room, most often with head fixation or other devices that could considerably hinder the ability to turn the patient supine safely and quickly. Only 1 adult case report involved a patient in the prone position in the ICU.122
Comparisons of the critical outcomes of survival to ≥30 days and survival to hospital discharge and the important outcome of ROSC from prone versus supine CPR are presented in Table 4 (adult case reports) and Table 5 (pediatric case reports). The critical outcome of survival with favorable neurological outcome was not explicitly or formally reported in any of the case reports.
Table 4. Commonly Reported Outcomes for CPR Started in Prone Versus Supine Position: 20 Adults
OutcomeAdult: CPR started prone (n=12), n119–130Adult: patient supinated before CPR (n=8), n131–137
Cases reportingAchieving outcomeCases reportingAchieving outcome
ROSC1212/1283/8
Survival to hospital discharge55/572/7
Survival to ≥30 d11/162/6
CPR indicates cardiopulmonary resuscitation; and ROSC, return of spontaneous circulation.
Table 5. Commonly Reported Outcomes for CPR Started in Prone Versus Supine Position: 12 Children
OutcomeChild: CPR started prone (n=11), n129,138–146Child: patient supinated before CPR (n=1), n147
Cases reportingAchieving outcomeCases reportingAchieving outcome
ROSC1110/1111/1
Survival to hospital discharge107/1011/1
Survival to ≥30 d52/50NA
CPR indicates cardiopulmonary resuscitation; NA, not applicable; and ROSC, return of spontaneous circulation.
The important outcome of time to CPR was reported in only a minority of case reports and, in those reports, usually as an estimate (eg, immediate), making comparisons difficult. Two simulation studies reported that the time to supinate to start chest compressions was 50±34 seconds148 to 110 seconds.121 Time to start of chest compressions (in supine position) of 77±31 seconds was reported in 1 simulation study of cardiac arrest in the prone position.148
For the important outcome of time to defibrillation, 1 simulation study reported a time to prone defibrillation of 22 seconds (1 group) compared with an average time (13 groups) of 108±61 seconds when the patient was supinated before defibrillation.148 Time to defibrillation was not reported in any case report.
For the important outcome of arterial blood pressure during CPR, we identified very low–certainty evidence from 2 small, nonrandomized studies enrolling a total of 17 patients who had already been declared dead after conventional supine CPR, comparing arterial blood pressure during CPR delivered with the patient prone with that obtained with the patient supine.149,150 Both studies reported significantly higher systolic blood pressure during compressions in the prone position.149,150
The important outcome of end-tidal carbon dioxide (ETCO2) during CPR was reported in 5 adult patients,123–125,130,134 with values ranging from 15 mm Hg130 to 33 mm Hg,125 and 2 pediatric patients, both of whom had an ETCO2 at least 10 mm Hg with prone compressions.138,139

Treatment Recommendations

For patients with cardiac arrest occurring while in the prone position with an advanced airway already in place and for whom immediate supination is not feasible or poses significant risk to the patient, initiating CPR while the patient is still prone may be a reasonable approach (good practice statement).
Invasive blood pressure monitoring and continuous ETCO2 monitoring may be useful to ascertain whether prone compressions are generating adequate perfusion, and this information could inform the optimal time to turn the patient supine (good practice statement).
For patients with cardiac arrest occurring while in the prone position without an advanced airway already in place, we recommend turning the patient supine as quickly as possible and beginning CPR (strong recommendation, very low–certainty evidence).
For patients with cardiac arrest with a shockable rhythm who are in the prone position and cannot be supinated immediately, attempting defibrillation in the prone position is a reasonable approach (good practice statement).

Justification and Evidence-to-Decision Framework Highlights

The evidence-to-decision table is provided in Supplemental Appendix A2.
Although the task force would not usually generate treatment recommendations from extremely low–certainty evidence, the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in many critically ill patients treated with prone positioning and has made this an important question for clinicians worldwide.
The task force weighed the risk of delaying chest compressions and defibrillation while a patient is supinated against the risk of CPR and defibrillation being less effective in the prone position and acknowledged that the balance of risks is unclear.
The task force considered that further studies would be feasible and useful. These could include larger case series from single or multiple centers or case reports on quality metrics such as ETCO2 and arterial blood pressure during prone compressions. More data on patients in the ICU in particular are needed because virtually all published case reports on prone CPR concern patients positioned prone for spinal or brain surgery in the operating room.
In many ICU settings, patients receiving mechanical ventilation in the prone position are highly likely to have arterial lines and continuous ETCO2 monitoring, thus enabling the effectiveness of prone compressions to be determined rapidly. The task force discussed that evidence of ineffective compressions (ETCO2 or mean arterial pressure below the usual CPR targets) could indicate more urgency to supination.
The difficulty of supinating a patient will vary widely depending on patient size; personnel present; interventions in place such as chest tubes, advanced airways, and intravenous lines; personal protective equipment (PPE) and isolation requirements; potentially open wounds; exposed hardware; or unstable spine (in the case of patients having surgery). This may affect decisions on whether to perform CPR prone or to supinate a patient first.
The cause of the cardiac arrest will determine the urgency of supination. For example, a primary airway problem such as a dislodged tracheal tube will require immediate supination, whereas the need for hemorrhage control during surgery in the prone position may necessitate resuscitation in the prone position.

Task Force Knowledge Gaps

There is almost no evidence beyond case reports on this topic. Some highlighted knowledge gaps include the following:
The average time taken to supinate a critically ill patient or a patient in the operating room in a real clinical setting
Data on outcomes in patients arresting in the prone position who receive CPR or defibrillation while prone compared with those who are supinated before CPR start or defibrillation
Comparative data on CPR metrics such as ETCO2 and arterial blood pressure during compressions done in the prone and supine positions, as well as time to CPR start and first defibrillation or dose of epinephrine
The risk of aerosolization or infection transmission from supinating a patient in cardiac arrest
Optimal hand placement and defibrillator pad placement for prone CPR and defibrillation

Consciousness During CPR (ScopRev)

Rationale for Review

CPR-induced consciousness is increasingly described. Rescuer and survivor experiences encompass multiple themes that can occur at different times relative to cardiac arrest, CPR, and recovery; reported experiences include transcendent mystical experiences, visual and auditory awareness with a perceived sense of bodily detachment, dream-like states, and CPR-induced consciousness, as well as conscious experiences related to emergence from coma. We aimed to describe reported experiences, assess whether any interventions could have been used to prevent them (eg, the use of sedatives), and determine whether a SysRev is warranted.
The full text of this ScopRev is available on the ILCOR website.151

PICO, Study Design, and Time Frame

Population: Adults in any setting with consciousness during CPR
Intervention: Sedation, analgesia, or other intervention to prevent consciousness
Comparator: No specific intervention for consciousness
Outcome: Any clinical outcome, including cardiac arrest outcomes and psychological well-being after arrest. Rescuer outcomes were also considered.
Study design: RCTs and nonrandomized studies (non-RCTs, interrupted time series, controlled before-and-after studies, cohort studies) were all eligible for inclusion. For the purpose of the ScopRev, we also included case reports and case series, gray literature, and unpublished studies (eg, conference abstracts, trial protocols). Articles based on the Lazarus phenomenon and cough CPR and narrative articles referring to near-death experiences and consciousness were excluded but noted for discussion.
Time frame: All years and languages were included as long as there was an English title or abstract. The literature search was conducted on November 24, 2020.

Summary of Evidence

We identified observational studies looking at diverse aspects of consciousness and sedation in patients. In 143 survivors of in-hospital cardiac arrest or OHCA from the United States, sedation or analgesia immediately before, during, or after CPR was not associated with the development of posttraumatic stress disorder.152 A UK study of awareness during CPR in 140 survivors of in-hospital cardiac arrest identified 2 patients who described awareness with explicit recall of seeing and hearing events during their resuscitation.153 In interviews of Australian health care professionals (doctors, nurses, paramedics), 59 of 67 had witnessed CPR-induced consciousness during which the patient had not interfered with the CPR attempt, with 10 reporting having to pause CPR, 7 reassuring the patient, 16 using sedation or neuromuscular-blocking drugs, and 2 using physical restraints.154 Consciousness during CPR interfering with resuscitation (eg, the patient preventing chest compressions or trying to pull out tubes and lines) was reported by 51 of 63 interviewees, with 7 pausing CPR, 23 using sedation or paralyzing drugs, and 7 using physical restraints. The interviews highlighted a need for further guidance on this issue. An observational study of 16 558 OHCAs in Victoria, Australia (2008–2014), identified 112 cases (0.7%) of CPR-induced consciousness, including eye opening (20.5%), speech (29.5%), body movement (87.5%), or a combination of these responses.155 Forty-two patients (37.5%) were given drugs (midazolam, opioids, or neuromuscular-blocking drugs). Consciousness during CPR was associated with witnessed arrests and improved outcomes when no drugs were given. Another Australian study of 23 011 OHCAs in Queensland (2007–2018) identified 52 cases (0.23%) of CPR-induced consciousness with combativeness or agitation in 34.6% as the most common sign.156 Consciousness was associated with witnessed cardiac arrest, EMS-witnessed arrest, and cardiac arrest in a public place with an initial shockable rhythm, which were in turn associated with improved ROSC and survival. Twenty-four case reports or series that described 31 cases of consciousness during CPR were published since 1962, with sedative drugs being used in ≈30%.157–180 Existing drug regimens were identified that included the use of ketamine, midazolam, or fentanyl or a combination of these drugs.

Task Force Insights

The ALS Task Force concluded that there is insufficient evidence to warrant a formal SysRev. Distinguishing between overt physical signs of consciousness and transcendental cognitive experiences may be important because the psychological impact may vary greatly. Patients with physical signs of consciousness are more likely to experience pain and distress than those with out-of-body–type experiences; thus, optimal management may be different.
Evidence suggests that CPR-induced consciousness may have harmful effects on the rescuer and that CPR-induced consciousness probably signifies very recent sudden cardiac arrest and effective brain perfusion during CPR, thus being associated with better outcomes.
Some patient recall of events during CPR may relate to events that occurred before cardiac arrest, after ROSC, or during recovery. There needs to be a wider recognition of patient cognitive experiences among clinicians. Many patients are afraid to discuss these experiences because they feel that clinicians will not be receptive. There is a need for space to discuss these experiences and a need for awareness of resources available to manage ongoing problems such as posttraumatic stress disorder in both patients and rescuers.
There is an absence of standardized reporting criteria for the phenomena experienced by patients during CPR. In addition, the optimal drugs (including dosage) to manage CPR-induced consciousness (speed of effectiveness and impact on cardiac arrest outcomes) are unknown. Sedative drugs may have harmful cardiovascular effects, beneficial neuroprotective effects, or both. How sedative drugs given during CPR may affect post-ROSC consciousness and thus decision-making on the indication for targeted temperature management is unknown. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, drug regimens should be extrapolated from experience of sedation and analgesia in critically ill patients and using the smallest possible drug dose to achieve a desired effect.

Treatment Recommendations

This is a new topic, and there is insufficient evidence to warrant progressing to a SysRev of interventions for CPR-induced consciousness. Given the interest in this topic, the task force considered the available evidence and made the following good practice statements:
In settings in which it is feasible, rescuers may consider using sedative or analgesic drugs (or both) in very small doses to prevent pain and distress to patients who are conscious during CPR (good practice statement).
Neuromuscular-blocking drugs alone should not be given to conscious patients (good practice statement).
The optimal drug regimen for sedation and analgesia during CPR is uncertain. Regimens can be based on those used in critically ill patients and according to local protocols (good practice statement).

Evidence Updates

The topics reviewed by EvUps are summarized in Table 6, and complete EvUps are provided in Supplemental Appendix B2.
Table 6. ALS Topics Reviewed by EvUps
Topic/PICOYear(s) last updatedExisting treatment recommendationRelevant studies since last review, nSufficient data to warrant SysRev?
Transition from nonshockable to shockable rhythm (ALS 444)2010 CoSTRNoneNo studiesNo
Oxygen dose during CPR (ALS 889)2015 CoSTR;2020 EvUpWe suggest using the highest possible inspired oxygen concentration during CPR (weak recommendation, very low–certainty evidence).No studiesNo
Steroids during
CPR (ALS 433)
2015 CoSTR;2020 EvUpFor IHCA, the task force was unable to reach a consensus recommendation for or against the use of steroids during cardiac arrest.
We suggest against the routine use of steroids during CPR for OHCA (weak recommendation, very low–certainty evidence).
2 SysRevs, 3 RCTs registered with trial registries yet to reportConsider after publication of ongoing RCTs
Confirmation of correct tracheal tube position (ALS 469)2015 CoSTRWe recommend using waveform capnography to confirm and continuously monitor the position of a tracheal tube during CPR in addition to clinical assessment (strong recommendation, low-quality evidence).1 SysRev, 2 observational studiesNo
Automatic ventilators vs manual ventilation during CPR (ALS 490)2010 CoSTRThere is insufficient evidence to support or refute the use of an automatic transport ventilator over manual ventilation during resuscitation of the patient with cardiac arrest with an advanced airway.2 RCTs (simulation studies), 2 observational studiesNo
Cardiac arrest caused by asthma (ALS 492)2010 CoSTRThere is insufficient evidence to suggest any routine change to cardiac arrest resuscitation treatment algorithms for patients with cardiac arrest caused by asthma.1 observational studyNo
ECPR vs manual or mechanical CPR (ALS 723)2019 CoSTRWe suggest that ECPR may be considered as a rescue therapy for selected patients with cardiac arrest when conventional CPR is failing in settings in which it can be implemented (weak recommendation, very low–certainty evidence).1 RCTNo
Postresuscitation steroids (ALS 446)2010 CoSTR;2020 EvUpThere is insufficient evidence to support or refute the use of corticosteroids alone or in combination with other drugs after cardiac arrest.1 SysRev, 1 RCT not yet reported, 2 further RCTs ongoingConsider after publication of ongoing RCTs
Oxygen dose after ROSC in adults (ALS 448)2020 CoSTRWe recommend avoiding hypoxemia in adults with ROSC after cardiac arrest in any setting (strong recommendation, very low–certainty evidence).
We suggest avoiding hyperoxemia in adults with ROSC after cardiac arrest in any setting (weak recommendation, low-certainty evidence).
1 SysRev, 1 RCT subgroup analysis, 12 observational studiesConsider after publication of ongoing RCTs
Neuroprognostication after ROSC (ALS 450, 458, 460, 484, 487, 713)2020 CoSTRWe recommend that neuroprognostication always be undertaken with a multimodal approach because no single test has sufficient specificity to eliminate false positives (strong recommendation, very low–certainty evidence).
Clinical examination: We suggest using PLR at ≥72 h after ROSC for predicting neurological outcome of adults who are comatose after cardiac arrest (weak recommendation, very low–certainty evidence). We suggest using quantitative pupillometry at ≥72 h after ROSC for predicting neurological outcome of adults who are comatose after cardiac arrest (weak recommendation, low-certainty evidence).We suggest using bilateral absence of corneal reflex at ≥72 h after ROSC for predicting poor neurological outcome in adults who are comatose after cardiac arrest (weak recommendation, very low–certainty evidence).We suggest using presence of myoclonus or status myoclonus within 7 d after ROSC, in combination with other tests, for predicting poor neurological outcome in adults who are comatose after cardiac arrest (weak recommendation, very low–certainty evidence). We also suggest recording EEG in the presence of myoclonic jerks to detect any associated epileptiform activity (weak recommendation, very low–certainty evidence).
Electrophysiology: We suggest using a bilaterally absent N20 wave of SSEP in combination with other indices to predict poor outcome in adult patients who are comatose after cardiac arrest (weak recommendation, very low–certainty evidence).
We suggest against using the absence of EEG background reactivity alone to predict poor outcome in adult patients who are comatose after cardiac arrest (weak recommendation, very low–certainty evidence).
We suggest using the presence of seizure activity on EEG in combination with other indices to predict poor outcome in adult patients who are comatose after cardiac arrest (weak recommendation, very low–certainty evidence).We suggest using burst suppression on EEG in combination with other indices to predict poor outcome in adult patients who are comatose and effects of sedation after cardiac arrest have cleared (weak recommendation, very low–certainty evidence).
Serum biomarkers: We suggest using NSE within 72 h after ROSC, in combination with other tests, for predicting neurological outcome of adults who are comatose after cardiac arrest (weak recommendation, very low–certainty evidence). There is no consensus on a threshold value. We suggest against using S-100B protein for predicting neurological outcome of adults who are comatose after cardiac arrest (weak recommendation, low-certainty evidence). We suggest against using serum levels of glial fibrillary acidic protein, serum tau protein, or neurofilament light chain for predicting poor neurological outcome of adults who are comatose after cardiac arrest (weak recommendation, very low–certainty evidence)
Neuroimaging: We suggest using GWR on brain computed tomography for predicting neurological outcome of adults who are comatose after cardiac arrest (weak recommendation, very low–certainty evidence). However, no GWR threshold for 100% specificity can be recommended. We suggest using diffusion-weighted brain MRI for predicting neurological outcome of adults who are comatose after cardiac arrest (weak recommendation, very low–certainty evidence). We suggest using ADC on brain MRI for predicting neurological outcome of adults who are comatose after cardiac arrest (weak recommendation, very low–certainty evidence).
1 SysRev, 10 observational studiesNo
ADC indicates apparent diffusion coefficient; ALS, advanced life support; CoSTR, International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations; CPR, cardiopulmonary resuscitation; ECPR, extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation; EEG, electroencephalogram; EvUp, evidence update; GWR, gray matter–to–white matter ratio; IHCA, in-hospital cardiac arrest; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging; NSE, neuron-specific enolase; OHCA, out-of-hospital cardiac arrest; PICO, population, intervention, comparator, outcome; PLR, pupillary light reflex; RCT, randomized controlled trial; ROSC, return of spontaneous circulation; SSEP, somatosensory evoked potential; and SysRev, systematic review.
CoSTR documents are available at https://costr.ilcor.org/

Neonatal Life Support

Cord Management at Birth for Preterm Infants (SysRev)

Rationale for Review

Clamping the umbilical cord at birth has a significant impact on a newborn’s cardiovascular system. In the seconds and minutes immediately after birth, placental venous return and its contribution to systemic blood pressure and flow remain critical.181 When breathing begins, inflation of the lung increases pulmonary blood flow, enabling pulmonary venous return to replace umbilical venous return as the primary source of preload for the left ventricle. Cardiac output markedly increases, and the heart rate stabilizes. In contrast, for infants who are apneic and hypoxic at birth, immediate cord clamping decreases cardiac output. Because increased cardiac output counteracts the effects of hypoxemia, limiting the increase in cardiac output exposes the infant to the combination of ischemia and hypoxia.182 Such instability can be avoided if the infant’s lungs are aerated and pulmonary blood flow increases before the umbilical cord is clamped. Large swings in arterial pressure and flow are reduced, leading to a more stable circulatory transition.182
For many years, the umbilical cord was routinely clamped immediately after birth. However, improved understanding of the potentially negative effects of immediate cord clamping led to investigation and use of many different cord-management strategies for preterm infants. In 2015, the ILCOR Neonatal Life Support Task Force published 2 CoSTRs summarizing the evidence comparing later (delayed) cord clamping (≥30 seconds) with earlier cord clamping (<30 seconds) and comparing intact-cord milking with early cord clamping for preterm newborn infants.183,184 Additional evidence has accumulated, and alternative techniques have been studied. Thus, ILCOR prioritized scientific review of all umbilical cord-management strategies for preterm births (PROSPERO registration CRD42019155475).186
The full text of this CoSTR can be found on the ILCOR website.187

PICO, Study Design, and Time Frame

Population: Moderate, very, and extremely preterm infants (or equivalent birth weight) <34 (+0) weeks (plus days) gestation
Intervention: (1) Later (delayed) cord clamping, (2) intact-cord milking, and (3) cut-cord milking
Comparator:
A. Early clamping of the cord (at <30 seconds after birth)
B. Between-intervention comparisons
C. Delayed cord clamping at ≥30 seconds to <60 compared with ≥60 seconds
D. Delayed cord clamping based on time since birth compared with physiological approach to cord clamping (until cessation of pulsation or based on vital signs monitoring)
– Definitions used in PROSPERO submission:
▪ Early cord clamping, defined as application of a clamp to the umbilical cord at <30 seconds after birth of the infant without cord milking
▪ Later (or delayed) cord clamping, defined as application of a clamp to the umbilical cord ≥30 seconds after birth or based on physiological parameters (such as when cord pulsation has ceased or breathing has been initiated), without cord milking
▪ Intact-cord milking (also referred to as stripping), defined as repeated compression of the cord from the placental side toward the infant with the connection to the placenta intact at any time point immediately after birth
▪ Cut-cord milking (also referred to as stripping), defined as drainage of the cord by compression from the cut end toward the infant after clamping and cutting of a long segment
Outcome: Additional details on outcomes and prioritization are provided in the full online CoSTR.187
A. Survival; neurodevelopmental outcomes (with age-appropriate, validated tools); inpatient morbidities (eg, intraventricular hemorrhage, necrotizing enterocolitis, retinopathy of prematurity, chronic lung disease); hematological and cardiovascular status (in hospital), hyperbilirubinemia treated with phototherapy; maternal complication (postpartum hemorrhage, infection); resuscitation (need for PPV±intubation±chest compressions±medications)
Study design: RCTs and cluster RCTs in preterm infants (<34 weeks’ gestational age) or low–birth-weight infants (<2500 g) were included. For those studies that reported a broad population of infants (including both preterm infants of <34 weeks’ gestation, late preterm infants, and term infants), studies recruiting a preponderance of preterm infants (defined as a mean gestational age <34 weeks or reported >80% of infants as preterm <34 weeks’ gestational age) were included. Unpublished studies (eg, conference abstracts, trial protocols) were excluded.
Time frame: All years and all languages were included if there was an English abstract. Literature search was last conducted on July 26, 2019.

Consensus on Science

Comparison 1: Later (Delayed) Cord Clamping (≥30 Seconds) Compared With Early Cord Clamping (<30 Seconds)
The SysRev186 identified 23 trials (3513 infants) for this comparison. Most studies included infants of <34 weeks’ gestational age, and most were done in high-income countries.188–210
Data relating to the key critical and important infant and maternal outcomes for this comparison are summarized in Table 7. Evidence for additional outcomes evaluated is included in the full online CoSTR.187
Table 7. Meta-Analysis for Comparison 1: Later (Delayed) Cord Clamping (≥30 Seconds) Compared With Early Cord Clamping (<30 Seconds) for Preterm Infants
OutcomeIncluded studiesTotal, nCertainty of evidenceRR (95% CI); I2Absolute difference (95% CI) or mean difference (95% CI); I2
Survival to dischargeArmanian et al,189 2017
Backes et al,190 2016
Baenziger et al,191 2017
Das et al,192 2018
Duley et al,195 2018
Finn et al,196 2019
Hofmeyr et al,198 1988
Hofmeyer et al,199 1993
Kazemi et al,200 2017
Kinmond et al,201 1993
Kugelman et al,202 2007
McDonnell and Henderson-Smart,205 1997
Mercer et al,203 2003
Mercer et al,204 2006
Oh et al,206 2011
Rabe et al,208 2000
Ruangkit et al,209 2019
Tarnow-Modri et al,210 2017
2988Moderate1.02 (1.00–1.04); 0%18/1000 more infants (0–36 more per 1000) survived when later cord clamping was intended than when early cord clamping was intended
Severe IVHArmanian et al,189 2017
Backes et al,190 2016
Das et al,192 2018
Dong et al,194 2016
Duley et al,195 2018
Finn et al,196 2019
Kazemi et al,200 2017
Kugelman et al,202 2007
Mercer et al,203 2003
Mercer et al,204 2006
Rabe et al,208 2000
Rana et al,207 2018
Ruangkit et al,209 2019
Tarnow-Modri et al,210 2017
2972Low0.98 (0.67–1.42); 0%1/1000 fewer infants (10 fewer–10 more per 1000) developed severe IVH when later cord clamping was intended than when early cord clamping was intended
Hb concentration within 24 h after birthBaenziger et al,191 2007
Dong et al,194 2016
Finn et al,196 2019
Gokmen et al,197 2011
196Moderate MD, 1.24 g/dL (0.01–2.47); 79%
Hct within 24 h after birthArmanian et al,189 2017
Backes et al,190 2016
Baenziger et al,191 2007
Das et al,192 2018
Dipak et al,193 2017
Gokmen et al,197 2011
Kinmond et al,201 1993
Kugelman et al,202 2007
McDonnell and Henderson-Smart,205 1997
Mercer et al,203 2003
Mercer et al,204 2006
Oh et al,206 2011
Rabe et al,208 2000
Ruangkit et al,209 2019
1022High MD, 2.63% (1.85–3.42); 5%
Hct within 7 d after birthTarnow-Mordi et al,210 20171550High MD, 2.70% (1.88–3.52)*
Inotropic support for hypotension within 24 h after birthDong et al,194 2016
Gokmen et al,197 2011
McDonnell and Henderson-Smart,205 1997
Oh et al,206 2011
Rabe et al,208 2000
Ruangkit et al,209 2019
351Moderate0.36 (0.17–0.75); 0%91/1000 fewer infants (30–143 fewer per 1000) received inotropic support in 24 h after birth when later cord clamping was intended
Lowest MAP in the first 12 h after birthBaenziger et al,191 2007
Finn et al,196 2019
Gokmen et al,197 2011
Kugelman et al,202 2007
Mercer et al,203 2003
Mercer et al,204 2006
Ruangkit et al,209 2019
374Low MD, 1.79 mm Hg (0.53–3.05); 0%
No. of infants receiving any blood transfusionsArmanian et al,189 2017
Das et al,192 2018
Dipak et al,193 2017
Dong et al,194 2016
Duley et al,195 2018
Finn et al,196 2019
Kugelman et al,202 2007
Mercer, et al,204 2006
Rabe et al,208 2000
Rana et al,207 2018
Ruangkit et al,209 2019
Tarnow-Mordi et al,210 2017
2910Low0.83 (0.77–0.90); 36%71/1000 fewer infants (40–111 fewer per 1000) received any blood transfusions when later cord clamping was intended than when early cord clamping was intended
Maternal PPH (≥500 mL)Duley et al,195 2018
Ruangkit et al,209 2019
Tarnow-Mordi et al,210 2017
1477Low0.93 (0.54–1.62); 52%; random effects7/1000 fewer mothers (8 fewer–12 more per 1000) developed a PPH (≥500 mL) when later cord clamping was intended than when early cord clamping was intended
Hb indicates hemoglobin; Hct, hematocrit; IVH, intraventricular hemorrhage; MAP, mean arterial blood pressure; MD, mean difference; PPH, postpartum hemorrhage; and RR, risk ratio.
*
There was only 1 trial, so no I2 was available.
Comparison 2: Intact-Cord Milking Compared With Early Cord Clamping
The SysRev identified 13 trials including 1170 infants for this comparison.196,211–222
Data relating to the key critical and important infant and maternal outcomes for this comparison are summarized in Table 8. Evidence for additional outcomes evaluated is included in the full online CoSTR.187
Table 8. Meta-Analysis for Comparison 2: Intact-Cord Milking Compared With Early Cord Clamping for Preterm Infants
OutcomeIncluded studiesTotal, nCertainty of evidenceRR (95% CI); I2Absolute difference (95% CI) or mean difference (95% CI); I2
Survival to dischargeAlan et al,211 2014
Elimian et al,212 2014
El-Naggar et al,213 2019
Hosono et al,214 2018
Katheria et al,215 2014
Li et al,218 2018
March et al,219 2013
Mercer et al,220 2016
Silahli et al,221 2018
Song et al,222 2017
945Moderate1.02 (0.98–1.06); 24%20/1000 more infants (10 fewer–50 more per 1000) survived to discharge with intact-cord milking than with early cord clamping
Hb within 24 h after birthElimian et al,212 2014
El-Naggar et al,213 2019
Finn et al,196 2019
Hosono et al,214 2008
Kildag et al,216 2016
Li et al,218 2018
March et al,219 2013
Mercer et al,220 2016
Silahli et al,221 2018
914Moderate MD, 1.18 g/dL (0.65–1.71); 71%; random effects
Hct within 24 h after birthElimian et al,212 2014
Katheria et al,215 2014
Kildag et al,216 2016
Li et al,218 2018
March et al,219 2013
Mercer et al,220 2016
Silahli et al,221 2018
774Moderate MD, 3.04% (1.28–4.80); 69%; random effects
Inotropic support for hypotension within 24 h after birthElimian et al,212 2014
El-Naggar et al,213 2019
Hosono et al,214 2018
Katheria et al,215 2014
Song et al,222 2017
439Moderate0.61 (0.44–0.84); 0%125/1000 fewer infants (50–200 fewer per 1000) received inotropic support for hypotension within the first 24 h after birth when intact-cord milking was intended than when early cord clamping was intended
No. of infants receiving any blood transfusionAlan et al,211 2014
Elimian et al,212 2014
Finn et al,196 2019
Hosono et al,214 2018
Katheria et al,215 2014
Li et al,218 2018
March et al,219 2013
545Very low0.73 (0.56–0.94); 56%; random effects167/1000 fewer infants (40–333 fewer per 1000) received any blood transfusions when intact-cord milking was intended than when early cord clamping was intended
Severe maternal PPH (≥1000 mL)Elimian et al,212 2014
Song et al,222 2017
266Very low2.83 (0.12–67.01); not applicable10/1000 more mothers (20 fewer–30 more per 1000) developed a PPH (≥1000 mL) with intact-cord milking than with early cord clamping
Hb indicates hemoglobin; Hct, hematocrit; MD, mean difference; PPH, postpartum hemorrhage; and RR, risk ratio.
Comparison 3: Cut-Cord Milking Compared With Early Cord Clamping (Based on Timing of Delay Clamping <30 Seconds)
For this comparison, a single study enrolling 60 patients223 provided very low–certainty evidence that could not exclude benefit or harm for any of the included outcomes except hematocrit in the first 24 hours after birth, for which a benefit from cut-cord milking compared with early cord clamping was suggested.
Comparison 4: Later (Delayed) Cord Clamping (≥30 Seconds) Compared With Intact-Cord Milking
The SysRev identified 7 trials (1073 infants) for this comparison.196,224–229 For the critical outcome of survival to discharge, moderate-certainty evidence from 5 trials involving 1000 infants could not exclude benefit or harm from later cord clamping.224–226,228,229 For all other outcomes evaluated, results were similarly inconclusive.
Comparisons 5 Through 8
For comparisons 5 (later [delayed] cord clamping [≥30 seconds] compared with cut-cord milking), 6 (intact-cord milking compared with cut-cord milking), 7 (later [delayed] cord clamping ≥60 seconds versus later [delayed] cord clamping [≥30 and <60 seconds]), and 8 (later [delayed] cord clamping [≥30 seconds] versus physiological approach), no studies were identified that met inclusion criteria.

Subgroup Analyses

There were many prespecified subgroup analyses and comparisons. If subgroup data were not available, we performed subgroup analyses according to study characteristics when applicable. These subgroup analyses are exploratory and must be interpreted with caution, especially for interaction tests between studies and by strata that were not used in randomization.
Subgroup Comparison: Later (Delayed) Cord Clamping Compared With Early Cord Clamping (Based on Gestational Age)
This subgroup comparison found significant improvements in survival to discharge for preterm infants of <30 weeks’ gestational age (moderate-certainty evidence from 3 trials190,206,210 involving 1639 infants) but not 30 to 34 weeks (very low–certainty evidence from 1 trial192 involving 461 infants). Moderate-certainty evidence from 12 trials involving 846 infants from both gestational age strata showed improved survival or no difference from later (delayed) clamping (≥30 seconds) compared with early cord clamping (<30 seconds)189,191,195,198,199,201–205,208,209
Subgroup Comparison: Later (Delayed) Cord Clamping Compared With Early Cord Clamping (Based on Setting Defined According to World Bank Country Classifications)
This subgroup comparison found significant improvements in the critical outcome of survival to discharge from later (delayed) clamping (≥30 seconds) compared with early cord clamping (<30 seconds) in high-income countries190,191,195,201–206 but not low- and middle-income countries.189,192,198,199,209
Subgroup Comparison: Intended Management in the Late Cord Clamping Group if Resuscitation Required: Resuscitation Before Cord Clamping Compared With Clamping and Cutting of Cord Followed by Resuscitation
One trial involving 270 infants stipulated an intention to provide respiratory support before delayed cord clamping.195 Both this and the 5 included trials involving 331 infants with cord cut before respiratory support195,199,203,204,208,209 and the 10 trials involving 2174 infants from studies that were unclear about whether respiratory support was given with intact or cut cord could not exclude benefit or harm from later clamping at ≥30 compared with <30 seconds.189–192,198,201,202,205,206,210
Subgroup Comparison: Later (Delayed) Cord Clamping Compared With Early Cord Clamping (Based on Duration of Clamping [30–<60, 60–120, >120 Seconds])
The results of this comparison did not show a linear dose response for the interval until intended cord clamping. For the critical outcome of survival to discharge, moderate-certainty evidence from 12 trials involving 1075 infants could not exclude benefit or harm from clamping at 30 to <60 compared with <30 seconds (RR, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.97–1.04]; I 2=0%).189,190,192,199,201–206,208,209 Low-certainty evidence from 3 trials involving 1643 infants showed improved survival or no difference from clamping at 60 to 120 compared with <30 seconds (RR, 1.03 [95% CI, 1.00–1.10]; number needed to treat to benefit, 45 [95% CI, 21–>1000]; I 2=40%).191,198,210 Low-certainty evidence from 1 trial involving 270 infants could not exclude benefit or harm from clamping at ≥2 minutes compared with <30 seconds (RR, 1.07 [95% CI, 0.99–1.15]).195

Treatment Recommendations

In infants born at <34 weeks’ gestational age who do not require immediate resuscitation after birth, we suggest deferring clamping the cord for at least 30 seconds (weak recommendation, moderate-certainty evidence).
In infants born at 28+0 to 33+6 weeks’ gestational age who do not require immediate resuscitation after birth, we suggest intact-cord milking as a reasonable alternative to deferring cord clamping (weak recommendation, moderate-certainty evidence).
We suggest against intact-cord milking for infants born at <28 weeks’ gestational age (weak recommendation, very low–certainty evidence).
In infants born at <34 weeks’ gestational age who require immediate resuscitation, there is insufficient evidence to make a recommendation with respect to cord management.
There is also insufficient evidence to make recommendations on cord management for maternal, fetal, or placental conditions that were considered exclusion criteria in many studies (in particular, multiple fetuses, congenital anomalies, placental abnormalities, alloimmunization, fetal anemia, fetal compromise, and maternal illness). In these situations, we suggest individualized decisions based on severity of the condition and assessment of maternal and neonatal risk (weak recommendation, very low–certainty evidence).

Justification and Evidence-to-Decision Framework Highlights

The evidence-to-decision table is provided in Supplemental Appendix A3.
Our suggestions/recommendations were based on several inferences. First, the critical outcome of survival with later (delayed) clamping versus early clamping suggests benefit or neutrality from delaying clamping, and there are no significant differences in other critical outcomes for all comparisons. There is improvement in important cardiovascular (blood pressure), therapeutic (inotropic support or transfusions), and hematological outcomes with delayed (later) clamping or intact-cord milking versus early clamping. These beneficial effects may have a clinically important impact on inpatient care. Together with the potential benefit for survival to discharge, they influenced us to suggest either later (delayed) cord clamping or intact-cord milking (in the case of infants born at 28 to <34 weeks’ gestational age) over early clamping, despite the lack of evidence for benefit for other critical outcomes.
One large clinical trial comparing intact-cord milking with later (delayed) cord clamping closed recruitment before completion because of an increased rate of severe intraventricular hemorrhage in infants born at <28 weeks’ gestational age who received intact-cord milking.224 However, meta-analysis of 4 trials involving 761 infants could not exclude benefit or harm from later (delayed) cord clamping compared with intact-cord milking (RR, 0.60 [95% CI, 0.32–1.12]; I 2=23%).196,224,225,228 There was only 1 small study on cut-cord milking.
Post hoc and subgroup analyses did not conflict with our suggestions or recommendations. We do not have sufficient confidence in these findings to make separate recommendations for cord management by country income, gestational age, or interval from birth to cord clamping (>30 seconds). We consider that the beneficial effect of delayed clamping in high-income countries is likely to be widely generalizable and therefore should be offered in all settings.
There is very little evidence to make recommendations for cord management in the preterm infant needing immediate resuscitation.
Our suggestions and recommendations are provided in the context of both immediate and deferred clamping being commonly practiced after preterm delivery and in light of historical and regional changes in cord-management practices over past decades.230 We acknowledge the perception of immediate clamping as a medical intervention and of deferring clamping as a natural, or physiological, approach and the paradox that many studies defined immediate clamping as the control.231
We were influenced by current cord-management practices with respect to preterm delivery. If our current norm were delayed clamping, we would have rejected early clamping and recommended further study of cord milking as an alternative in infants born at ≥28 weeks’ gestational age. However, if our current norm were early clamping, our recommendations to change current practice would have to be more cautious, given the weak evidence.
Some animal studies suggest that cardiorespiratory transition after birth occurs more effectively when cord clamping is deferred.232 There are also societal, maternal, and practitioner preferences for the timing of cord clamping.
With respect to equity, acceptability, accessibility, and cost, deferring cord clamping for ≥30 seconds and intact-cord milking are inexpensive, readily available, universally applicable interventions that can be performed regardless of setting.233 The beneficial effect of delayed clamping in high-income countries is likely to be generalizable; therefore, it should be offered in all settings. Although differences in maternal safety outcomes were not found, the data on maternal outcomes were limited.
Most trials allowed infants perceived to require resuscitation to have early cord clamping, even if they were assigned to late clamping in an RCT. Therefore, their optimal cord management remains unresolved. Several studies of resuscitation with the cord intact are planned or underway. Until they are completed, we consider we should defer our recommendation for this population.
With more studies and more options for comparisons, with or without resuscitation, the “Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis With Individual Participant Data on Cord Management at Preterm Birth (iCOMP): Study Protocol” may help identify the optimal cord-management strategy.234 Similarly, individual patient meta-analyses may improve our ability to determine the most effective interventions.
The task force debated the certainty of evidence for the overall recommendation of delayed cord clamping. Although evidence for survival was of moderate certainty, the doubt raised by the post hoc analysis of mortality justified downgrading our primary recommendation to low-certainty evidence.

Task Force Knowledge Gaps

Effect of cord management on long-term neurodevelopment outcomes or any other postdischarge outcomes
The impact of cord management as a public health strategy on child health and development
The best approach to cord management among preterm infants who require immediate resuscitation
The best approach to cord management among preterm infants with specific conditions such as congenital heart or lung disease
The long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes after intact-cord milking in extremely preterm infants
The optimal timing of cord clamping and how it should be determined with different maternal or fetal conditions
Few studies of cut-cord milking as a management strategy
The impact of cord management on vertical transmission of infectious diseases
Widely agreed-on nomenclature and definitions of different interventions, including delayed, deferred, later, optimal, and physiological cord clamping, as well as milking, stripping, intact cord, and cut cord

Cord Management at Birth for Term and Late Preterm Infants (SysRev)

Rationale for Review

Umbilical cord management affects every 1 of the 130 million babies born in the world each year. At the time of birth, ≈30% of the fetal-placental circulation is outside the fetus. Cord management affects the volume of placental transfusion to the newborn infant and the cardiovascular transition around the onset of breathing or ventilation.235 Thus, early cord clamping before onset of breathing may have major hemodynamic consequences not only for preterm newborn infants but also for term and near-term, nonvigorous newborn infants. Cord management at birth also influences iron status and possibly neurodevelopment of full-term infants.236,237 Iron deficiency in young children is associated with impaired motor development, behavioral problems, and cognitive delays.238–240 Cord management and placental transfusion at birth may help to reduce iron deficiency.
The topic of later (delayed) cord clamping for late preterm and term infants was last reviewed by ILCOR in 2010.241–243 The 2010 recommendation stated, “Delay in umbilical cord clamping for at least 1 minute is recommended for newborn infants not requiring resuscitation. There is insufficient evidence to support or refute a recommendation to delay cord clamping in babies requiring resuscitation.” The publication of further important data led ILCOR to prioritize a review of umbilical cord–management strategies for all term and late preterm births (PROSPERO registration CRD4202015549).235
The full text of this CoSTR can be found on the ILCOR website.244

PICO, Study Design, and Time Frame

Population: Term and late preterm infants (≥34 weeks’ gestation) or equivalent birth weight
Intervention:
– Later (delayed) cord clamping: Cord clamping after a delay of at least 30 seconds
– Intact-cord milking: Repeated compression of the cord from the placental side toward the baby with the connection to the placenta intact
– Cut-cord milking: Drainage of the cord by compression from the cut end toward the baby after clamping and cutting a long segment
Comparator:
– Early clamping of the cord (clamping at <30 seconds after birth) without cord milking or initiation of respiratory support compared with each of the above interventions
– Between-intervention comparisons
– Later (delayed) cord clamping at <60 compared with ≥60 seconds
– Later (delayed) cord clamping based on time since birth compared with physiological approach to cord clamping (until cessation of pulsation of the cord or based on vital signs monitoring/initiation of breathing)
Outcome (Additional details on outcomes and prioritization are provided in the full online CoSTR244):
– Primary outcomes:
▪ Infant: Survival without moderate to severe neurodevelopmental impairment; anemia by 4 to 6 months after birth
▪ Maternal: Postpartum hemorrhage
– Secondary outcomes:
▪ Neonatal: Mortality; moderate to severe hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy; resuscitation (PPV±intubation±chest compressions); respiratory distress; admission to neonatal ICU or special care nursery; hemoglobin; hematocrit; hyperbilirubinemia treated with phototherapy; polycythemia; partial or full exchange transfusion
▪ Infant: Moderate to severe neurodevelopmental impairment; ferritin
▪ Maternal: Death or severe morbidity; severe postpartum hemorrhage; manual removal of the placenta; postpartum infection
– A priori subgroups: Details about a priori subgroup comparisons are provided in the full online CoSTR.244
Study design: RCTs, quasi-RCTs, and cluster RCTs. For studies that reported on a broad population of infants (including preterm infants of <34 weeks’ gestation, late preterm infants, and term infants), we considered studies that had a preponderance of late preterm and term infants (defined as study populations comprising >80% late preterm or term infants). Unpublished studies (eg, conference abstracts, trial protocols) were excluded.
Time frame: All years and all languages were included as long as there was an English abstract. Literature search was updated to July 26, 2019.

Consensus on Science

Comparison 1: Later (Delayed) Cord Clamping at ≥30 Seconds Compared With Early Cord Clamping at <30 Seconds After Birth
The SysRev identified 33 studies (5263 mothers and their infants) in this category. Data relating to key critical and important infant and maternal outcomes for this comparison are summarized in Table 9. Evidence for additional outcomes evaluated is included in the full online CoSTR.244
Table 9. Meta-Analysis of Comparison 1: Later (Delayed) Cord Clamping at ≥30 Seconds Compared With Early Cord Clamping at <30 Seconds After Birth for Term and Late Preterm Infants
OutcomeIncluded studiesTotal, nCertainty of evidenceRR (95% CI); I2Absolute difference (95% CI) or mean difference (95% CI); I2
Neonatal mortalityBackes et al,245 2015
Ceriani Cernadas et al,246 2006
Chopra et al,247 2018
Datta et al,248 2017
537Very low2.54 (0.50–12.74); 0%8/1000 more infants (10 fewer–30 more per 1000) died when later (delayed) cord clamping was intended than when early cord clamping was intended
Hb concentration within 24 h after birthAl Tawil et al,249 2012
Chaparro et al,250 2006
De Paco et al,251 2016
Emhamed et al,252 2004
Fawzy et al,253 2015
Mohammad et al,254 2021
Salari et al,255 2014
Ultee et al,256 2008
Yadav et al,257 2015
1352Very low MD, 1.17 g/dL (0.48–1.86; corresponds to MD of 11.7 g/L [4.8–18.6]); 89%, random effects
Hct within 24 h after birthAl Tawil et al,249 2012
Ceriani Cernadas et al,258 2006
Chaparro et al,250 2006
Chen et al,259 2018
Chopra et al,247 2018
Emhamed et al,252 2004
Jahazi et al,260 2008
Philip,261 1973
Salari et al,255 2014
Ultee et al,256 2008
Vural et al,262 2019
Yadav et al,257 2015
2183Very low MD, 3.38% (2.08–4.67); 81%, random effects
Polycythemia (Hct >65%)Backes et al,245 2015
Ceriani Cernadas et al,258 2006
Chaparro et al,250 2006
Chopra et al,247 2018
Emhamed et al,252 2004
Grajeda et al,263 1997
Krishnan et al,264 2015
Mercer et al,265 2017
Saigal et al,266 1972
Salari et al,255 2014
Salea et al,267 2016
Ultee et al,256 2008
Van Rheenen et al,268 2007
1335Low2.26 (1.56–3.28); 0%50/1000 more infants (30–80 more per 1000) had polycythemia in the later cord-clamping group compared with early cord clamping
Hb concentration within 7 d after birthAndersson et al,269 2011
Mercer et al,265 2017
Yadav et al,257 2015
695Very low MD, 1.11 g/dL (0.4–1.82); 82%, random effects
Hct within 7 d after birthCavallin et al,270 2019
Mercer et al,271 2018
Philip,261 1973
Salae et al,267 2016
Yadav et al,257 2015
590Very low MD, 5.84% (2.74–8.95); 91%, random effects
Anemia at 4–6 mo of ageAl-Tawil, 2012 et al,249Andersson et al,269 2011
Chaparro et al,250 2006
Van Rheenen et al,268 2007
937Very low1.01 (0.75–1.37); 0%An equal number of infants (40 fewer–40 more per 1000) had anemia at 4–6 mo of age when later cord clamping was intended than when early cord clamping was intended
Maternal PPH (≥1000 mL)Andersson et al,272 2015
Backes et al,245 2015
Ceriani Cernadas et al,258 2006
Chaparro et al,250 2006
Chen et al,259 2018
1828Very low0.75 (0.42–1.35); 0%10/1000 fewer mothers (20 fewer–10 more per 1000) had a PPH (≥1000 mL) when later cord clamping was intended than when early cord clamping was intended
Hb indicates hemoglobin; Hct, hematocrit; MD, mean difference; PPH, postpartum hemorrhage; and RR, risk ratio.
Comparison 2: Intact-Cord Milking Compared With Early Cord Clamping
The SysRev identified 1 small study of 24 infants that documented higher hemoglobin and hematocrit values in the intact-cord milking group compared with early cord clamping.273
Comparison 3: Cut-Cord Milking Compared With Early Cord Clamping
The SysRev identified 1 study (200 infants) in this category. Data related to key critical and important outcomes for this comparison are summarized in Table 10. Evidence for additional outcomes evaluated is included in the full online CoSTR.244
Table 10. Meta-Analysis of Comparison 3: Cut-Cord Milking Compared With Early Cord Clamping for Term and Late Preterm Infants
OutcomeIncluded studiesTotal, nCertainty of evidenceRR (95% CI)Absolute difference (95% CI) or mean difference (95% CI); I2
Neonatal mortalityUpadhyay et al,274 2013200Very low0.20 (0.01–4.11)20/1000 fewer infants (50 fewer–10 more per 1000) died when cut-cord milking was intended than when early cord clamping was intended
Hb concentration within 24 h after birthUpadhyay et al,274 2013200Very low MD, 1.60 g/dL (0.96–2.24); not available*
Hct within 24 h after birthUpadhyay et al,274 2013200Very low MD, 4.30% (2.36–6.24); not available*
Hb concentration within 7 d after birthUpadhyay et al,274 2013200Very low MD, 1.10 g/dL (0.74–1.46); not available*
Hct within 7 d after birthUpadhyay et al,274 2013200Very low MD, 4% (2.29–5.71); not available*
Hb indicates hemoglobin; Hct, hematocrit; MD, mean difference; and RR, risk ratio.
*
Only 1 trial available.
Comparison 4: Later (Delayed) Cord Clamping Versus Intact-Cord Milking
The SysRev identified 1 study.275 No reliable assessment of treatment effects could be drawn because of serious methodological concerns about the study.
Comparison 5: Later (Delayed) Cord Clamping At ≥30 Seconds Compared With Cut-Cord Milking
The SysRev identified 3 studies257,276,277 (740 infants) in this category. Data relating to key critical and important infant outcomes for this comparison are summarized in Table 11. Evidence for additional outcomes evaluated is included in the full online CoSTR.244
Table 11. Meta-Analysis of Comparison 5: Later (Delayed) Cord Clamping at ≥30 Seconds Compared With Cut-Cord Milking for Term and Late Preterm Infants
OutcomeIncluded studiesTotal, nCertainty of evidenceRR (95% CI)Absolute difference (95% CI) or mean difference (95% CI); I2
Neonatal mortalityYadav et al,257 2015300Very low1.00 (0.09 to 10.90)An equal number of infants (20 fewer–20 more per 1000) died when later (delayed) cord clamping was intended than when cut-cord milking was intended
Hb concentration within 24 h after birthJaiswal et al,276 2015
Yadav et al,257 2015
500Very low MD, –0.56 g/dL (–0.92 to –0.21); 9%
Hct within 24 h after birthJaiswal et al,276 2015
Yadav et al,257 2015
500Very low MD, –1.60% (–3.11 to –0.09); 45%
Hb concentration within 7 d after birthJaiswal et al,276 2015
Yadav et al,257 2015
500Very low MD, –0.47 g/dL (–0.81 to –0.13); 0%
Hct within 7 d after birthJaiswal et al,276 2015
Yadav et al,257 2015
500Very low MD, –1.11% (–2.12 to –0.09); 0%
Hb indicates hemoglobin; Hct, hematocrit; MD, mean difference; and RR, risk ratio.
Comparison 6: Intact-Cord Milking Compared With Cut-Cord Milking
No trials were identified.
Comparison 7: Later (Delayed) Cord Clamping at ≥60 Seconds Compared With Later (Delayed) Cord Clamping at <60 Seconds
The SysRev identified 7 studies278–284 (2745 mothers and their infants) in this category.
Data relating to key critical and important outcomes are summarized in Table 12. Evidence for additional outcomes evaluated is included in the full online CoSTR.244
Table 12. Meta-Analysis of Comparison 7: Later (Delayed) Cord Clamping ≥60 Seconds Versus Later (Delayed) Cord Clamping <60 Seconds for Term and Late Preterm Infants
OutcomeIncluded studiesTotal, nCertainty of evidenceRR (95% CI); I2Absolute difference (95% CI) or mean difference (95% CI); I2
Neonatal mortalityAndersson et al,278 2019231Very low0.10 (0.01–1.98)30/1000 fewer infants (70 fewer–10 more per 1000) died when later (delayed) cord clamping ≥60 s was intended than when later (delayed) cord clamping <60 s was intended
Hb concentration within 24 h after birthKatheria et al,282 201760Very low MD, 1.30 g/dL (0.14–2.46); not available*
Hyperbilirubinemia treated with phototherapyKc et al,279 2017
Nouraie et al,283 2019
906Very low1.93 (1.00–3.72); 60%70/1000 more infants (0–204 more per 1000) had hyperbilirubinemia treated with phototherapy when later cord clamping ≥60 s was intended compared with when later cord clamping <60 s was intended
Neurodevelopmental outcomes in early childhoodRana et al,285 2019540Very low2.3 (1.44–3.78)103/1000 more infants (34–216 more per 1000) would have ASQ-3 scores >279 when later cord clamping for ≥60 s was intended compared with when later cord clamping for <60 s was intended
ASQ-3 indicates Ages & Stages Questionnaire, Third Edition; Hb, hemoglobin; MD, mean difference; and RR, risk ratio.
*
Only 1 study available.
Comparison 8: Later (Delayed) Cord Clamping at ≥30 Seconds Compared With Physiological Approach to Cord Clamping (Until Cessation of Pulsation of the Cord or Based on Vital Signs Monitoring/Initiation of Breathing)
The SysRev identified 3 studies259,286,287 (1113 mothers and their infants) in this category. Data relating to several key critical and important outcomes for this comparison are shown in Table 13. Evidence for additional outcomes evaluated is included in the full online CoSTR.244
Table 13. Meta-Analysis of Comparison 8: Later (Delayed) Cord Clamping at ≥30 Seconds Compared With Physiological Approach to Cord Clamping (Until Cessation of Pulsation of the Cord or Based on Vital Signs Monitoring/Initiation of Breathing) for Term and Late Preterm Infants
OutcomeIncluded studiesTotal, nCertainty of evidenceRR (95% CI); I2Absolute difference (95% CI) or mean difference (95% CI); I2
Neonatal mortalitySun et al,287 2017338Very low5.00 (0.24 to 103.37)12/1000 more infants (10 fewer–30 more per 1000) died when later (delayed) cord clamping was intended compared with when a physiological approach was intended
Hct within 24 h after birthChen et al,259 2018540Very low MD, –1.40% (–2.79 to –0.01); not available*
Hb concentration within 7 d after birthSun et al,287 2017338Very low MD, –1.70 g/dL (–1.97 to –1.43); not available*
Hct within 7 d after birthSun et al,287 2017338Very low MD, –6.5% (–7.64 to –5.16); not available*
Severe PPH (≥1000 mL)Chen et al,259 2018540Very low1.82 (0.10 to 33.4); not available*9/1000 more mothers (10 fewer–30 more per 1000) had a PPH (≥1000 mL) when later cord clamping was intended than when a physiological approach was intended
Hb indicates hemoglobin; Hct, hematocrit; MD, mean difference; PPH, postpartum hemorrhage; and RR, risk ratio.
*
Only 1 study available.

Subgroup Analyses

There were many prespecified subgroup analyses and multiple comparisons. The P values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons. If subgroup data were not available, we performed subgroup analysis according to study characteristics when applicable. These subgroup analyses are exploratory and must be interpreted with caution, especially for interaction tests between studies and by strata that were not used in randomization.
Subgroup: Later (Delayed) Cord Clamping at ≥30 Seconds Compared With Early Cord Clamping at <30 Seconds After Birth
A. Subgroups according to gestational age: For the important outcome of hyperbilirubinemia treated with phototherapy among term infants (≥37 weeks’ gestation), low-certainty evidence from 13 trials involving 2691 infants245,249,252,257,259,262,264,265,268–270,288,289 showed that more term infants in the later cord clamping group received phototherapy for hyperbilirubinemia (RR, 1.54 [95% CI, 1.01–2.34]; risk difference, 0.01 [95% CI, 0.00–0.03]; number needed to harm, 100; I2=15%); 10 of 1000 more (95% CI, 0–30 more per 1000) term infants had hyperbilirubinemia treated with phototherapy after later cord clamping compared with early cord clamping. Among late preterm infants (34 to 36+6 weeks’ gestation), low-certainty evidence from 2 trials involving 123 infants256,267 could not exclude benefit or harm from later cord clamping compared with early cord clamping (RR, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.37–1.40]; I2=0%).
B. Subgroups according to different resource settings based on World Bank country classifications: For the important outcomes of hematocrit values (percent) within the first 24 hours after birth, the evidence from 8 trials involving 1279 infants in low- or middle-income countries247,250,252,255,257,258,260,262 and from 4 trials involving 904 infants in high-income countries249,256,259,261 showed higher hematocrit values in the later cord clamping group compared with early cord clamping. The effect was greater in studies performed in high-income countries (P for interaction between subgroups=0.04).
C. Subgroup analyses according to the timing of uterotonic medication administration and according to size for gestational age: The subgroup analyses for the timing of uterotonic medication administration and for size for gestational age did not reveal significant differences between subgroups.

Treatment Recommendations

For term and late preterm infants born at ≥34 weeks’ gestation who are vigorous or deemed not to require immediate resuscitation at birth, we suggest later (delayed) clamping of the cord at ≥60 seconds (weak recommendation, very low–certainty evidence).

Justification and Evidence-to-Decision Framework Highlights

The evidence-to-decision table is provided in Supplemental Appendix A3.
In making this recommendation, the Neonatal Life Support Task Force acknowledges that most studies comparing later cord clamping with early cord clamping in late preterm or full-term infants delayed clamping of the cord for ≥60 seconds. Later cord clamping facilitates postnatal cardiovascular transition,181 increases hemoglobin and hematocrit in the neonatal period, and improves iron status in early infancy. Although there were no studies that showed that later cord clamping prevented the complications of iron deficiency anemia or associated developmental delay, we value the benefits of increased hemoglobin and the potential for improved iron status to benefit neurodevelopment during the critical periods of early infancy. These potential benefits may be greatest in settings where resources for evaluation of nutritional status are limited and iron deficiency and anemia are prevalent.
Later cord clamping is associated with increased rates of polycythemia and possible increase in the use of phototherapy for hyperbilirubinemia. Although there was no reported increase in the rates of exchange transfusions, these considerations are important in settings where resources for evaluation and treatment of hyperbilirubinemia are limited.
Only a few studies examined a physiological approach to cord clamping (delaying clamping until cessation of pulsation of the cord or on the basis of vital signs monitoring/initiation of breathing). Compared with early or time-based later cord clamping, this intervention improved neonatal hemoglobin and hematocrit. However, the effect on iron status, anemia in infancy, or neurodevelopment is uncertain.
Although cut-cord milking improves neonatal hemoglobin and hematocrit, it is unknown whether the intervention facilitates the postnatal cardiovascular transition in the same way as later cord clamping. There are only a few small studies, and no long-term outcomes were addressed, limiting assessment of safety. Although cut-cord milking may be useful when later cord clamping is contraindicated or not feasible, no included studies report its use in these situations.
There is insufficient evidence to recommend milking of the attached cord for term and late preterm infants.
Across all comparisons, there was no evidence that any of the studied cord-management strategies improved the primary infant outcome of survival without neurodevelopmental impairment. Likewise, there was no evidence that cord-management strategies altered important maternal outcomes, including postpartum hemorrhage. The small sample size of most trials and the associated risks of bias and imprecision limited the certainty of evidence for all outcomes of interest. Analysis of many outcomes could not exclude benefits or harm.
There have been historical and regional changes in cord-management practices over the past decades.230 We acknowledge the perception of early clamping as a medical intervention and of later clamping as a natural, or physiological, approach and the paradox that many studies defined early clamping as the control.231 As discussed with preterm cord clamping, current practices influence the recommendations, animal studies provide evidence that cardiovascular transition after birth occurs more effectively when cord clamping is deferred,181,290 and societal, maternal, and practitioner preferences influence decisions about the timing of cord clamping.
Later cord clamping is an inexpensive, readily available, universally applicable intervention that can be performed regardless of setting.233 Many of the included studies did not record the exact time of cord clamping. The details of cord management, including the timing of clamping, should be routinely recorded in clinical practice and research studies.

Task Force Knowledge Gaps

Whether the demonstrated reduction in early iron deficiency seen after later cord clamping improves long-term neurodevelopment. These studies need to be performed in low-resource and high-resource settings.
The effects of cord-management practices on polycythemia and hyperbilirubinemia by using standardized protocols for diagnosis and management
The optimal timing of later cord clamping and effects on important outcomes in the neonatal period, infancy, and childhood and for mothers
Optimal cord-management practices (1) for infants who are not vigorous or are deemed to require immediate resuscitation at birth and (2) when there are contraindications to later cord clamping (eg, interrupted placental circulation). These studies should report the important outcomes in the neonatal period, infancy, and childhood and for mothers.
Optimal cord-management practice in cesarean deliveries (under regional or general anesthesia), intrauterine growth restriction, multiple gestations, fetal anemia, fetal anomalies
The impact of cord management on vertical transmission of infectious diseases
The economic impact of different cord-management practices
Parents’ views about cord-management practices at birth
Finally, there is a need (in the settings of both clinical practice and research) to widely agree on nomenclature and definition of different interventions, including delayed, deferred, later, optimal, and physiological cord clamping, as well as milking, stripping, intact-cord, and cut-cord.

Devices for Administering PPV at Birth (SysRev)

Rationale for Review

PPV is the most important step in neonatal resuscitation. Devices that can effectively deliver PPV are critical to successful resuscitation. In 2015, the ILCOR Neonatal Life Support Task Force published a CoSTR summarizing the evidence comparing the use of a T-piece resuscitator with the use of a self-inflating bag for newborns receiving ventilation during resuscitation.183–185 The studies reviewed for the 2015 CoSTR noted that the use of T-piece resuscitators demonstrated marginal but not statistically significant benefits for the clinical outcome of achieving spontaneous breathing. The Neonatal Life Support Task Force reevaluated this topic with a ScopRev in 2020,291 which identified sufficient new evidence to justify this new SysRev and reconsideration of current resuscitation guidelines (PROSPERO registration CRD42020200331).
The full text of this CoSTR can be found online.292

PICO, Study Design, and Time Frame

Population: Newborn infants receiving PPV during resuscitation
Intervention and comparator (shown in Table 14)
Outcome: In-hospital mortality; severe intraventricular hemorrhage, Papile grade III to IV; intraventricular hemorrhage (any); bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD); CPR or medications in the delivery room; air leak; intubation in the delivery room; duration of PPV in the delivery room; length of stay; admission to neonatal ICU
Study design: RCTs and nonrandomized studies (non-RCTs, interrupted time series, controlled before-and-after studies, cohort studies) were eligible for inclusion. Unpublished studies (eg, conference abstracts, trial protocols) were excluded.
Time frame: All years and all languages were included as long as there was an English abstract. Literature search was updated to December 30, 2020.
Table 14. Comparison of PPV Devices in Newborns
ComparisonInterventionComparator
1T-piece resuscitatorSelf-inflating bag
2T-piece resuscitatorFlow-inflating bag
3Flow-inflating bagSelf-inflating bag
4Self-inflating bag with PEEP valveSelf-inflating bag without PEEP valve
PEEP indicates positive end-expiratory pressure; and PPV, positive-pressure ventilation.

Consensus on Science

Comparison 1: T-Piece Resuscitator Compared With Self-Inflating Bag (With or Without PEEP Valve)
The SysRev identified 4 RCTs293–296 involving 1247 neonates and 1 prospective cohort study297 involving 1962 neonates. Meta-analysis of RCT evidence for the critical outcomes of in-hospital mortality and BPD and the important outcome of duration of PPV is presented in Table 15.
Table 15. Meta-Analysis of RCTs for Comparison 1: T-Piece Resuscitator Compared With Self-Inflating Bag (With or Without PEEP Valve)
OutcomeIncluded studiesTotal, nCertainty of evidenceRR (95% CI); I2Absolute risk difference (95% CI) or mean difference (95% CI); I2
In-hospital mortalityDawson et al,293 2011
Kookna et al,294 2019
Szyld et al,295 2014
Thakur et al,296 2015
1247Very low0.74 (0.40 to 1.34); 0%10/1000 fewer infants (23 fewer–13 more per 1000) died in the T-piece resuscitator group than in the self-inflating bag group
BPDDawson et al,293 2011
Kookna et al,294 2019
Szyld et al,295 2014
Thakur et al,296 2015
1247Very low0.64 (0.43 to 0.95); 67%32/1000 fewer infants (51 fewer–4 more per 1000) developed BPD in the T-piece resuscitator group than in the self-inflating bag group
Duration of PPVKookna et al,294 2019
Szyld et al,295 2014
Thakur et al,296 2015
1098Moderate MD, –19.8 s (–27.7 to –12)
ARD indicates absolute risk difference; BPD, bronchopulmonary dysplasia; MD, mean difference; PEEP, positive end-expiratory pressure; PPV, positive-pressure ventilation; RCT, randomized controlled trial; and RR, risk ratio.
For in-hospital survival, very low–certainty evidence from 1 prospective cohort study involving 1962 preterm infants297 showed benefit from receiving PPV with a T-piece resuscitator compared with a self-inflating bag (RR, 0.71 [95% CI, 0.63–0.80]; P<0.001; I2=0%; ARD, −12.8% [95% CI, −16.4% to −8.9%]; number needed to treat, 8). For BPD, data from 1327 preterm infants in the same cohort study297 also showed an association between PPV with a T-piece resuscitator and a reduction in BPD compared with a self-inflating bag (RR, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.65–0.96]; P=0.02; ARD, −6.6% [95% CI, −11.0% to −1.3%]; number needed to treat, 15).
For the critical outcome of severe intraventricular hemorrhage (grade III–IV), very low–certainty evidence from 1 prospective cohort study involving 1594 preterm infants297 showed benefit from receiving PPV with a T-piece resuscitator compared with a self-inflating bag (RR, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.57–0.98]; P=0.04; ARD, −4.0% [95% CI, −6.9% to −0.3%]; number needed to treat, 24).
For the critical outcome of CPR or medications in the delivery room, very low–certainty evidence from 4 trials involving 1247 infants293–296 could not exclude benefit or harm from receiving PPV with a T-piece resuscitator compared with a self-inflating bag. Very low–certainty evidence from 1 prospective cohort study involving 1962 preterm infants297 also could not exclude benefit or harm for this outcome.
For the important outcome of intraventricular hemorrhage (all grades), very low–certainty evidence from 1 prospective cohort study involving 1594 preterm infants297 showed benefit from receiving PPV with a T-piece resuscitator compared with a self-inflating bag (RR, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.63–0.83]; P<0.001; ARD, −12.9% [95% CI, −17% to −7.8%]; number needed to treat to benefit, 8). Evidence for the important outcomes of air leak, intubation in the delivery room, admission to a neonatal ICU, and length of hospitalization is provided in the full online CoSTR.292
Comparison 2: T-Piece Resuscitator Compared With Flow-Inflating Bag or Comparison 3: Flow-Inflating Bag Compared With Self-Inflating Bag
No studies were identified for these comparisons.
Comparison 4: Self-Inflating Bag With PEEP Valve Compared With Self-Inflating Bag Without PEEP Valve
For the critical outcome of in-hospital mortality, very low–certainty evidence from 2 trials involving 933 infants295,298 could not exclude benefit or harm from receiving PPV with a self-inflating bag with a PEEP valve compared with one without a PEEP valve (RR, 0.99 [95% CI, 0.59–1.67]; P=0.97; ARD, 1 fewer patients per 1000 [95% CI, 24 fewer–39 more per 1000 patients] died when receiving PPV with a self-inflating bag with a PEEP valve).
For the critical outcome of BPD, low-certainty evidence from 1 trial involving 516 infants295 could not exclude benefit or harm from receiving PPV with a self-inflating bag with a PEEP valve compared with one without a PEEP valve (RR, 1.03 [95% CI, 0.58–1.81]; P=0.93; ARD, 3 more patients per 1000 [95% CI, 35 fewer–68 more per 1000 patients] with BPD when receiving PPV with a self-inflating bag with a PEEP valve).
For the critical outcome of CPR or medications in the delivery room, very low–certainty evidence from 1 trial involving 516 infants295 could not exclude benefit or harm from receiving PPV with a self-inflating bag with a PEEP valve compared with one without a PEEP valve (RR, 1.43 [95% CI, 0.54–3.80]; P=0.48; ARD, 11 fewer patients per 1000 [95% CI, 12 fewer–74 more] receive CPR or medications in the delivery room when receiving PPV with a self-inflating bag with a PEEP valve).
Evidence for several additional important outcomes (air leak, duration of PPV, intubation in the delivery room, admission to the neonatal ICU, length of hospitalization) is presented in the full online CoSTR.292

Subgroup Comparisons

Subgroup Analysis According to Gestational Age
The planned analyses by gestational age subgroups were not feasible because of limited data from the available studies.
Subgroup Analysis Comparing T-Piece Resuscitator With Self-Inflating Bag With or Without a PEEP Valve
The SysRev identified 1 RCT295 involving 1027 infants.
T-Piece Resuscitator Compared With Self-Inflating Bag With PEEP Valve.
For the critical outcome of in- hospital mortality, low-certainty evidence from 1 trial involving 575 infants295 could not exclude benefit or harm from receiving PPV with a T-piece resuscitator compared with a self-inflating bag with a PEEP valve (RR, 0.51 [95% CI, 0.15–1.67]; P=0.27; ARD, 14 fewer patients per 1000 [95% CI, 23 fewer–18 more] died when receiving PPV with a T-piece resuscitator).
For the critical outcome of BPD, moderate-certainty evidence from 1 trial involving 575 infants295 showed benefit from receiving PPV with a T-piece resuscitator compared with a self-inflating bag with a PEEP valve (RR, 0.49 [95% CI, 0.25–0.95]; P=0.04; ARD, −4.4% [95% CI, −6.5% to −0.4%]; number needed to treat, 23).
For the critical outcome of CPR or medications in the delivery room, low-certainty evidence from 1 trial involving 575 infants295 could not exclude benefit or harm from receiving PPV with a T-piece resuscitator compared with a self-inflating bag with a PEEP valve (RR, 0.56 [95% CI, 0.21–1.48]; P=0.24; ARD, 17 fewer patients per 1000 [95% CI, 30 fewer–18 more] receive CPR or medications in the delivery room when receiving PPV with a T-piece resuscitator).
Evidence for important outcomes is presented in the full online CoSTR.292
T-Piece Resuscitator Versus Self-Inflating Bag Without a PEEP Valve.
For the critical outcomes of in-hospital mortality, need for CPR or medications in the delivery room, and BPD, low- to moderate-certainty evidence from 1 trial involving 452 infants295 could not exclude benefit or harm from receiving PPV with a T-piece resuscitator compared with a self-inflating bag without a PEEP valve. Important outcomes are reported in the full online CoSTR.292

Treatment Recommendations

When resources permit, we suggest the use of a T-piece resuscitator over the use of a self-inflating bag in infants receiving PPV at birth (weak recommendation, very low–certainty evidence). A self-inflating bag should be available as a backup device for the T-piece resuscitator in case of gas-supply failure (technical remark).
There are no data to make a treatment recommendation for use of a T-piece resuscitator compared with a flow-inflating bag.
There are no data to make a treatment recommendation for use of a flow-inflating bag compared with a self-inflating bag.
The confidence in effect estimates is so low that the panel feels any recommendation for the use of a PEEP valve with a self-inflating bag versus a self-inflating bag without a PEEP valve is too speculative.
Subgroup considerations include the following:
There are insufficient data for a recommendation based on gestational age because the planned subgroup analyses according to gestational age were not feasible.
When resources permit, we suggest the use of a T-piece resuscitator over the use of a self-inflating bag either with or without a PEEP valve (weak recommendation, very low–certainty evidence). However, a self-inflating bag should be available as a backup for the T-piece resuscitator in the event of a gas-supply failure (technical remark).
For the use of self-inflating bag with a PEEP valve versus the use of self-inflating bag without a PEEP valve, the data are too uncertain, so no recommendation can be made.

Justification and Evidence-to-Decision Framework Highlights

The evidence-to-decision table can be found in Supplemental Appendix A3.
Because the clinical evidence supporting the use of a T-piece resuscitator is of very low certainty, we have also considered evidence from animal studies showing that PEEP facilitates lung aeration. Animal studies suggest a benefit in using devices providing controlled levels of PEEP and peak inspiratory pressure to assist establishment of functional residual capacity during transition of a fluid-filled lung to an air-filled lung capable of supporting air breathing and to reduce lung damage secondary to barotrauma.299–301 Benchtop and manikin studies demonstrate more consistent pressures and tidal volumes when a T-piece resuscitator is used than when a self-inflating bag is used.302,303 However, the certainty of clinical evidence is not sufficient to recommend against using a self-inflating bag during neonatal resuscitation, particularly in regions where pressurized gases are not readily available.
Although subgroup analyses by gestation were not feasible, in contemporary neonatal practice, BPD is an outcome that affects mainly very preterm infants. Therefore, the reduction in the incidence of BPD suggests that the use of a T-piece resuscitator may be of greatest benefit for preterm infants.

Knowledge Gaps

Evidence enabling comparison of benefits and risks of T-piece resuscitators with self-inflating bags by gestational age subgroups. Such studies should include outcomes relevant to each gestational age subgroup (eg, severe intraventricular hemorrhage, BPD, and neurodevelopmental impairment for very and extremely preterm infants; admission to neonatal intensive or special care unit, subsequent respiratory support, length of hospital stay, and air leaks for term and near-term infants).
Cost-effectiveness of routine use of T-piece resuscitators compared with self-inflating bags
Data on details of T-piece resuscitator and self-inflating bag use in practice (eg, pressures delivered, setup time, ease of use, adjustments to pressures made during use, perceived feedback from the device to the user)
How these PPV devices perform with the use of different patient interfaces (eg, face masks, laryngeal masks, tracheal tubes)
Evidence comparing the flow-inflating bag with either the T-piece resuscitator or the self-inflating bag (with or without PEEP) for neonatal resuscitation
Trials comparing one T-piece device with another and one self-inflating bag with another, although benchtop experiments demonstrate variations in performance that are of potential clinical importance. The specific devices used in comparative studies should be reported.304,305

Family Presence During Neonatal Resuscitation (SysRev)

Rationale for Review

Infants are always born in the presence of their mother, although at times, a mother may be under general anesthesia and unaware of events involving her baby. Internationally, cultural norms and hospital policies vary as to whether partners or other family members (including siblings) or support people are encouraged or even allowed to attend the birth, especially if there is a high risk that the infant will need resuscitation.
The architecture of birthing areas also varies widely. In some locations, neonatal resuscitation always takes place in the birthing room. In others, separate rooms adjacent to birthing rooms or operating rooms are used to optimize ambient temperature for the infant and to provide adequate room for a neonatal resuscitation team and all the equipment that may be needed for an advanced resuscitation. In the case of an infant who needs more BLS measures at birth, there is concern that the parents or other family members present could experience short- or long-term psychological distress.
Concerns have also been raised about whether family presence could impede the performance of resuscitation team members and whether the neonatal resuscitation team members are present in sufficient numbers and have adequate training to support family members during a resuscitation. There is also concern that parents who are unaware of the circumstances of their infant’s resuscitation may feel left out of a critical time in their infant’s life and, in some situations, of the opportunities to contribute to key decisions about the extent of resuscitation.
The Neonatal and Pediatric Life Support Task Forces conducted a combined SysRev of family presence during resuscitation (PROSPERO registration CRD42020140363).306 The following summary describes the outcomes of the review applicable to newborn infants. The full CoSTR can be found on the ILCOR website.307

PICO, Study Design, and Time Frame

Population: Neonates requiring resuscitation in any setting
Intervention: Family presence during resuscitation
Comparator: No family presence during resuscitation
Outcome: Improved patient outcomes (short and long term), family-centered outcomes (short and long term, perception of the resuscitation), and health care provider–centered outcomes (perception of the resuscitation, psychological stress)
Study design: RCTs and nonrandomized studies (non-RCTs, interrupted time series, controlled before-and-after studies, cohort studies, qualitative) were eligible for inclusion. Unpublished studies (eg, conference abstracts, trial protocols) were excluded.
Time frame: All years and all languages were included as long as there was an English abstract. Literature search was updated to June 14, 2020.

Consensus on Science

The SysRev306 identified 8 studies. For the critical outcome of improved patient outcomes (short and long term), there were no useful data to inform practice. Only 1 study reported Apgar scores in demographic data.308 For the important outcome of family-centered outcomes, 7 articles reported 144 people, all from high-resource settings. The articles included 4 surveying parents or family members who were present during stabilization or resuscitation,309–312 2 surveying the opinions of health care providers,313,314 and 1 surveying both health care providers and parents.315 Overall, the findings in these mainly qualitative studies reflected a positive experience for families who were present during the stabilization or resuscitation of their newborn babies. Important themes included distinct aspects of fathers’ experience, parents’ feelings of reassurance and involvement if they were present, and concerns about the emotional toll of witnessing a resuscitation and the need for staff training in support of and debriefing for parents.
For the important outcome of health care provider outcomes, 4 articles were identified. Two surveyed health care providers who had participated in a resuscitation with family present or in a delivery with all immediate care provided beside the mother for delayed clamping of the umbilical cord313,314 and expressed concern that less experienced professionals may feel under increased pressure while being observed. A survey of parental opinion312 found that some were concerned about impact on staff performance. One survey of health care providers found that the presence of a family member reduced perceived workload.308 Overall, health care provider participants were professionals who were used to having parents in attendance and did not report any major detrimental effects.

Treatment Recommendations

We suggest that it is reasonable for mothers/fathers/partners to be present during the resuscitation of neonates when circumstances, facilities, and parental inclination allow (weak recommendation, very low–certainty evidence).
There is insufficient evidence to indicate an interventional effect on patient or family outcome. Being present during the resuscitation of their baby seems to be a positive experience for some parents, but concerns about an adverse effect on performance exist among both health care providers and family members.

Justification and Evidence-to-Decision Framework Highlights

The evidence-to-decision table can be found in Supplemental Appendix A3.
In making these recommendations, the Neonatal Life Support Task Force considered that although family presence during neonatal resuscitation is practiced in some settings, it has never undergone a SysRev, and practice varies internationally. During the COVID-19 pandemic, some services have moved neonatal resuscitation sites to locations separated from parents, making this question a priority for the Neonatal Life Support Task Force.
All of the included articles originated in the United Kingdom, the United States, or Canada, and all were related to resuscitation and stabilization at birth.
Mothers are always present at birth, and it seems that most health care providers surveyed consider that the presence of a partner or support person should be offered but with the caveat that facilitation and support of the families require enough personnel with adequate training.
Of note, we did not identify any eligible RCTs or large cohort studies comparing family presence with no family presence during neonatal resuscitation. We acknowledge the lack of clinical trial data for this topic in our knowledge gaps. It is also notable that the evidence came from the opinions of only 144 parents and 350 health care providers in total, all sampled in tertiary centers in the United Kingdom, the United States, or Canada.

Task Force Knowledge Gaps

No studies provided adequate comparative data to address this PICO question in the setting of a neonate receiving resuscitation at birth or within the first month of life. Most studies used retrospective survey or qualitative methods and included births at which resuscitation was not required. There would be serious ethical constraints in performing an RCT to address this question, among which would be the difficulty in obtaining informed consent. Therefore, larger-scale observational studies with appropriate quantitative and qualitative outcomes and experience measures are recommended.
Whether family presence affects the outcome of a resuscitation
Whether family presence affects decisions to continue or discontinue resuscitation
Evidence from studies that recruit from different socioeconomic, cultural, and organizational settings

Education, Implementation, and Teams

Self-Directed, Digitally Based BLS Education and Training in Adults and Children (SysRev)

Rationale for Review

Self-directed, digitally based resuscitation education programs (referred to below as digital training) are widely available and aim to teach BLS to the lay public at their own convenience. This SysRev intended to assess the evidence for the effectiveness of this educational approach in adults and children. Self-directed, digitally based BLS training was defined as any form of digital (eg, video, phone application [app] based, internet based, game based, virtual reality, augmented reality) education or training for BLS that can be completed without an instructor, except for mass media campaigns (eg, television, social media education). We defined instructor-led training as education or training (eg, lecture, skills demonstration, skills feedback) that occurred in the presence of a BLS instructor. Health care professional education was excluded, as were comparisons of different methods of digital training and BLS refresher courses (PROSPERO registration CRD42020199176).
The full text of this CoSTR can be found on the ILCOR website.316

PICO, Study Designs, and Time Frame

Population: Adults and children undertaking BLS training
Intervention: Self-directed, digitally based BLS training
Comparator: Instructor-led BLS training
Outcome: Patient outcomes: Good neurological outcome at hospital discharge/30 days; survival at hospital discharge/30 days; ROSC; rates of bystander CPR; bystander CPR quality during an OHCA arrest (any available CPR metrics); and rates of AED use. Educational outcomes at the end of training and within 12 months: CPR quality (chest compression depth and rate; chest compression fraction; complete chest recoil, ventilation rate, overall CPR competency) and AED competency; CPR and AED knowledge; and confidence and willingness to perform CPR
Study design: RCTs and nonrandomized studies (non-RCTs, interrupted time series, controlled before-and-after studies, cohort studies and case series in which n>5) were eligible for inclusion; unpublished studies (eg, conference abstracts, trial protocols), commentary, editorials, reviews, and animal studies were excluded.
Time frame: All years and all languages were included as long as there was an English abstract; literature search was updated to July 1, 2020.

Consensus on Science

Overall, 41 studies (33 RCTs317–349 and 8 non-RCTs350–357) reported short- and long-term outcomes of interest for self-directed digital BLS training compared with instructor-led training.
The overall certainty of evidence was rated as very low to moderate for all outcomes, primarily because of risk of bias. Most individual studies were at critical risk of bias, primarily because of missing outcome data (RCTs) and potential for confounding (non-RCTs). Because of this and the high degree of heterogeneity in the interventions and in the measurements of outcomes, we performed a narrative synthesis of the findings for each outcome overall and by the different mediums of digital training tested.
Critical Outcome: Subsequent Use of Skills and Patient Outcomes
Two RCTs326,349 collected data on the use of BLS skills and patient outcomes after training. Only 1 of these326 reported any OHCA events (n=13), but the data were insufficient to enable meaningful comparisons between groups.
Educational Outcomes (CPR and AED Skills Immediately and up to 1 Year)
Testing of CPR and AED skills was conducted immediately and at 1 month after training in 36 studies (29 RCTs317,319–325,328–345,347–349 and 7 non-RCTs350–354,356,357) and between 2 months and 1 year in 23 studies (18 RCTs318–323,327–329,332,333,338,340,342,343,346,348,349 and 5 non-RCTs350,352–355).
We identified moderate-certainty evidence from 28 studies (22 RCTs320,322–325,327–329,331,333–338,340,343–348 and 6 non-RCTs350–353,355,356) comparing instructor-led training with digital training using video or interactive computer programs with manikin practice, which demonstrated comparable educational outcomes for most CPR skills and knowledge gained immediately after training and up to 1 year.
We identified low-certainty evidence from 9 studies (7 RCTs317–319,321,330,332,341 and 2 non-RCTs354,357) comparing instructor-led training with digital training using video only, which demonstrated comparable educational outcomes for most CPR skills and knowledge gained immediately after training and up to 1 year (3 RCTs317–319) and for overall CPR competency and knowledge immediately after training (7 RCTs317–319,321,330,332,341 and 2 non-RCTs354,357).
We identified low-certainty evidence from 11 RCTs318,320,321,323,324,337–340,342,344 comparing methods of digital training with instructor-led training for AED skills, suggesting that instructor-led training may be more effective immediately after training but not in the long term.
We identified low-certainty evidence from 3 RCTs339,342,349 comparing gaming training with instructor-led training. Data were insufficient to be confident in the findings.

Treatment Recommendations

We recommend instructor-led training (with manikin practice with feedback device) or the use of self-directed training with video kits (instructional video and manikin practice with feedback device) for the acquisition of CPR theory and skills in layperson adults and high school–aged (>10 years of age) children (strong recommendation, moderate-certainty evidence).
We recommend instructor-led training (with AED scenario and practice) or the use of self-directed video kits (instructional video with AED scenario) for the acquisition of AED theory and skills in layperson adults and high school–aged (>10 years of age) children (strong recommendation, low-certainty evidence).
We suggest that BLS video education (without manikin practice) be used when instructor-led training or self-directed training with video kits (instructional video plus manikin with feedback device) is not accessible or when quantity over quality of BLS training is needed in adults and in children (weak recommendation, low-certainty evidence).
There was insufficient evidence to make a recommendation on gaming as a CPR or AED training method.
There was insufficient evidence to suggest a treatment effect on bystander CPR rates or patient outcomes.

Justification and Evidence-to-Decision Framework Highlights

The evidence-to-decision table is included in the Supplemental Appendix A4.
In making these recommendations, the Education, Implementation, and Teams Task Force acknowledges that instructor-led training was superior for the acquisition of some skills (eg, AED and compression depth) and in some groups of the population (namely, children). However, the task force considered the significant improvement compared with baseline or with groups with no training more important and questioned the clinical significance of some reported differences. Other methodological concerns included the wide variation in testing of educational outcomes and differences between groups within studies, differences in technical specifications of manikins with respect to delivery of CPR, and that some studies noted insufficient emphasis in digital materials for some skills (eg, AEDs324) or did not explain the use of feedback devices included in digital training kits.356

Task Force Knowledge Gaps

Optimal methods to improve the achievement of guideline-recommended CPR metrics (compression rate and depth, chest recoil) and AED use
Reporting and standardization of technical specifications of the manikin represent opportunities for future research.
Evidence comparing outcomes from serious gaming with instructor-led training
Evidence using objective methods (eg, sensor manikins) in CPR skill assessments, including important CPR metrics

Topics Reviewed by EvUps

The topics reviewed by EvUps are summarized in Table 16. The full documents can be found in Supplemental Appendix B3.
Table 16. EIT Topics Reviewed by EvUps
Topic/PICOYear(s) last updatedExisting treatment recommendationRCTs since last review, nObservational studies since last review, nSufficient data to warrant SysRev?
EMS practitioner’s experience or exposure (EIT 437)2020CoSTRWe suggest that EMS systems (1) monitor their clinical personnel’s exposure to resuscitation and (2) implement strategies when possible to address low exposure or ensure that treating teams have members with recent exposure (weak recommendation, very low–certainty evidence).NoneNoneNo
High-fidelity training (EIT 623)2015CoSTR;2020EvUpWe suggest the use of high-fidelity manikins when training centers/organizations have the infrastructure, trained personnel, and resources to maintain the program (weak recommendations, very low–quality evidence). If high-fidelity manikins are not available, we suggest that the use of low-fidelity manikins is acceptable for standard ALS training in an educational setting (weak recommendations, low-quality evidence).1 SysRev and 3 RCTs1No
CACs (EIT 624)2019CoSTRWe suggest that adult patients with nontraumatic OHCA be cared for in CACs rather than in non-CACs (weak recommendation, very low–certainty evidence).
We cannot make a recommendation for or against regional triage by primary EMS transport of patients with OHCA to a CAC by primary EMS transport (bypass protocols) or secondary interfacility transfer to a CAC. The current evidence is inconclusive, and confidence in the effect estimates is currently too low to support an EIT and ALS Task Force recommendation.
For patients with in-hospital cardiac arrest, we found no evidence to support an EIT and ALS Task Force recommendation.
For the subgroup of patients with either shockable or nonshockable initial cardiac rhythm, the current evidence is inconclusive, and the confidence in the effect estimates is currently too low to support an EIT and ALS Task Force recommendation.
1 SysRev and
no RCTs
11Yes
Timing for retraining (EIT 628)2015CoSTR;2020EvUpThere is insufficient evidence to recommend the optimum interval or method for BLS retraining for laypeople. Because there is evidence of skills decay within 3 to 12 mo after BLS training and evidence that frequent training improves CPR skills, responder confidence, and willingness to perform CPR, we suggest that individuals likely to encounter cardiac arrest consider more frequent retraining (weak recommendation, very low–quality evidence).31No
Cognitive aids during resuscitation (EIT 629)2020CoSTRWe recommend against the use of cognitive aids for the purposes of lay providers initiating CPR (weak recommendation, low-certainty evidence).
We suggest the use of cognitive aids for health care providers during trauma resuscitation (weak recommendation, very low–certainty evidence). In the absence of studies on CPR, no evidence-based recommendation can be made.
There are insufficient data to suggest for or against the use of cognitive aids in lay provider training.
We suggest the use of cognitive aids for training of health care providers in resuscitation (weak recommendation, very low–certainty evidence).
82Yes
TOR for in-hospital cardiac arrest (EIT 4002)2020CoSTRWe did not identify any clinical decision rule that was able to reliably predict death after in-hospital cardiac arrest. We recommend against using the UN10 rule as a sole strategy to terminate in-hospital resuscitation (strong recommendation, very low–certainty evidence).NoneNoneNo
Precourse preparation for advanced courses (EIT 637)2020CoSTRWe recommend distributing precourse learning formats preceding face-to-face training for participants of ALS courses (weak recommendation, very low– to low-certainty evidence). In addition, we strongly recommend providing the option of eLearning as part of a blended-learning approach to reduce face-to-face training time in ALS courses (strong recommendation, very low– to low-certainty evidence).11No
System performance improvements (EIT 640)2020CoSTRWe recommend that organizations or communities that treat cardiac arrest evaluate their performance and target key areas, with the goal of improving performance (strong recommendation, very low–certainty evidence).1 SysRev7No
Community initiatives to promote BLS implementation (EIT 641)2015CoSTR;2020ScopRevThe treatment recommendation (below) remains unchanged from 2015. We recommend implementation of resuscitation guidelines within organizations that provide care for patients in cardiac arrest in any setting (strong recommendation, very low quality of evidence).1 SysRev2No
Prehospital TOR rules (EIT 642)2020CoSTRWe conditionally recommend the use of TOR rules to assist clinicians in deciding whether to discontinue resuscitation efforts out of hospital or transport to hospital with ongoing CPR (conditional recommendation, very low–certainty evidence).None4No
CPR feedback devices during training (EIT 648)2020CoSTRWe suggest the use of feedback devices that provide directive feedback on compression rate, depth, release, and hand position during CPR training (weak recommendation, low-certainty evidence). If feedback devices are not available, we suggest the use of tonal guidance (eg, music or metronome) during training to improve compression rate only (weak recommendation, low-certainty evidence).5NoneNo
BLS training in high-risk populations (EIT 649)2015CoSTRWe recommend the use of BLS training interventions that focus on high-risk populations on the basis of the willingness to be trained and the fact that there is low harm and high potential benefit (strong recommendation, low-quality evidence).1 SysRev and
no RCTs
11Yes
Technology to engage first responders (EIT 878)2020CoSTRWe recommend that citizens/individuals who are in close proximity to a suspected OHCA event and are willing to be engaged/notified by a smartphone app with a mobile positioning system or text message–alert system should be notified (strong recommendation, very low–certainty evidence).None2No
Resuscitation team with ALS course training (EIT 4000)2020CoSTRWe recommend the provision of accredited adult ALS training for health care providers (weak recommendation, very low–certainty evidence).NoneNoneNo
Opioid overdose first aid education (EIT 4001)2015CoSTR;2020ScopRevWe suggest offering opioid overdose response education, with or without naloxone distribution, to persons at risk for opioid overdose in any setting (weak recommendation, very low quality of evidence).
In making these recommendations, we place greater value on the potential for lives saved by recommending overdose response education, with or without naloxone, and lesser value on the costs associated with naloxone administration, distribution, or education.
2 SysRevs and 2 RCTs6No
Facilitators and barriers to bystander CPR (EIT 4003)2020EvUpNA; an evidence update was performed for 2020None5No
Virtual reality, augmented reality, and gamified learning (EIT 4005)2020EvUpNA; an evidence update was performed for 202012No
In situ training (EIT 4007)2021EvUpNA; an evidence update was performed for the first time in 2021None4No
ALS indicates advanced life support; app, application; BLS, basic life support; CAC, cardiac arrest center; CPR, cardiopulmonary resuscitation; EIT, Education, Implementation, and Teams; EMS, emergency medical services; EvUps, evidence updates; NA, not applicable; OHCA, out-of-hospital cardiac arrest; PICO, population, intervention, comparator, outcome; RCT, randomized controlled trial; ScopRev, scoping review; SysRev, systematic review; and TOR, termination of resuscitation.
CoSTR documents are available at https://costr.ilcor.org/.

First Aid

Duration of Cooling With Water for Thermal Burns as a First Aid Intervention (SysRev)

Rationale for Review

This topic was prioritized by the ILCOR First Aid Task Force because of a lack of international consensus about the optimal duration of cooling of thermal burns with running water in the first aid setting and because of newly identified relevant studies since the topic was last reviewed in 2015. A SysRev was undertaken on behalf of the First Aid and Pediatric Task Forces.358 No additional scientific literature has been published since the search date of August 6, 2020. All meta-analyses were done with unadjusted data. The SysRev was registered on PROSPERO (registration CRD42021180665).
The full text of this CoSTR can be found on the ILCOR website.358

PICO, Study Design, and Time Frame

Population: Adults and children in first aid settings with a thermal burn
Intervention: Active cooling using running water for ≥20 minutes as an immediate first aid intervention
Comparator: Active cooling using running water for any other duration as an immediate first aid intervention
Outcome: Size: defined as percentage of total body surface area at any reported time point; depth: any degree of deep partial or full thickness burn depth; pain: defined as any measurement of pain or administration of pain relief medications; adverse outcomes: defined as any adverse outcome, including hypothermia; wound healing: defined as time to re-epithelization in days; and complications within 24 hours: defined as organ dysfunction, ICU care, infections (within 7 days), bleeding, and rhabdomyolysis, as well as the need for surgical procedures such as skin grafting, fasciotomy, or escharotomy
Study design: RCTs and nonrandomized studies (non-RCTs, interrupted time series, controlled before-and-after studies, cohort studies) were included; animal studies, case series, unpublished studies, conference abstracts, and trial protocols were excluded.
Time frame: All years and all languages were included as long as there was an English abstract. The literature was searched from database inception to August 6, 2020, and updated on February 10, 2021.

Consensus on Science

Four observational studies enrolling 5978 adults and children met inclusion criteria.359–362
For the critical outcome of burn size as a percentage of total body surface area, a meta-analysis of very low–certainty evidence from 3 studies360–362 with 4616 adults and children showed no significant difference in the burn size for burns cooled with running water for ≥20 minutes compared with burns cooled for <20 minutes.
For the critical outcome of any degree of a full thickness burn depth, 2 studies including 4409 adults and children provided very low–certainty evidence.361,362 Significant heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis. Results from a cohort study361 including 2099 children (≤16 years of age) with a recorded duration of cooling favored cooling for <20 minutes compared with cooling for >20 minutes (RR, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.83–0.97]). Results from another study362 including 2310 adults with a recorded duration of cooling favored cooling for ≥20 minutes over cooling for <20 minutes (RR, 1.11 [95% CI, 1.00–1.22]).
Sensitivity analysis for cooling times of <10 minutes compared with both ≥10 and ≥20 minutes showed no significant difference for any of the selected outcomes. There were no data for shorter durations.
For the important outcome of hypothermia as an adverse effect of cooling burns, unpublished data from a study including 117 children provided very low– certainty evidence.360 Five of 117 children (4%) with a thermal burn cooled with water as a first aid intervention developed hypothermia to 34 °C to 36 °C tympanic (n=4) or were visibly cold with shivering (n=1). All 5 children were <4 years of age, and 4 of 5 received whole-body cooling in a shower.

Treatment Recommendations

We recommend the immediate active cooling of thermal burns with running water as a first aid intervention for adults and children (strong recommendation, very low–certainty evidence).
Because no difference in outcomes could be demonstrated with the different cooling durations studied, a specific duration of cooling cannot be recommended.
Young children with thermal burns being actively cooled with running water should be monitored for signs or symptoms of excessive body cooling (good practice statement).

Justification and Evidence-to-Decision Framework Highlights

The evidence-to-decision table is provided in Supplemental Appendix A5.
Cooling of burns with running water is an established and beneficial intervention, although suggested durations of cooling are variable and based largely on expert opinion.359,363–365 This has led to inconsistencies in international first aid guidance. The 2015 ILCOR CoSTR for cooling of burns provided a strong recommendation for active cooling of thermal burns with running water by first aid providers, but the duration of cooling was not specified.366,367 It was suggested in task force insights that active cooling be started as soon as possible and continued for at least 10 minutes. Although several large human studies were identified in this 2021 SysRev, the evidence was found to be inconclusive to either support or refute the use of one duration compared with another. From an evidence-based perspective, the optimal technique (running water versus immersion) and the optimal temperature also remain unknown.
It is the task force consensus opinion that the optimal duration of cooling may vary by burn location, size, and depth; interval between the burn and the start of cooling; and the temperature of the water used for cooling. This is supported by the sensitivity analysis, which did not show a dose-response relationship for cooling duration and outcomes. Because most patients included in the current analysis had a small burn area (mean total body surface area <5%) and most burns were superficial, the reason for the lack of association between a longer duration of cooling and outcome may have been a skewed population. A scatterplot comparing burn size and duration of burn cooling suggests that larger burns are associated with longer cooling durations, and the task force considered that this may be attributable to pain or concern for worse outcomes. In the absence of science to guide duration of cooling, cooling until pain is relieved may be a commonly used first aid approach and one that deserves future research.
A concern was raised that cooling of burns in young children might result in hypothermia. Evidence of this complication supports the good practice statement. Even a short cooling duration, especially if full-body cooling is used, may result in hypothermia. Guideline organizations need to provide clear instructions on cooling techniques to minimize the risk of hypothermia.

Task Force Knowledge Gaps

The optimal duration of cooling of burns with running water with similar temperatures
Whether water immersion would be comparable to the use of running water
The importance of the time from the burn event to the start of cooling and how this contributes to optimal cooling duration; future studies could estimate this by identifying who performed the burn cooling such as the patient or a bystander (likely very early cooling), the EMS (likely early cooling), or the emergency department or a burn center (likely later cooling).
The optimal duration of cooling for minor burns that do not need assessment in burn centers or by advanced care providers
Studies evaluating the duration of cooling of burns with running water as a first aid intervention from regions other than Australia
Alternative optimal burn-cooling techniques when water is not available
The effect of the duration of cooling of burns on patient-centered outcomes such as pain relief
Whether circumstances such as environment, type, and location of burn change the time needed to cool a thermal burn

Exertion-Related Dehydration and Rehydration (SysRev)

Rationale for Review

Dehydration associated with exertion is a commonly encountered condition in the first aid setting, particularly at sporting events. This SysRev was undertaken to compare water with the myriad sports drinks that are promoted for rehydration after prolonged exercise. A SysRev and CoSTR were last completed in 2015,366,367 and the topic was prioritized on the basis of knowledge of newly published studies. The 2021 SysRev was registered on PROSPERO (registration CRD42020153077).368
The full text of this CoSTR can be found on the ILCOR website.368

PICO, Study Design, and Time Frame

Population: Adults and children with exertion-related dehydration
Intervention: Drinking oral carbohydrate-electrolyte or alternative rehydrating liquids
Comparator: Drinking water
Outcome: Volume/hydration status (measured as cumulative urine volume, net fluid balance, hematocrit, hemoglobin, plasma volume change), vital signs (measured as heart rate), development of hyponatremia (measured as serum sodium concentration, serum/plasma osmolality), need for advanced medical care, and patient satisfaction (thirst perception, perceived intensity of stomach fullness, nausea, stomach upset, abdominal discomfort)
Study design: RCTs and nonrandomized studies (non-RCTs, interrupted time series, controlled before-and-after studies, cohort studies) were eligible for inclusion. Unpublished studies (eg, conference abstracts, trial protocols) were excluded.
Time frame: All years and all languages were included as long as there was an English abstract. Literature search was performed April 17, 2020, and updated February 15, 2021.

Consensus on Science

Comparisons with water were completed for 4% to 9% carbohydrate-electrolyte drinks (CEDs), 0% to 3.9% CEDs, skim or low-fat milk, coconut water (fresh or from concentrate), regular beer, low-alcohol beer, and nonalcoholic beer. Across all comparisons and outcomes, marked heterogeneity in study design and outcomes precluded meta-analysis. Overall certainty of evidence was rated as low to very low, primarily because of serious risk of bias, imprecision, or suspected publication bias. A summary of the direction of evidence from the 22 included studies is provided in Table 17.
Table 17. Summary of Studies Showing Effectiveness of Various Rehydration Solutions
Rehydration solutionsOutcomeStudies (RCT/ non-RCT), nSubjects, nBenefit intervention, nNo difference could be demonstrated, nBenefit water, n
4%–9% CEDVolume/hydration status13 (9/4)200721 
4%–9% CEDVital signs2 (2/0)53 3 
4%–9% CEDHyponatremia7 (3/4)8639 
4%–9% CEDPatient satisfaction6 (5/1)95 36 
0%–3.9% CEDVolume/hydration status6 (5/1)53313 
0%–3.9% CEDVital signs1 (1/0)10 1 
0%–3.9% CEDHyponatremia5 (4/1)4546 
0%–3.9% CEDPatient satisfaction3 (3/0)25 161
Skim or low-fat cow’s milkVolume/hydration status4 (3/1)6812  
Skim or low-fat cow’s milkHyponatremia2 (1/1)1912 
Skim or low-fat cow’s milkPatient satisfaction4 (3/1)68 266
Fresh coconut waterVolume/hydration status4 (4/0)42 6 
Fresh coconut waterVital signs1 (1/0)12 1 
Fresh coconut waterHyponatremia3 (3/0)3023 
Fresh coconut waterPatient satisfaction4 (4/0)424241
Coconut water from concentrateVital signs1 (1/0)12 1 
Coconut water from concentrateHyponatremia1 (1/0)121  
Coconut water from concentratePatient satisfaction1 (1/0)12 51
Beer with 4.5%–5% alcoholVolume/hydration status3 (3/0)38 71
Beer with 4.5%–5% alcoholHyponatremia1 (1/0)16 1 
Beer with 0.5%–2% alcoholVolume/hydration status2 (2/0)22 4 
Beer with 0% alcoholVolume/hydration status1 (1/0)11 3 
CED indicates carbohydrate-electrolyte drink; and RCT, randomized controlled trial.
The 4% to 9% CEDs Compared With Water
For the critical outcome of volume/hydration status, 9 RCTs369–377 and 4 non-RCTs378–381 including a total of 200 subjects conducted 17 comparisons of varying percentages of CEDs with water. No difference in volume/hydration status was shown in 12 of 17 of these comparisons. One RCT reported a significant decrease in cumulative urine output with 4% CEDs (mean difference [MD], −289 mL [95% CI not calculable]).371 Decreased cumulative urine output was associated with rehydration with 6% CEDs378,380 (MD, −160 and −465 mL, respectively) and 6.6% CEDs370,381 (MD, −241 and −277 mL, respectively [95% CI not calculable]) compared with water. For the outcome of net fluid balance, no significant difference was shown at 60 and 120 minutes after rehydration with 6% CEDs,372 7% CEDs,376 or 8% CEDs375 and at 60 minutes for 6.9% CEDs377 compared with water. Similarly, no differences were reported in plasma volume or plasma volume change at 120 minutes after rehydration with any of the CED concentrations tested compared with water. One study379 did not show a difference in hematocrit at 30 minutes after rehydration with 8.75% CEDs compared with water.
For the critical outcome of vital signs, 2 RCTs369,382 and 1 non-RCT381 including 53 subjects observed no difference in heart rate at time points from 60 to 120 minutes after rehydration with any tested CED concentration compared with water.369,381,382
For the critical outcome of hyponatremia, 3 RCTs369,377,382 and 4 non-RCTs378–381 including 86 subjects were included. A significant increase was reported in serum sodium concentration 1 hour after rehydration with 6.9% CEDs377 compared with water, whereas no difference was reported after rehydration with 6% CEDs378 and 8.75% CEDs.379 Two studies found a significant increase in serum osmolality at 60380 and 75 minutes378 after rehydration with 6% CEDs compared with water (MD, 5.9 and 4.5 mOsm/kg, respectively), whereas no difference was reported at 120 minutes after 6% CEDs,380 at 60 minutes after 6.9% CEDs,377 and at 30 minutes after 8.75% CEDs.379 Two studies failed to show a significant difference in plasma osmolality at 60 and 90 minutes after rehydration with 5% to 6.6% CEDs.369,382
The 0% to 3.9% CEDs Compared With Water
For the critical outcome of volume/hydration status, we identified low-certainty evidence from 5 RCTs369,383–386 and 1 non-RCT387 including 53 subjects. Of 12 comparisons of rehydration using 0% to 3.9% CEDs compared with water, only 2 demonstrated a difference.
A significant decrease in cumulative urine output was shown in 2 RCTs after rehydration with 0% CEDs (saline)383 and 3.7% CEDs384 compared with water (MD, −416 mL [95% CI, −786 to −46] and −174.5 mL [95% CI not calculable], respectively).
For the critical outcome of hyponatremia, low-certainty evidence was included from 4 RCTs369,384–386 and 1 non-RCT387 including 45 subjects. A significant increase in serum sodium concentration was shown at 60 minutes after rehydration with 1.83% CEDs387 or 3.7% CEDs384 compared with water, whereas a third study385 did not find a significant difference with 3.2% CEDs. Significant increases in serum osmolality were found in 2 studies at 60 minutes after rehydration with 1.83% CEDs387 or 3.7% CEDs384 compared with water (MD, 9.0 and 4 mOsm/kg, respectively [95% CI not calculable]), whereas 1 RCT385 did not find a difference with 3.2% CEDs. Significant differences in plasma osmolality were not shown at 120 minutes after rehydration with 2% CEDs369 or 3.9% CEDs386 compared with water.
Skim or Low-Fat Cow’s Milk Compared With Water
For the critical outcome of volume/hydration status, we identified 3 RCTs372,375,386 and 1 non-RCT388 including 68 subjects. Four of 5 studies372,375,386,388 showed a significant decrease in cumulative urine output after rehydration with skim or low-fat cow’s milk compared with water (MD, −368, −635, −594, and −175 mL, respectively [95% CI not calculable]). A significant increase in net fluid balance was shown in 3 studies372,375,386 at 60 minutes after rehydration with skim milk compared with water (MD, 655, 368, and 111 mL, respectively [95% CI not calculable]) and in 1 study,388 at 30 to 90 minutes after rehydration (MD, 0.26 L [95% CI not calculable]) and 90 to 150 minutes after rehydration (MD, 0.36 L [95% CI not calculable]).
For the critical outcome of hyponatremia, we identified 1 RCT386 and 1 non-RCT388 including 19 subjects, reporting conflicting results.
Coconut Water (as Fresh Coconut Water or Coconut Water From Concentrate) Compared With Water
For the critical outcome of volume/hydration status, 3 RCTs with 30 subjects were included.371,384,385 In these 3 studies of rehydration with fresh coconut water compared with water, no significant differences were found in cumulative urine output,371,384,385 net fluid balance,384,385 or plasma volume change at 60 minutes.384 One small study382 did not observe a difference in heart rate at 120 minutes after rehydration with fresh or coconut water from concentrate compared with water.
For the critical outcome of hyponatremia, we identified 3 RCTs with a total of 30 subjects.382,384,385 One study384 showed a significant increase in serum sodium concentration and serum osmolality 60 minutes after rehydration with fresh coconut water compared with water (MD, 2 mmol/L and 3 mOsm/kg, respectively [95% CI not calculable]), whereas a second study385 found no difference. A third study382 reported a significant increase in plasma osmolality at 120 minutes after rehydration with coconut water from concentrate compared with water (MD, 1.5 mOsm/kg [95% CI not calculable]) but did not find a difference in plasma osmolality after rehydration with fresh coconut water.
Regular Beer (4.5%–5% Alcohol) Compared With Water
For the critical outcome of volume/hydration status, we identified 3 RCTs with 38 subjects.376,389,390 One study390 showed a statistically significant increase in cumulative urine output (MD, 444 mL [95% CI not calculable]) after rehydration with regular beer compared with water, whereas 2 studies376,389 found no difference. No difference was found in net fluid balance at 60376 or 120 minutes376,389 after rehydration with regular beer compared with water. A single study389 found no significant difference in change in hematocrit, plasma volume, or serum sodium concentration after rehydration with beer compared with water.
Low-Alcohol Beer (0.5%–2% Alcohol) Compared With Water
Two RCTs enrolling 22 subjects376,390 reported no significant difference in net fluid balance at 60 and 120 minutes after rehydration with low-alcohol beer (2%) compared with water.
Nonalcoholic Beer (0% Alcohol) Compared With Water
One RCT with 11 subjects376 reported no significant difference in cumulative urine output or net fluid balance at 60 and 120 minutes after rehydration with nonalcoholic beer compared with water.

Treatment Recommendations

We recommend the use of any readily available rehydration drink or water for treating exertion-related dehydration in the first aid setting (good practice statement).
We suggest rehydration for exertion-related dehydration with a 4% to 9% CED. Alternative rehydration options include 0% to 3.9% CEDs, water, coconut water, or skim or low-fat cow’s milk (weak recommendation, very low–certainty evidence).
There is insufficient evidence to recommend for or against rehydration with beer (0%–5% alcohol).

Justification and Evidence-to-Decision Framework Highlights

The evidence-to-decision table is provided in Supplemental Appendix A5.
First aid providers are commonly recruited to assist at first aid stations located at sporting events, where exercise-induced dehydration is a common problem. It may not be possible to determine the exact quantity or percent of fluid loss in the first aid setting. The First Aid Task Force acknowledges that in cases of exertional dehydration, it is most important to rehydrate as soon as possible and emphasizes this priority as a good practice statement. The choice of what to drink will often be based on what the dehydrated person is willing to drink and what is palatable.
We further acknowledge that all included trials conducted exercise in a controlled environment and duration. Extreme events such as ultramarathons were not included in the evidence evaluation.
Although there is variability among the identified studies, we identified a beneficial effect with use of CEDs for many of the reviewed outcomes. Differences in cumulative urine output between beverages were discussed by the task force and are likely a result of beverage composition. Drinks with high energy content (ie, from carbohydrates, fat, protein, or alcohol) will empty from the stomach more slowly than drinks containing no energy. Therefore, they will potentially reduce or delay diuresis compared with water.
Numerous studies were sponsored and financed by the manufacturers of the tested drinks. In many of these studies, a statement was included noting that the funders did not influence the study or results. In these cases, we did not downgrade for publication bias. In cases when such a statement was not provided, we downgraded for publication bias.
Findings related to milk as a rehydration drink were also discussed at length by the task force. Skim or low-fat cow’s milk appears to have a water, energy, and macronutrient content similar to that of sports drinks. Milk, however, generally requires refrigeration and may not be readily accessible. In some regions, the prevalence of lactose intolerance is higher than in other regions, making milk a less suitable rehydration drink. There may also be more issues with patient satisfaction or compliance compared with water. The use of alcoholic beverages may have other unwanted effects, including a diuretic effect, and is not recommended for athletes in competition.
Excessive fluid consumption may lead to an electrolyte imbalance. However, if clean, potable water is available, its cost, relative to CEDs, makes it an acceptable alternative, although water may require longer times to rehydrate and, in some cases, may be associated with hyponatremia.

Task Force Knowledge Gaps

Whether medical conditions such as diabetes and hypertension affect recommendations for rehydration drinks after exercise and dehydration
The ideal means of determining goals for rehydration in the first aid/sports setting

Pediatric Tourniquet Types (SysRev)

Rationale for Review

The continuous evidence evaluation process for the production of this CoSTR started with a SysRev of first aid interventions for control of life-threatening bleeding391 and a ScopRev of the use of tourniquets in the pediatric population (<19 years of age).392,393 These reviews led to a recommendation for a SysRev, which was done on behalf of the First Aid and Pediatric Task Forces after registration on PROSPERO CRD42021229767.391
The full text of this CoSTR can be found on the ILCOR website.394

PICO, Study Design, and Time Frame

Population: Children (<19 years of age) with severe, life-threatening bleeding from an extremity wound
Intervention: Commercial elastic wrap tourniquet or commercial ratcheting tourniquet
Comparator: Commercial windlass rod-type tourniquet
Outcome: Mortality, control of bleeding (including surrogate outcome of obliteration of Doppler pulses), blood loss, shock/hypotension, and adverse events
Study design: RCTs and nonrandomized studies (non-RCTs, interrupted time series, controlled before-and-after studies, cohort studies) and case series were eligible for inclusion. Unpublished studies (eg, conference abstracts, trial protocols), modeling studies, studies of tourniquets applied solely to maintain a bloodless surgical field, or those relating only to education were excluded.
Time frame: All years and all languages were included as long as there was an English abstract. Database searches were performed on October 1, 2020.

Consensus on Science

Two cohort studies including 73 patients 2 to 16 years of age met our eligibility criteria. Evidence from both studies was of very low certainty. Additional experimental studies using models and manikins were considered by the task force within the context of the GRADE evidence-to-decision process.
For the critical outcome of control of bleeding, no studies were identified that compared the use of one tourniquet type with another tourniquet type. Two cohort studies enrolling a total of 73 children between 2 and 16 years of age and using a manufactured windlass rod tourniquet were identified.395,396 The first study was conducted on 60 uninjured volunteers in an orthopedic office (6–16 years of age)395 with researchers applying a windlass rod tourniquet to an uninjured extremity. The second study was conducted on 13 volunteers (2–7 years of age) with the same manufactured windlass rod tourniquet on an uninjured extremity while under anesthesia in an operating room.396 Pooled data showed cessation of pulses in 71 of 71 upper extremities (100%) and in 69 of 73 lower extremities (94.5%). Tourniquet failures were attributable to an inability to continue secondary to pain in the unanesthetized group (n=1) and to an inability to occlude the distal pulse after a prespecified maximum of 3 windlass turns in the anesthetized group (n=3).395
No evidence was identified for the outcomes of mortality, blood loss, and shock/hypotension.

Treatment Recommendations

We suggest the use of a manufactured windlass tourniquet for the management of life-threatening extremity bleeding in children (weak recommendation, very low–certainty evidence).
We are unable to recommend for or against the use of other tourniquet types in children because of a lack of evidence.
For infants and children with extremities that are too small to allow the snug application of a tourniquet before activating the circumferential tightening mechanism, we recommend the use of direct manual pressure with or without the application of a hemostatic trauma dressing (good practice statement).

Justification and Evidence-to-Decision Framework Highlights

The evidence-to-decision table is provided in Supplemental Appendix A5.
This topic was prioritized by the First Aid Task Force after a ScopRev392,393 identified emerging evidence from human studies of tourniquet use in children. Previous reviews of adult and pediatric literature identified experimental studies of tourniquet use in pediatric models such as polyvinyl chloride pipes that demonstrated failure of adult tourniquets on smaller pipes.397
In making this recommendation, the First Aid Task Force weighed the lack of direct evidence to show that tourniquets are a lifesaving intervention for life-threatening extremity bleeding in children against the previously established role of a manufactured windlass tourniquet in reducing mortality in adults with life-threatening extremity bleeding.391 The Combat Application Tourniquet Generation 7 was the specific brand of windlass rod tourniquet used in both included studies, and the minimum limb circumference of the children included was 13 cm. Other windlass rod tourniquets may vary in their ability to tighten successfully on limbs with small circumferences. Although some data are available from studies using manikins or models such as polyvinyl chloride pipes and stair rails, these studies were felt to be too indirect to be included.397,398 Review of these studies in the evidence-to-decision process suggested that the rigid mechanism of some tourniquets can preclude successful application on limbs with small circumferences.
It is the consensus of the task force that for children <2 years of age, body size and a lower relative pressure would likely make direct manual pressure more effective for control of life-threatening extremity bleeding. Although it may be difficult for providers to determine whether a child is ≥2 years of age, the task force discussed that the typical habitus of a toddler, rather than an infant, could be used to help make this determination.

Task Force Knowledge Gaps

Urgent need for RCTs in the prehospital setting to determine which tourniquet designs produce beneficial outcomes in children
Younger age and size limits for manufactured tourniquets and which tourniquets can be applied to both upper and lower extremities to control hemorrhage
Data on complications of tourniquet use in children
Data on efficacy and speed of application of tourniquets on children by first aid providers

Methods of Tick Removal (SysRev Adolopment)

Rationale for Review

This topic was prioritized by the First Aid Task Force because of a lack of international consensus in guidelines for removal of an attached tick in the first aid setting and a lack of prior SysRevs of this topic by ILCOR. This CoSTR was created with the adolopment process by using a recent SysRev.399 Additional scientific literature published after the completion of the published SysRev was identified by a subsequent search of the relevant literature. The totality of this identified evidence was considered by the First Aid Task Force and used to create and update bias assessment tables and evidence profile tables.
The full text of this CoSTR can be found on the ILCOR website.400

PICO, Study Design, and Time Frame

Population: Individuals in the first aid setting with a tick attached to the skin
Intervention: Any tick-removal method, including heat, chemical, commercial tick-removal apparatus, or tweezers/forceps
Comparator: Any other method of tick removal
Outcome: Transmission of disease, removal of (parts of) the tick, damaged or broken-off mouthparts
Study design: RCTs and nonrandomized studies (non-RCTs, interrupted time series, controlled before-and-after studies, cohort studies, cross-sectional studies, and animal studies) were eligible for inclusion. Conference abstracts, conference papers, (clinical) trial registrations, dissertations, case series, ex vivo or in vitro studies, studies reporting no quantitative data, and studies reporting only means without standard deviation, effect sizes, or P values were excluded.
Time frame: All languages were included as long as there was an English abstract. Searches were conducted from 2017 (date of the adoloped SysRev) to June 23, 2020, and updated February 14, 2021.

Consensus on Science

Three RCTs401–403 and 5 observational studies404–408 were identified, 2 of which were not in the original (adoloped) SysRev.404,407 For the critical outcome of tick (or tick part) removal and the important outcome of damaged or broken-off mouthparts, an overview of studies, certainty of evidence, and key outcomes are presented in Table 18. For the critical outcome of disease transmission, no evidence was identified.
Table 18. Overview of Studies and Key Outcomes for Methods of Tick Removal
StudyStudy designCertainty of evidencePopulationOutcomeComparisonResults
Akin Belli et al,404 2016NRLow160 tick removals by health care providers using tweezers or 3 different commercial devices; if tweezers, grabbed close to mouthparts and pulled straight outTick removalFreezing (Tickner) vs pulling with tweezers0/40 vs 40/40
RR, not estimable
Intact tick removalPulling with a slit-and-traction device (Zeckenkarte) vs pulling with tweezers3/40 vs 33/40
RR, 0.09 (95% CI, 0.03–0.27)
Pulling with a lasso device (Trix Ticklasso) vs pulling with tweezers19/40 vs 33/40
RR, 0.58 (95% CI, 0.40–0.83)
Bowles et al,4011992RCTVery low299 adult ticks removed on 8 stray dogs by researchers using 1 removal device and 3 types of forcepsTicks with damaged mouthpartsRotation with opposing jaw device (Tick Solution) vs pulling with economy forceps2/81 vs 2/73
RR, 0.90 (95% CI, 0.13–6.25)
Pulling with jeweler’s forceps vs economy forceps2/72 vs 2/73
RR, 0.90 (95% CI, 0.15–7.00)
Pulling with angled forceps vs pulling with economy forceps1/73 vs 2/73
RR, 0.50 (95% CI, 0.05–5.40)
de Boer et al,405 1993NRVery low175 ticks applied on skin of 6 animals were treated chemically; 149 ticks applied on skin of 6 animals were used for pulling vs rotation comparisonTick removalApplication of gasolineRemovals: 0/72
Application of nail polishRemovals: 0/46
Application of methylated spiritRemovals: 0/57
Tick mouthparts remaining in the skinPulling straight out with blunt forceps vs rotation with opposing jaw device (Tick Solution)59/80 vs 14/69
RR, 3.63 (95% CI, 2.24–5.91)
Duscher et al,402 2012RCTVery low527 ticks removed from animals by 22 veterinarians and 4 lay volunteers; 4 different commercial devices and Adson forceps were testedTicks with damaged mouthpartsRotating mechanical removal vs pulling mechanical removal37/337 vs 60/190
RR, 0.35 (95% CI, 0.24–0.50)
Pulling with Adson forceps vs pulling with slit-and-traction device (TickPic)36/90 vs 24/100
RR, 1.67 (95% CI, 1.08–2.56)
Rotation with lasso device (Trix Ticklasso) vs pulling with Adson forceps20/108 vs 36/90
RR, 0.46 (95% CI, 0.29–0.74)
Rotation with slit-and-rotation device (Tick Twister) vs pulling with Adson forceps7/108 vs 36/90
RR, 0.16 (95% CI, 0.08–0.35)
Rotation with opposing jaw device (pen-tweezers) vs pulling with Adson forceps10/121 vs 36/90
RR, 0.21 (95% CI, 0.11–0.39)
Rotation with lasso device (Trix Ticklasso) vs pulling with slit-and-traction device (TickPic)20/108 vs 24/100
RR, 0.77 (95% CI, 0.46–1.31)
Rotation with slit-and-rotation device (Tick Twister) vs pulling with slit-and-traction device (TickPic)7/108 vs 24/100
RR, 0.27 (95% CI, 4(0.12–0.60)
Rotation with opposing jaw device (pen-tweezers) vs pulling with slit-and-traction device (TickPic)10/121 vs 24/100
RR, 0.34 (95% CI, 0.17–0.69)
Rotation with lasso device (Trix Ticklasso) vs rotation with slit-and-rotation device (Tick Twister)20/108 vs 7/108
RR: 2.86 (95% CI, 1.26–6.48)
Duscher et al,402 2012 continued    Rotation with lasso device (Trix Ticklasso) vs rotation with opposing jaw device (pen-tweezers)20/108 vs 10/121
RR, 2.24 (95% CI, 1.10–4.57)
Rotation with slit-and-rotation device (Tick Twister) vs rotation with opposing jaw device (pen-tweezers)7/108 vs 10/121
RR, 0.78 (95% CI, 0.31–1.99)
Needham,406 1985NRVery low29 ticks attached to sheep were treated with chemicals or a hot match; 22 ticks attached to sheep were pulled with forceps using various traction techniquesTick removalApplication of petroleum jellyRemovals: 0/14
Application of clear fingernail polishRemovals: 0/8
Application of 70% isopropyl alcoholRemovals: 0/8
Application of a hot kitchen matchRemovals: 0/8
Ticks with broken mouthpartsPulling straight up with a quick motion with forceps vs rotating clockwise with forceps7/7 vs 0/5
RR, 11.25 (95% CI, 0.79–160.81)
Pulling straight up with a steady pressure with forceps vs rotating clockwise with forceps5/5 vs 5/5
RR, 1.0 (95% CI, 0.71–1.41)
Pulling parallel with the skin with forceps vs rotating clockwise with forceps5/5 vs 5/5
RR, 1.0 (95% CI, 0.71–1.41)
Şahin et al,407 2020NRVery low93 participants who presented to an emergency department for tick removal; ticks were removed either by the participants themselves by hand or by health care providers using a lasso technique with suture material or with tweezersTicks with broken mouthpartsPulling with tweezers or removal by hand4/22 vs 11/21
RR, 0.35 (95% CI, 0.13–0.92)
Stewart et al,408 1998NRVery low342 ticks were removed from laboratory rabbits by untrained individuals using 4 different commercial removal devices or tweezersTicks with damaged mouthpartsPulling with slit-and-traction device (Ticked Off) vs pulling with medium-tipped tweezers9/104 vs 20/79
RR, 0.34 (95% CI, 0.16–0.71)
Pulling with slit-and-traction device (Pro-Tick Remedy) vs pulling with medium-tipped tweezers13/82 vs 20/79
RR, 0.63 (95% CI, 0.33–1.17)
Pulling with opposing jaw device (Tick Plier or Tick Nipper) vs pulling with medium-tipped tweezers10/77 vs 20/79
RR, 0.51 (95% CI, 0.26–1.02)
Zenner et al,403 2006RCTVery lowVeterinarians and pet owners removed 236 ticks (various species) from 178 dogs and 46 cats using 3 commercial tick-removal devices or Adson forceps in random orderTicks with damaged mouthpartsRotation with slit-and-rotation device (Tick Twister) vs rotation with opposing jaw device (Buster Tick forceps) or Adson forcepsP<0.01 in favor of slit-and-rotation device; raw data not given
NR indicates nonrandomized study; RCT, randomized controlled trial; and RR, risk ratio.

Treatment Recommendations

We recommend against the use of chemicals, heat, or ice compared with mechanical methods for the removal of a tick (strong recommendation, very low–certainty evidence).
We suggest either pulling with tweezers or using commercial devices according to the manufacturer’s instructions to remove a tick rather than removal by hand (weak recommendation, very low–certainty evidence).

Justification and Evidence-to-Decision Framework Highlights

The evidence-to-decision table is provided in Supplemental Appendix A5.
In making these recommendations, the First Aid Task Force considered that early removal of a tick is likely the most important aspect of preventing infection. We prioritized methods of tick removal that would be safe and effective while promoting early tick removal.
Although studies differentiated adult and nymph ticks, different species of ticks, and time of tick attachment/engorgement, the task force acknowledged that it is impractical for lay providers to differentiate their features or the potential need for different devices for removal of each stage. Therefore, these studies were combined in this review.
Tweezers are likely more readily available, have more first aid uses, and are less expensive than commercial tick-removal devices. They are therefore more practical for earlier tick removal than a commercial tick-removal device is.
Although no study evaluated the proper grasp of the tick with tweezers, in the included studies, when described, ticks were grabbed as close to the skin as possible. The tweezers or forceps that were used were described as having a thin jaw, similar to Adson forceps, which would allow gripping of the tick near the skin without crushing the body.
No studies evaluated disease transmission. Removal of a tick does not guarantee lack of disease transmission, and first aid guideline writers should consider including signs and symptoms of local and systemic illness after tick bites. All techniques of tick removal are subject to user error and could result in retained tick mouthparts in the skin.

Task Force Knowledge Gaps

The most effective methods of tick removal by first aid providers
The effect of method of tick removal on clinical outcomes such as transmission of disease and local infection

Use of Cryotherapy for Acute Epistaxis in the First Aid Setting (ScopRev)

Rationale for Review

Epistaxis is typically managed in the first aid setting with direct manual pressure by pinching the nasal alae. Cryotherapy with ice/cold packs or ice collars is commonly recommended as adjunctive therapy for epistaxis on self-care web pages but is not recommended in first aid guidelines by ILCOR member organizations and has not been reviewed previously by ILCOR. The goal of this ScopRev is to identify any literature evaluating the use of cryotherapy as an adjunct to direct pressure and to assess the need for a SysRev.
The full text of this ScopRev is available on the ILCOR website.409

PICO, Study Design, and Time Frame

Population: Adults and children receiving first aid for acute epistaxis
Intervention: Cryotherapy alone or cryotherapy with nose pinching
Comparator: Nose pinching/pressure alone
Outcome: Time to hemostasis control, hemostasis, reduction of nasal blood volume, reduction of pain, need for follow-up care, adverse events, recovery time, reduction of swelling
Study design: RCTs and nonrandomized studies (non-RCTs, interrupted time series, controlled before-and-after studies, cohort studies), case series, gray literature reports, reviews, or webpage articles were eligible for inclusion. Unpublished studies (eg, conference abstracts, trial protocols) were excluded.
Time frame: All years and all languages were included as long as there was an English abstract. Initial literature search (Embase, MEDLINE, and Cochrane) was completed on July 13, 2020, and was updated on January 14, 2021. Literature search on PubMed was completed on December 19, 2020. Gray literature searches were completed on December 21, 2020. ILCOR member organization website guidelines were searched on December 28, 2020. Hand searching of references from reviewed manuscripts was included.

Summary of Evidence

No studies were identified that directly addressed the PICO, study design, and time frame question. Six indirect experimental studies (all including adults without epistaxis) examined the effects of cryotherapy on nasal mucosal blood flow,410,411 nasal submucosal temperature,412 nasal blood volume,413 nasal congestion and nasal cavity volume,414 nasal airflow and patency,411 and nasal airway volume.415 An overview of all study characteristics and findings is presented in Supplemental Appendix C3. One randomized crossover study410 of 16 adults reported a significant decrease in nasal mucosal blood flow (23% versus 5%; P<0.05) with ice packs inside the mouth compared with an ice pack applied to the forehead. A second randomized crossover study412 of 13 adults reported a lower nasal submucosa temperature with sucking ice cubes compared with the application of ice packs to the forehead. The combination of sucking ice cubes and an ice pack to the forehead was reported to cause a greater drop in nasal submucosal temperature than an ice pack alone.
An observational study of 56 healthy adults411 reported no change in nasal mucosal microcirculatory blood flow or inspiratory airflow after 5 minutes of ice packs around the neck. A before-and-after study of 15 healthy adults also reported no significant change in nasal blood volume after a 10-minute application of an ice collar to the neck.
One observational study414 reported no significant difference in mean nasal cavity volume measurements up to 10 minutes after application of cold compresses to the nasal dorsal skin. An observational study415 with 10 healthy adults reported greater nasal airway volume after ice-water immersion of the feet compared with 1 hand and forearm immersion.
One SysRev416 was identified evaluating the initial assessment and management of adults with epistaxis. Despite a lack of supporting evidence, the review concluded that the application of an intraoral ice pack is a simple first aid measure with the potential to decrease bleeding severity.
The gray literature review of cryotherapy in acute epistaxis identified 6 documents evaluating application of cryotherapy to the face or nose,417,418 sucking on ice,417,419 and application around417 and to the back of the neck420 or forehead (overview of these provided in Supplemental Appendix C4).421,422,422a,422b No evidence for these recommendations was provided in 3 records.417,418,422 A narrative review419 suggested that ice packs around the neck and intraorally significantly reduced nasal mucosa blood flow and could slow bleeding. However, they referenced investigators410 who measured nasal mucosal blood flow in healthy adults. Two narrative reviews420,421 suggested that the use of cryotherapy is inconclusive and controversial, citing work by other investigators.411,413
A review of ILCOR member councils for guideline documentation identified 2 subcouncil guidelines statements addressing epistaxis, including a 2000 American Heart Association guideline422a and a 2017 Australian and New Zealand Committee on Resuscitation guideline.422b No reference to cryotherapy was addressed in either guideline.

Task Force Insights

The gray literature recommendations for cryotherapy in the first aid management of acute epistaxis are based on findings of reduced nasal blood flow and volume reported in 3 of 6 indirect studies performed on healthy adults without epistaxis.410,412,413
Cryotherapy application methods used in the studies were inconsistent and applied to the forehead, in the mouth, around the neck, on the feet, or on a single hand/forearm or a combination of locations. Cryotherapy application times also varied between studies. Gray literature recommendations for the use of cryotherapy in acute epistaxis are likely the result of opinion and the theory that cryotherapy induces vasoconstriction in the nasal mucosa. Current evidence does not support recommendations for use of cryotherapy as a first aid intervention for acute epistaxis. This ScopRev does not find sufficient evidence to support a SysRev but does highlight the need for clinical research studies.

Topics Reviewed by EvUps

The topics reviewed by EvUps are summarized in Table 19. Complete EvUps are included in Supplemental Appendix A1.
Table 19. First Aid Topics Reviewed by EvUps
Topic/PICOYear(s) last updatedExisting treatment recommendationRCTs since last review, nObservational studies since last review, nSufficient data to warrant SysRev?
Pressure immobilization bandaging for venomous snakebites (FA 1001)2010CoSTRProperly performed pressure immobilization of extremities should be considered in first aid after snake envenomation.26No
Second dose of epinephrine for anaphylaxis (FA 500)2015CoSTR2020EvUpWe suggest that a second dose of epinephrine be administered by autoinjector to adults and children with severe anaphylaxis whose symptoms are not relieved by an initial dose (weak recommendation, very low–quality evidence).00No
Dietary sugars for treatment of hypoglycemia (FA 795)2015CoSTR;2020EvUpWe recommend that first aid providers administer glucose tablets for the treatment of symptomatic hypoglycemia in conscious adults and children (strong recommendation, low-quality evidence).
We suggest that if glucose tablets are not available, various forms of dietary sugars such as Skittles, Mentos, sugar cubes, jellybeans, or orange juice can be used to treat symptomatic hypoglycemia in conscious adults and children (weak recommendation, very low–quality evidence).
There is insufficient evidence to make a recommendation on the use of whole milk, cornstarch hydrolysate, and glucose solution or glucose gels compared with glucose tablets for the treatment of symptomatic hypoglycemia.
00No
EvUp indicates evidence update; FA, first aid; PICO, population, intervention, comparator, outcome; RCT, randomized controlled trial; and SysRev, systematic review.
CoSTR documents are available at https://costr.ilcor.org/.

COVID-19 Working Group

COVID-19 Infection Risk to Rescuers From Patients in Cardiac Arrest (SysRev)

Rationale for Review

The COVID-19 pandemic has been associated with high mortality and morbidity throughout the world. In the context of cardiac arrest, there was concern that the transmissibility of COVID-19 may pose a risk to rescuers during delivery of chest compressions, defibrillation, and CPR. In view of this concern, ILCOR urgently commissioned a SysRev and developed treatment recommendations.423,424 Subsequently, ILCOR has generated 4 EvUps to reflect the evolving COVID-19 literature and ongoing clinical interest. This summary describes evidence up to January 2021. The SysRev was registered on PROSPERO (registration CRD42017080475).
Full text of this CoSTR can be found on the ILCOR website.425

PICO, Study Design, and Time Frame

Our SysRev addressed 3 complementary research questions in relation to COVID-19 and risk to the rescuer delivering CPR. Specifically, we examined aerosol generation (research question 1), transmission of infection (research question 2), and PPE strategy (research question 3). Research questions 1 and 2 evaluate the effect of an exposure on the outcome and thus differ in structure somewhat from the PICO because there is no true intervention or comparator.
Research Question 1
Population: Individuals in any setting
Exposure: Delivery of chest compressions, defibrillation, CPR (all CPR interventions that include chest compressions)
Outcome: Generation of aerosols
Study design: RCTs and nonrandomized studies (non-RCTs, interrupted time series, controlled before-and-after studies, cohort studies, case reports/series, cadaver studies) were eligible for inclusion. Unpublished studies (eg, conference abstracts, trial protocols) were excluded.
Time frame: All years and all languages were included as long as there was an English abstract. Searches were updated in January 2021.
Research Question 2
Population: Individuals in any setting wearing any PPE or no PPE
Exposure: Delivery of chest compressions, defibrillation, CPR (all CPR interventions that include chest compressions)
Outcome: Transmission of infection
Study designs: RCTs and nonrandomized studies (non-RCTs, interrupted time series, controlled before-and-after studies, cohort studies, case reports/series) were eligible for inclusion. Unpublished studies (eg, conference abstracts, trial protocols) were excluded.
Time frame: All years and all languages were included as long as there was an English abstract. Searches were updated in January 2021.
Research Question 3
Population: Individuals delivering chest compressions, defibrillation, or CPR in any setting
Intervention: Wearing of PPE
Comparator: Wearing any alternative system of PPE or no PPE
Outcome: Infection with the same organism as the patient, PPE effectiveness, quality of CPR
Study design: RCTs and nonrandomized studies (non-RCTs, interrupted time series, controlled before-and-after studies, cohort studies, cadaver studies, simulation studies) were eligible for inclusion. Unpublished studies (eg, conference abstracts, trial protocols) were excluded.
Time frame: All years and all languages were included as long as there was an English abstract. Searches were updated in January 2021.

Consensus on Science

We identified 3 studies for question 1,426–428 10 studies for question 2,427–436 and 5 studies for question 3.437–441 Results are summarized in Table 20.
Table 20. Summary of Study Findings
Research questionsType of study/No. of participantsCertainty of evidenceOutcome importanceSummary of evidence
Research question 1
 Aerosol generation2 case reports427,4281 cadaver study426Very low (serious risk of bias, serious indirectness)CriticalStudies reported generation of aerosols
Research question 2
 Transmission of infection5 observational studies/2923 health care workers429–4335 case reports427,428,434–436Very low (serious risk of bias, serious indirectness)CriticalInconsistent findings from observational studies
Case reports reported transmission of infection after CPR
Research question 3
 Infection with the same organism as the patientNo evidenceCritical
 PPE effectiveness1 manikin RCT/30 health care workers440Low (serious risk of bias, serious indirectness)CriticalPPE effectiveness affected by CPR delivery
 CPR quality4 manikin RCTs/184 participants437–4401 manikin non-RCT/48 participants441Very low (serious risk of bias, serious indirectness)ImportantTime to treatment increased with donning of PPE
Inconsistent findings on quality of CPR delivery
CPR indicates cardiopulmonary resuscitation; PPE, personal protective equipment; and RCT, randomized controlled trial.

Treatment Recommendations

We suggest that chest compressions and CPR have the potential to generate aerosols (weak recommendation, very low–certainty evidence).
We suggest that in the current COVID-19 pandemic, lay rescuers consider chest compressions and public-access defibrillation (good practice statement).
We suggest that in the current COVID-19 pandemic, lay rescuers who are willing, trained, and able to do so consider providing rescue breaths to children in addition to chest compressions (good practice statement).
We suggest that in the current COVID-19 pandemic, health care professionals use PPE for aerosol-generating procedures during resuscitation (weak recommendation, very low–certainty evidence).
We suggest that it may be reasonable for health care providers to consider defibrillation before donning aerosol-generating PPE in situations in which the provider assesses that the benefits may exceed the risks (good practice statement).

Justification and Evidence-to-Decision Framework Highlights

The evidence-to-decision table is included in Supplemental Appendix A6.
International organizations identify CPR (chest compressions and ventilation) as an aerosol-generating procedure such that transmission of COVID-19 is assumed to be possible if a rescuer delivers CPR to an individual with COVID-19 infection. CPR is a complex intervention with several components, including ventilation, defibrillation, chest compressions, and drug administration. The benefits of these interventions to the patient vary, as does the likely associated risk of infection transmission to the rescuer.
A key consideration in developing treatment recommendations is the importance of rescuer safety. During chest compressions, aerosol generation is plausible because chest compressions generate passive ventilation associated with small tidal volumes.442 Furthermore, the person performing chest compressions is in physical contact with the patient and in close proximity to the airway. We did not identify evidence that defibrillation either does or does not generate aerosols. If it occurs, the duration of an aerosol-generating process would be brief.
In developing these treatment recommendations, the COVID-19 working group sought to carefully balance the benefit of early treatment with chest compressions and defibrillation (before donning PPE) with the potential harm to the rescuer, their colleagues, and the wider community if the rescuer were to be infected with COVID-19. We note that the vaccination status of the rescuer, patient, and the wider community may influence the potential for harm.
ILCOR recognizes that the impact of COVID-19 will vary across regions and countries. In applying these treatment recommendations to their local context, regional and national resuscitation councils should consider the values and preferences of their local communities, prevalence of disease, uptake of vaccination, availability of PPE, training needs of their workforce, and infrastructure and resources to provide ongoing care for patients resuscitated after cardiac arrest.

Task Force Knowledge Gaps

The potential for aerosol generation through delivery of chest compressions or defibrillation without associated airway maneuvers
The risks and benefits of resuscitation interventions in the context of the current COVID-19 pandemic
The effects of strategies to mitigate the risk of viral transmission during chest compressions and defibrillation (eg, the use of a surgical mask, an oxygen mask, or a cloth applied to the patient’s mouth and nose)

Article Information

Collaborators

Cristian Abelairas-Gómez, PhD; Roberto Barcala-Furelos, RN, PE, PhD; Stephen B. Beerman, MD, CCFP, FCFP; Joost Bierens, MD, PhD, MCDM, MCPM; Sofia Cacciola, MD; Jacqueline Cellini, MLIS, MPH; Andreas Claesson, RN, PhD; Rachael Court, MA, MCLIP; Sonia D’Arrigo, MD, PhD; Niels De Brier, PhD; Cody L. Dunne, MD; Hylmar E. Elsenga, MD; Samantha Johnson, MA; Gunn Kleven; Ian Maconochie, MB, BS, LMSSA, PhD; Tom Mecrow; Patrick Morgan; Quentin Otto, MB, BChir; Tina L. Palmieri, MD; Sam Parnia, MD, PhD; Rahul Pawar, MD; João Pereira, MD; Sarah Rudd; Andrea Scapigliati, MD; Andrew Schmidt, DO, MPH; Jeroen Seesink, MD; Justin R. Sempsrott, MD; David Szpilman, MD; David S. Warner, MD; Jonathon B. Webber, DProf, RN; Rebecca L West, MBChB

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the following individuals for their contributions: William Montgomery, MD, MS; John E. Billi, MD; Amber Hoover, RN, MSN; Eddy Lang, MDCM, CCFP(EM), CSPQ; Vinay M. Nadkarni, MD, MS; and Veronica Zamora.

Footnotes

Abbreviations and Acronyms

ACS
acute coronary syndromes
AED
automated external defibrillator
ALS
advanced life support
ARD
absolute risk difference
BLS
basic life support
BPD
bronchopulmonary dysplasia
CAG
coronary angiography
CED
carbohydrate-electrolyte drink
CoSTR
International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations
COVID-19
coronavirus disease 2019
CPC
Cerebral Performance Category
CPR
cardiopulmonary resuscitation
DA-CPR
dispatcher-assisted CPR
ECMO
extracorporeal membrane oxygenation
ECPR
extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation
EIT
education, implementation, and teams
EMS
emergency medical services
EvUp
evidence update
GRADE
Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation
ICU
intensive care unit
ILCOR
International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation
MD
mean difference
NIV
noninvasive ventilation
NLS
neonatal life support
OHCA
out-of-hospital cardiac arrest
OR
odds ratio
PCI
percutaneous coronary intervention
PEEP
positive end-expiratory pressure
PICO
population, intervention, comparator, outcome
PPE
personal protective equipment
PPV
positive-pressure ventilation
PROSPERO
International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews
RCT
randomized controlled trial
ROSC
return of spontaneous circulation
RR
risk ratio
ScopRev
scoping review
SysRev
systematic review
*
Unresponsive is defined as the patient either not obeying commands or actively receiving sedation.

Supplemental Material

File (2021costr-appendixa1_bls_etd.pdf)
File (2021costr-appendixa2_als-etd.pdf)
File (2021costr-appendixa3_nls_etd.pdf)
File (2021costr-appendixa4_eit_etd.pdf)
File (2021costr-appendixa5_fa_etd.pdf)
File (2021costr-appendixa6_covid_etd.pdf)
File (2021costr-appendixb1_bls-evups.pdf)
File (2021costr-appendixb2_als-evups.pdf)
File (2021costr-appendixb3_eit-evups.pdf)
File (2021costr-appendixb4_fa-evups.pdf)
File (2021costr-appendixc-supplement.pdf)

References

1.
Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Akl EA, Kunz R, Vist G, Brozek J, Norris S, Falck-Ytter Y, Glasziou P, DeBeer H, et al. GRADE guidelines, 1: introduction–GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:383–394. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.04.026
2.
Chung, S, Avis, S, Castren, M, Considine, J, Folke, F, Hung, K, Ikeyama, T, Kudenchuk, P, Lagina, A, Malta-Hansen, C, et al; International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation Basic Life Support Task Force. Video-based dispatch system: BLS Task Force systematic review. Accessed March 4, 2021. https://costr.ilcor.org/document/video-based-dispatch-system-bls-tf-systematic-review
3.
Lee SY, Song KJ, Shin SD, Hong KJ, Kim TH. Comparison of the effects of audio-instructed and video-instructed dispatcher-assisted cardiopulmonary resuscitation on resuscitation outcomes after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Resuscitation. 2020;147:12–20. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2019.12.004
4.
Atkinson PR, Bingham J, McNicholl BP, Loane MA, Wootton R. Telemedicine and cardiopulmonary resuscitation: the value of video-link and telephone instruction to a mock bystander. J Telemed Telecare. 1999;5:242–245. doi: 10.1258/1357633991933783
5.
Bang JY, Cho Y, Cho GC, Lee J, Kim IY. Can mobile videocall assist laypersons’ use of automated external defibrillators? A randomized simulation study and qualitative analysis. Biomed Res Int. 2020;2020:4069749. doi: 10.1155/2020/4069749
6.
Bolle SR, Scholl J, Gilbert M. Can video mobile phones improve CPR quality when used for dispatcher assistance during simulated cardiac arrest? Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2009;53:116–120. doi: 10.1111/j.1399-6576.2008.01779.x
7.
Dong X, Zhang L, Myklebust H, Birkenes TS, Zheng ZJ. Effect of a real-time feedback smartphone application (TCPRLink) on the quality of telephone-assisted CPR performed by trained laypeople in China: a manikin-based randomised controlled study. BMJ Open. 2020;10:e038813. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-038813
8.
Ecker H, Wingen S, Hamacher S, Lindacher F, Bottiger BW, Wetsch WA. Evaluation of CPR quality via smartphone with a video livestream: a study in a metropolitan area. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2021;25:76–81. doi: 10.1080/10903127.2020.1734122
9.
Hunt EA, Heine M, Shilkofski NS, Bradshaw JH, Nelson-McMillan K, Duval-Arnould J, Elfenbein R. Exploration of the impact of a voice activated decision support system (VADSS) with video on resuscitation performance by lay rescuers during simulated cardiopulmonary arrest. Emerg Med J. 2015;32:189–194. doi: 10.1136/emermed-2013-202867
10.
Lee JS, Jeon WC, Ahn JH, Cho YJ, Jung YS, Kim GW. The effect of a cellular-phone video demonstration to improve the quality of dispatcher-assisted chest compression-only cardiopulmonary resuscitation as compared with audio coaching. Resuscitation. 2011;82:64–68. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2010.09.467
11.
Márquez-Hernández VV, Gutiérrez-Puertas L, Garrido-Molina JM, García-Viola A, Granados-Gámez G, Aguilera-Manrique G. Using a mobile phone application versus telephone assistance during cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a randomized comparative study. J Emerg Nurs. 2020;46:460–467.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.jen.2020.03.015
12.
Perry O, Wacht O, Jaffe E, Sinuany-Stern Z, Bitan Y. Using a filming protocol to improve video-instructed cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Technol Health Care. 2020;28:213–220. doi: 10.3233/THC-192024
13.
Plata C, Stolz M, Warnecke T, Steinhauser S, Hinkelbein J, Wetsch WA, Böttiger BW, Spelten O. Using a smartphone application (PocketCPR) to determine CPR quality in a bystander CPR scenario: a manikin trial. Resuscitation. 2019;137:87–93. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2019.01.039
14.
Stipulante S, Delfosse AS, Donneau AF, Hartsein G, Haus S, D’Orio V, Ghuysen A. Interactive videoconferencing versus audio telephone calls for dispatcher-assisted cardiopulmonary resuscitation using the ALERT algorithm: a randomized trial. Eur J Emerg Med. 2016;23:418–424. doi: 10.1097/MEJ.0000000000000338
15.
Yang CW, Wang HC, Chiang WC, Chang WT, Yen ZS, Chen SY, Ko PC, Ma MH, Chen SC, Chang SC, et al. Impact of adding video communication to dispatch instructions on the quality of rescue breathing in simulated cardiac arrests: a randomized controlled study. Resuscitation. 2008;78:327–332. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2008.03.232
16.
Yang CW, Wang HC, Chiang WC, Hsu CW, Chang WT, Yen ZS, Ko PC, Ma MH, Chen SC, Chang SC. Interactive video instruction improves the quality of dispatcher-assisted chest compression-only cardiopulmonary resuscitation in simulated cardiac arrests. Crit Care Med. 2009;37:490–495. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e31819573a5
17.
Lin YY, Chiang WC, Hsieh MJ, Sun JT, Chang YC, Ma MH. Quality of audio-assisted versus video-assisted dispatcher-instructed bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Resuscitation. 2018;123:77–85. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2017.12.010
18.
Debaty G, Shin SD, Metzger A, Kim T, Ryu HH, Rees J, McKnite S, Matsuura T, Lick M, Yannopoulos D, et al. Tilting for perfusion: head-up position during cardiopulmonary resuscitation improves brain flow in a porcine model of cardiac arrest. Resuscitation. 2015;87:38–43. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2014.11.019
19.
Ryu HH, Moore JC, Yannopoulos D, Lick M, McKnite S, Shin SD, Kim TY, Metzger A, Rees J, Tsangaris A, et al. The effect of head up cardiopulmonary resuscitation on cerebral and systemic hemodynamics. Resuscitation. 2016;102:29–34. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2016.01.033
20.
Kim T, Shin SD, Song KJ, Park YJ, Ryu HH, Debaty G, Lurie K, Hong KJ. The effect of resuscitation position on cerebral and coronary perfusion pressure during mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation in porcine cardiac arrest model. Resuscitation. 2017;113:101–107. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2017.02.008
21.
Moore JC, Salverda B, Rojas-Salvador C, Lick M, Debaty G, Lurie KG. Controlled sequential elevation of the head and thorax combined with active compression decompression cardiopulmonary resuscitation and an impedance threshold device improves neurological survival in a porcine model of cardiac arrest. Resuscitation. 2021;158:220–227. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2020.09.030
22.
Rojas-Salvador C, Moore JC, Salverda B, Lick M, Debaty G, Lurie KG. Effect of controlled sequential elevation timing of the head and thorax during cardiopulmonary resuscitation on cerebral perfusion pressures in a porcine model of cardiac arrest. Resuscitation. 2020;149:162–169. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2019.12.011
23.
Park YJ, Hong KJ, Shin SD, Kim TY, Ro YS, Song KJ, Ryu HH. Worsened survival in the head-up tilt position cardiopulmonary resuscitation in a porcine cardiac arrest model. Clin Exp Emerg Med. 2019;6:250–256. doi: 10.15441/ceem.18.060
24.
Wigginton, J, Olasveengen, TM, O’Neil, B, Berg, K, Kudenchuck, P, Ristagno, G, Morley, PT; International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation Basic and Advanced Life Support Task Forces. Head-up CPR: BLS systematic review. Accessed March 4, 2021. https://costr.ilcor.org/document/head-up-cpr-bls-systematic-revies
25.
Pepe PE, Scheppke KA, Antevy PM, Crowe RP, Millstone D, Coyle C, Prusansky C, Garay S, Ellis R, Fowler RL, et al. Confirming the clinical safety and feasibility of a bundled methodology to improve cardiopulmonary resuscitation involving a head-up/torso-up chest compression technique. Crit Care Med. 2019;47:449–455. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000003608
27.
Bierens J, Abelairas-Gomez C, Barcala Furelos R, Beerman S, Claesson A, Dunne C, Elsenga HE, Morgan P, Mecrow T, Pereira JC, et al. Resuscitation and emergency care in drowning: a scoping review. Resuscitation. 2021;162:205–217. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2021.01.033
28.
Bierens, J, Barcala-Furelos, R, Beerman, S, Claesson, A, Dunne, C, Elsenga, H, Abelairas-Gomez, C, Morgan, P, Mecrow, T, Pereira, JCC, et al; International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation Basic Life Support Task Force. Bystander CPR in drowning (BLS #856): scoping review. Accessed March 4, 2021. https://costr.ilcor.org/document/bls-856-bystander-cpr-in-drowning-tf-scoping-review
29.
Al-Mofadda SM, Nassar A, Al-Turki A, Al-Sallounm AA. Pediatric near drowning: the experience of King Khalid University Hospital. Ann Saudi Med. 2001;21:300–303. doi: 10.5144/0256-4947.2001.300
30.
Claesson A, Svensson L, Silfverstolpe J, Herlitz J. Characteristics and outcome among patients suffering out-of-hospital cardiac arrest due to drowning. Resuscitation. 2008;76:381–387. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2007.09.003
31.
Ballesteros MA, Gutiérrez-Cuadra M, Muñoz P, Miñambres E. Prognostic factors and outcome after drowning in an adult population. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2009;53:935–940. doi: 10.1111/j.1399-6576.2009.02020.x
32.
Grmec S, Strnad M, Podgorsek D. Comparison of the characteristics and outcome among patients suffering from out-of-hospital primary cardiac arrest and drowning victims in cardiac arrest. Int J Emerg Med. 2009;2:7–12. doi: 10.1007/s12245-009-0084-0
33.
Youn CS, Choi SP, Yim HW, Park KN. Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest due to drowning: an Utstein style report of 10 years of experience from St. Mary’s Hospital. Resuscitation. 2009;80:778–783. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2009.04.007
34.
Venema AM, Groothoff JW, Bierens JJ. The role of bystanders during rescue and resuscitation of drowning victims. Resuscitation. 2010;81:434–439. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2010.01.005
35.
Claesson A, Lindqvist J, Ortenwall P, Herlitz J. Characteristics of lifesaving from drowning as reported by the Swedish Fire and Rescue Services 1996-2010. Resuscitation. 2012;83:1072–1077. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2012.05.025
36.
Nitta M, Kitamura T, Iwami T, Nadkarni VM, Berg RA, Topjian AA, Okamoto Y, Nishiyama C, Nishiuchi T, Hayashi Y, et al. Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest due to drowning among children and adults from the Utstein Osaka Project. Resuscitation. 2013;84:1568–1573. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2013.06.017
37.
Buick JE, Lin S, Rac VE, Brooks SC, Kierzek G, Morrison LJ. Drowning: an overlooked cause of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in Canada. CJEM. 2014;16:314–321. doi: 10.2310/8000.2013.131069
38.
Claesson A, Lindqvist J, Herlitz J. Cardiac arrest due to drowning: changes over time and factors of importance for survival. Resuscitation. 2014;85:644–648. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2014.02.006
39.
Vähätalo R, Lunetta P, Olkkola KT, Suominen PK. Drowning in children: Utstein style reporting and outcome. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2014;58:604–610. doi: 10.1111/aas.12298
40.
Joanknecht L, Argent AC, van Dijk M, van As AB. Childhood drowning in South Africa: local data should inform prevention strategies. Pediatr Surg Int. 2015;31:123–130. doi: 10.1007/s00383-014-3637-0
41.
Hubert H, Escutnaire J, Michelet P, Babykina E, El Khoury C, Tazarourte K, Vilhelm C, El Hiki L, Guinhouya B, Gueugniaud PY; GR-RéAC. Can we identify termination of resuscitation criteria in cardiac arrest due to drowning: results from the French national out-of-hospital cardiac arrest registry. J Eval Clin Pract. 2016;22:924–931. doi: 10.1111/jep.12562
42.
Al-Qurashi FO, Yousef AA, Aljoudi A, Alzahrani SM, Al-Jawder NY, Al-Ahmar AK, Al-Majed MS, Abouollo HM. A review of nonfatal drowning in the pediatric-age group: a 10-year experience at a university hospital in Saudi Arabia. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2019;35:782–786. doi: 10.1097/PEC.0000000000001232.
43.
Tobin JM, Ramos WD, Pu Y, Wernicki PG, Quan L, Rossano JW. Bystander CPR is associated with improved neurologically favourable survival in cardiac arrest following drowning. Resuscitation. 2017;115:39–43. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2017.04.004
44.
Cohen N, Scolnik D, Rimon A, Balla U, Glatstein M. Childhood drowning: review of patients presenting to the emergency departments of 2 large tertiary care pediatric hospitals near and distant from the sea coast. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2020;36:e258–e262. doi: 10.1097/PEC.0000000000001394
45.
Fukuda T, Ohashi-Fukuda N, Hayashida K, Kukita I. Association of bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation and neurological outcome after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest due to drowning in Japan, 2013–2016. Resuscitation. 2019;141:111–120. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2019.06.005
46.
Fukuda T, Ohashi-Fukuda N, Hayashida K, Kondo Y, Kukita I. Bystander-initiated conventional vs compression-only cardiopulmonary resuscitation and outcomes after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest due to drowning. Resuscitation. 2019;145:166–174. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2019.08.026
47.
Deleted in proof.
48.
Tobin JM, Ramos WD, Greenshields J, Dickinson S, Rossano JW, Wernicki PG, Markenson D, Vellano K, McNally B, CARES Surveillance Group. Outcome of conventional bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation in cardiac arrest following drowning. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2020;35:141–147. doi: 10.1017/S1049023X20000060
49.
Olasveengen TM, Mancini ME, Perkins GD, Avis S, Brooks S, Castrén M, Chung SP, Considine J, Couper K, Escalante R, et al; Adult Basic Life Support Collaborators. Adult basic life support: 2020 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations. Circulation. 2020;142(suppl 1):S41–S91. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000892
50.
2005 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations, part 2: adult basic life support. Resuscitation. 2005;67:187–201. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2005.09.016
51.
Bierens, J, Barcala-Furelos, R, Beerman, S, Claesson, A, Dunne, C, Elsenga, H, Abelairas-Gomez, C, Morgan, P, Mecrow, T, Pereira, JCC, et al; International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation Basic Life Support Task Force. In water resuscitation in drowning (BLS #856): scoping review. Accessed March 4, 2021. https://costr.ilcor.org/document/bls-856-in-water-resuscitation-in-drowning-tf-scoping-review
52.
Szpilman D, Soares M. In-water resuscitation: is it worthwhile? Resuscitation. 2004;63:25–31. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2004.03.017
53.
Perkins GD. In-water resuscitation: a pilot evaluation. Resuscitation. 2005;65:321–324. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2004.12.002
54.
Winkler BE, Eff AM, Ehrmann U, Eff S, Koch A, Kaehler W, Georgieff M, Muth CM. Effectiveness and safety of in-water resuscitation performed by lifeguards and laypersons: a crossover manikin study. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2013;17:409–415. doi: 10.3109/10903127.2013.792892
55.
Lungwitz YP, Nussbaum BL, Paulat K, Muth CM, Kranke P, Winkler BE. A novel rescue-tube device for in-water resuscitation. Aerosp Med Hum Perform. 2015;86:379–385. doi: 10.3357/AMHP.4133.2015
56.
Winkler BE, Eff AM, Eff S, Ehrmann U, Koch A, Kähler W, Muth CM. Efficacy of ventilation and ventilation adjuncts during in-water-resuscitation: a randomized cross-over trial. Resuscitation. 2013;84:1137–1142. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2013.02.006
57.
Bierens, J, Barcala-Furelos, R, Beerman, S, Claesson, A, Dunne, C, Elsenga, H, Abelairas-Gomez, C, Morgan, P, Mecrow, T, Pereira, JCC, et al; International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation Basic Life Support Task Force. Resuscitation on a boat following drowning (BLS #856): scoping review. Accessed March 4, 2021. https://costr.ilcor.org/document/bls-856-resuscitation-a-boat-following-drowning-tf-scoping-review
58.
Seesink J, Nieuwenburg SAV, van der Linden T, Bierens JJLM. Circumstances, outcome and quality of cardiopulmonary resuscitation by lifeboat crews. Resuscitation. 2019;142:104–110. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2019.07.012
59.
Kingdon D, Stapleton E, Stahl E. Successful resuscitation: novel partnership between paramedics and U.S. Coast Guard. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2016;20:432–438. doi: 10.3109/10903127.2015.1111478
60.
Fungueiriño-Suárez R, Barcala-Furelos R, González-Fermoso M, Martínez-Isasi S, Fernández-Méndez F, González-Salvado V, Navarro-Patón R, Rodríguez-Núñez A. Coastal fishermen as lifesavers while sailing at high speed: a crossover study. Biomed Res Int. 2018;2018:2747046. doi: 10.1155/2018/2747046
61.
Barcala-Furelos R, Abelairas-Gomez C, Palacios-Aguilar J, Rey E, Costas-Veiga J, Lopez-Garcia S, Rodriguez-Nunez A. Can surf-lifeguards perform a quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation sailing on a lifeboat? A quasi-experimental study. Emerg Med J. 2017;34:370–375. doi: 10.1136/emermed-2016-205952
62.
Tipton M, David G, Eglin C, Golden F. Basic life support on small boats at sea. Resuscitation. 2007;75:332–337. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2007.04.027
63.
de Vries W, Bierens JJ, Maas MW. Moderate sea states do not influence the application of an AED in rigid inflatable boats. Resuscitation. 2006;70:247–253. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2006.01.008
64.
Bierens, J, Barcala-Furelos, R, Beerman, S, Claesson, A, Dunne, C, Elsenga, H, Abelairas-Gomez, C, Morgan, P, Mecrow, T, Pereira, JCC, et al; International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation Basic Life Support Task Force. Airway management in drowning (BLS #856): scoping review. Accessed March 4, 2021. https://costr.ilcor.org/document/bls-856-airway-management-in-drowning-tf-scoping-review
65.
Garner AA, Barker CL, Weatherall AD. Retrospective evaluation of prehospital triage, presentation, interventions and outcome in paediatric drowning managed by a physician staffed helicopter emergency medical service. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2015;23:92. doi: 10.1186/s13049-015-0177-0
66.
Salas Ballestin A, de Carlos Vicente JC, Frontera Juan G, Sharluyan Petrosyan A, Reina Ferragut CM, Gonzalez Calvar A, Clavero Rubio MDC, Fernandez de la Ballina A. Prognostic factors of children admitted to a pediatric intensive care unit after an episode of drowning. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2021;37:e192–e195. doi: 10.1097/PEC.0000000000001554
67.
Kieboom JK, Verkade HJ, Burgerhof JG, Bierens JJ, Rheenen PF, Kneyber MC, Albers MJ. Outcome after resuscitation beyond 30 minutes in drowned children with cardiac arrest and hypothermia: Dutch nationwide retrospective cohort study. BMJ. 2015;350:h418. doi: 10.1136/bmj.h418
68.
Berg KM, Soar J, Andersen LW, Böttiger BW, Cacciola S, Callaway CW, Couper K, Cronberg T, D’Arrigo S, Deakin CD, et al; on behalf of the Adult Advanced Life Support Collaborators. Adult advanced life support: 2020 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations. Circulation. 2020;142(suppl 1):S92–S139. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000893
69.
Bierens, J, Barcala Furelos, R, Beerman, S, Claesson, A, Dunn, C, Elsenga, H, Gomez, CA, Morgan, P, Bierens, J, Barcala-Furelos, R, et al; International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation Basic Life Support Task Force. Pre-hospital oxygen in drowning (BLS #856): task force scoping review. Accessed March 4, 2021. https://costr.ilcor.org/document/bls-856-pre-hospital-oxygen-in-drowning-tf-scoping-review
70.
Cantu RM, Pruitt CM, Samuy N, Wu CL. Predictors of emergency department discharge following pediatric drowning. Am J Emerg Med. 2018;36:446–449. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2017.08.057
71.
Cohen N, Capua T, Lahat S, Glatstein M, Sadot E, Rimon A. Predictors for hospital admission of asymptomatic to moderately symptomatic children after drowning. Eur J Pediatr. 2019;178:1379–1384. doi: 10.1007/s00431-019-03429-1
72.
Gregorakos L, Markou N, Psalida V, Kanakaki M, Alexopoulou A, Sotiriou E, Damianos A, Myrianthefs P. Near-drowning: clinical course of lung injury in adults. Lung. 2009;187:93–97. doi: 10.1007/s00408-008-9132-4
73.
Jung CY, Cha SI, Jang SS, Lee SY, Lee JH, Son JW, Park JY, Jung TH, Kim CH. Clinical feature of submersion injury in adults [in Korean]. Tuberc Respir Dis (Seoul). 2003;55:287–296. doi: 10.4046/trd.2003.55.3.287
74.
Montenij LJ, de Vries W, Schwarte L, Bierens JJ. Feasibility of pulse oximetry in the initial prehospital management of victims of drowning: a preliminary study. Resuscitation. 2011;82:1235–1238. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2011.04.019
75.
Bierens, J, Barcala-Furelos, R, Beerman, S, Claesson, A, Dunne, C, Elsenga, H, Abelairas-Gomez, C, Morgan, P, Mecrow, T, Pereira, JCC, et al; International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation Basic Life Support Task Force. Automated external defibrillator use in drowning AED use (BLS #856): scoping review. Accessed March 4, 2021. https://costr.ilcor.org/document/bls-856-automated-external-defibrillator-use-in-drowning-aed-use-tf-scoping-review
76.
El-Assaad I, Al-Kindi SG, McNally B, Vellano K, Worley S, Tang AS, Aziz PF; CARES Surveillance Group. Automated external defibrillator application before EMS arrival in pediatric cardiac arrests. Pediatrics. 2018;142:e20171903. doi: 10.1542/peds.2017-1903
77.
Dyson K, Morgans A, Bray J, Matthews B, Smith K. Drowning related out-of-hospital cardiac arrests: characteristics and outcomes. Resuscitation. 2013;84:1114–1118. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2013.01.020
78.
Reynolds JC, Michiels EA, Nasiri M, Reeves MJ, Quan L. Observed long-term mortality after 18,000 person-years among survivors in a large regional drowning registry. Resuscitation. 2017;110:18–25. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2016.10.005
79.
Iserbyt P, Schouppe G, Charlier N. A multiple linear regression analysis of factors affecting the simulated basic life support (BLS) performance with automated external defibrillator (AED) in Flemish lifeguards. Resuscitation. 2015;89:70–74. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2015.01.010
80.
Bierens, J, Barcala-Furelos, R, Beerman, S, Claesson, A, Dunne, C, Elsenga, H, Abelairas-Gomez, C, Morgan, P, Mecrow, T, Pereira, JCC, et al; International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation Basic Life Support Task Force. Mechanical ventilation in drowning (BLS #856): task force scoping review. Accessed March 4, 2021. https://costr.ilcor.org/document/bls-856-mechanical-ventilation-in-drowning-tf-scoping-review
81.
Caglar A, Er A, Ozden O, Karaarslan U, Akgul F, Koroglu TF, Duman M. Efficacy of early noninvasive ventilation in three cases of nonfatal drowning with pulmonary oedema in the paediatric emergency department. Hong Kong J Emerg Med. 2016;23:42–46. doi: 10.1177/102490791602300206
82.
Onarheim H, Vik V. Porcine surfactant (Curosurf) for acute respiratory failure after near-drowning in 12 year old. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2004;48:778–781. doi: 10.1111/j.0001-5172.2004.00406.x
83.
Ruggeri P, Calcaterra S, Bottari A, Girbino G, Fodale V. Successful management of acute respiratory failure with noninvasive mechanical ventilation after drowning, in an epileptic-patient. Respir Med Case Rep. 2016;17:90–92. doi: 10.1016/j.rmcr.2016.02.004
84.
Michelet P, Bouzana F, Charmensat O, Tiger F, Durand-Gasselin J, Hraiech S, Jaber S, Dellamonica J, Ichai C. Acute respiratory failure after drowning: a retrospective multicenter survey. Eur J Emerg Med. 2017;24:295–300. doi: 10.1097/MEJ.0000000000000362
85.
Griffiths MJD, McAuley DF, Perkins GD, Barrett N, Blackwood B, Boyle A, Chee N, Connolly B, Dark P, Finney S, et al. Guidelines on the management of acute respiratory distress syndrome. BMJ Open Respir Res. 2019;6:e000420. doi: 10.1136/bmjresp-2019-000420
86.
Bierens, J, Barcala-Furelos, R, Beerman, S, Claesson, A, Dunne, C, Elsenga, H, Abelairas-Gomez, C, Morgan, P, Mecrow, T, Pereira, JCC, et al; International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation Basic Life Support Task Force. Criteria for discharge in drowning (BLS #856): scoping review. Accessed March 4, 2021. https://costr.ilcor.org/document/bls-856-criteria-for-discharge-in-drowning-tf-scoping-review
87.
Bauman BD, Louiselle A, Nygaard RM, Vakayil V, Acton R, Hess D, Saltzman D, Kreykes N, Fischer G, Louie J, et al. Treatment of hypothermic cardiac arrest in the pediatric drowning victim, a case report, and systematic review [published online January 29, 2019]. Pediatr Emerg Care. doi: 10.1097/PEC.0000000000001735. https://journals.lww.com/pec-online/Abstract/9000/Treatment_of_Hypothermic_Cardiac_Arrest_in_the.98239.aspx
88.
Burke CR, Chan T, Brogan TV, Lequier L, Thiagarajan RR, Rycus PT, McMullan DM. Extracorporeal life support for victims of drowning. Resuscitation. 2016;104:19–23. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2016.04.005
89.
Champigneulle B, Bellenfant-Zegdi F, Follin ALebard C, Guinvarch A, Thomas F, Pirracchio R, Journois D. Extracorporeal life support (ECLS) for refractory cardiac arrest after drowning: an 11-year experience. Resuscitation. 2015;88:126–131. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2014.11.023
90.
Coskun KO, Popov AF, Schmitto JD, Hinz J, Kriebel T, Schoendube FA, Ruschewski W, Tirilomis T. Extracorporeal circulation for rewarming in drowning and near-drowning pediatric patients. Artif Organs. 2010;34:1026–1030. doi: 10.1111/j.1525-1594.2010.01156.x
91.
Dunne B, Christou E, Duff O, Merry C. Extracorporeal-assisted rewarming in the management of accidental deep hypothermic cardiac arrest: a systematic review of the literature. Heart Lung Circ. 2014;23:1029–1035. doi: 10.1016/j.hlc.2014.06.011
92.
Eich C, Bräuer A, Timmermann A, Schwarz SK, Russo SG, Neubert K, Graf BM, Aleksic I. Outcome of 12 drowned children with attempted resuscitation on cardiopulmonary bypass: an analysis of variables based on the “Utstein style for drowning.” Resuscitation. 2007;75:42–52. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2007.03.013
93.
Hilmo J, Naesheim T, Gilbert M. “Nobody is dead until warm and dead”: prolonged resuscitation is warranted in arrested hypothermic victims also in remote areas: a retrospective study from northern Norway. Resuscitation. 2014;85:1204–1211. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2014.04.029
94.
Kim KI, Lee WY, Kim HS, Jeong JH, Ko HH. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in near-drowning patients with cardiac or pulmonary failure. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2014;22:77. doi: 10.1186/s13049-014-0077-8
95.
Ruttmann E, Weissenbacher A, Ulmer H, Müller L, Höfer D, Kilo J, Rabl W, Schwarz B, Laufer G, Antretter H, et al. Prolonged extracorporeal membrane oxygenation-assisted support provides improved survival in hypothermic patients with cardiocirculatory arrest. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2007;134:594–600. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2007.03.049
96.
Skarda D, Barnhart D, Scaife E, Molitor M, Meyers R, Rollins M. Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (EC-CPR) for hypothermic arrest in children: is meaningful survival a reasonable expectation? J Pediatr Surg. 2012;47:2239–2243. doi: 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2012.09.014
97.
Svendsen ØS, Grong K, Andersen KS, Husby P. Outcome after rewarming from accidental hypothermia by use of extracorporeal circulation. Ann Thorac Surg. 2017;103:920–925. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2016.06.093
98.
Wanscher M, Agersnap L, Ravn J, Yndgaard S, Nielsen JF, Danielsen ER, Hassager C, Romner B, Thomsen C, Barnung S, et al. Outcome of accidental hypothermia with or without circulatory arrest: experience from the Danish Præstø Fjord boating accident. Resuscitation. 2012;83:1078–1084. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2012.05.009
99.
Weuster M, Haneya A, Panholzer B, Klüter T, van der Brelie M, van Laak U, Cremer J, Haake N. The use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation systems in severe accidental hypothermia after drowning: a centre experience. ASAIO J. 2016;62:157–162. doi: 10.1097/MAT.0000000000000312
100.
Causey AL, Tilelli JA, Swanson ME. Predicting discharge in uncomplicated near-drowning. Am J Emerg Med. 2000;18:9–11. doi: 10.1016/s0735-6757(00)90039-1
101.
Brennan CE, Hong TKF, Wang VJ. Predictors of safe discharge for pediatric drowning patients in the emergency department. Am J Emerg Med. 2018;36:1619–1623. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2018.01.050
102.
Shenoi RP, Allahabadi S, Rubalcava DM, Camp EA. The Pediatric Submersion Score predicts children at low risk for injury following submersions. Acad Emerg Med. 2017;24:1491–1500. doi: 10.1111/acem.13278
103.
Nikolaou NI, Welsford M, Beygui F, Bossaert L, Ghaemmaghami C, Nonogi H, O’Connor RE, Pichel DR, Scott T, Walters DL, et al; Acute Coronary Syndrome Chapter Collaborators. Part 5: acute coronary syndromes: 2015 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations. Resuscitation. 2015;95:e121–e146. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2015.07.043
104.
Welsford M, Nikolaou NI, Beygui F, Bossaert L, Ghaemmaghami C, Nonogi H, O’Connor RE, Pichel DR, Scott T, Walters DL, et al; Acute Coronary Syndrome Chapter Collaborators. Part 5: acute coronary syndromes: 2015 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations. Circulation. 2015;132(suppl 1):S146–S176. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000274
105.
Drennan, IR, Nikolaou, N, Netherton, S, Welsford, M, Nation, K, Belley-Cote, E, Torabi, N, Morrison, LJ; International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation Advanced Life Support Task Force. Early coronary angiography post-ROSC: International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation. 2021. Accessed March 10, 2021. https://costr.ilcor.org/document/early-coronary-angiography-post-rosc-als-costr-systematic-review
106.
Kern KB, Radsel P, Jentzer JC, Seder DB, Lee KS, Lotun K, Janardhanan R, Stub D, Hsu CH, Noc M. Randomized pilot clinical trial of early coronary angiography versus no early coronary angiography after cardiac arrest without ST-segment elevation: the PEARL study. Circulation. 2020;142:2002–2012. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.049569
107.
Elfwén L, Lagedal R, Nordberg P, James S, Oldgren J, Böhm F, Lundgren P, Rylander C, van der Linden J, Hollenberg J, et al. Direct or Subacute Coronary Angiography in Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest (DISCO): an initial pilot-study of a randomized clinical trial. Resuscitation. 2019;139:253–261. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2019.04.027
108.
Lemkes JS, Janssens GN, van der Hoeven NW, Jewbali LSD, Dubois EA, Meuwissen M, Rijpstra TA, Bosker HA, Blans MJ, Bleeker GB, et al. Coronary angiography after cardiac arrest without ST-segment elevation. N Engl J Med. 2019;380:1397–1407. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1816897
109.
Vyas A, Chan PS, Cram P, Nallamothu BK, McNally B, Girotra S. Early coronary angiography and survival after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2015;8:e002321. doi: 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.114.002321
110.
Garcia S, Drexel T, Bekwelem W, Raveendran G, Caldwell E, Hodgson L, Wang Q, Adabag S, Mahoney B, Frascone R, et al. Early access to the cardiac catheterization laboratory for patients resuscitated from cardiac arrest due to a shockable rhythm: the Minnesota Resuscitation Consortium Twin Cities Unified Protocol. J Am Heart Assoc. 2016;5:e002670. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.115.002670
111.
Geri G, Dumas F, Bougouin W, Varenne O, Daviaud F, Pène F, Lamhaut L, Chiche JD, Spaulding C, Mira JP, et al. Immediate percutaneous coronary intervention is associated with improved short- and long-term survival after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2015;8:e002303. doi: 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.114.002303
112.
Callaway CW, Schmicker RH, Brown SP, Albrich JM, Andrusiek DL, Aufderheide TP, Christenson J, Daya MR, Falconer D, Husa RD, et al; ROC Investigators. Early coronary angiography and induced hypothermia are associated with survival and functional recovery after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Resuscitation. 2014;85:657–663. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2013.12.028
113.
Tømte O, Andersen GØ, Jacobsen D, Drægni T, Auestad B, Sunde K. Strong and weak aspects of an established post-resuscitation treatment protocol: a five-year observational study. Resuscitation. 2011;82:1186–1193. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2011.05.003
114.
Dankiewicz J, Nielsen N, Annborn M, Cronberg T, Erlinge D, Gasche Y, Hassager C, Kjaergaard J, Pellis T, Friberg H. Survival in patients without acute ST elevation after cardiac arrest and association with early coronary angiography: a post hoc analysis from the TTM trial. Intensive Care Med. 2015;41:856–864. doi: 10.1007/s00134-015-3735-z
115.
Bro-Jeppesen J, Kjaergaard J, Wanscher M, Pedersen F, Holmvang L, Lippert FK, Møller JE, Køber L, Hassager C. Emergency coronary angiography in comatose cardiac arrest patients: do real-life experiences support the guidelines? Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care. 2012;1:291–301. doi: 10.1177/2048872612465588
116.
Jentzer JC, Scutella M, Pike F, Fitzgibbon J, Krehel NM, Kowalski L, Callaway CW, Rittenberger JC, Reynolds JC, Barsness GW, et al. Early coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention are associated with improved outcomes after out of hospital cardiac arrest. Resuscitation. 2018;123:15–21. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2017.12.004
117.
Guérin C, Reignier J, Richard JC. Prone positioning in the acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2013;369:980–981. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc1308895
118.
Berg, K, Hsu, CH, Considine, J, Pawar, R, Cellini, J, Schexnayder, S, Soar, J, Olasveengen, T; International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation Advanced Life Support, Basic Life Support, and Pediatric Life Support Task Forces. Cardiopulmonary resuscitation and defibrillation for cardiac arrest when patients are in the prone position: International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation. Accessed March 10, 2021. https://costr.ilcor.org/document/prone-cpr-als-systematic-review
119.
Al Harbi MK, Alattas KA, Alnajar M, Albuthi MF. Prone cardiopulmonary resuscitation in elderly undergoing posterior spinal fusion with laminectomy. Saudi J Anaesth. 2020;14:123–126. doi: 10.4103/sja.SJA_165_19
120.
Brown J, Rogers J, Soar J. Cardiac arrest during surgery and ventilation in the prone position: a case report and systematic review. Resuscitation. 2001;50:233–238. doi: 10.1016/s0300-9572(01)00362-8
121.
Bustillo MA, Lien CA, Mack PF, Kopman DJ, Safavynia SA, Rubin L, Stein D, Hartl R, Stieg PE, Hernandez RN, et al. Optimizing patient access during an emergency while using intraoperative computed tomography. World Neurosurg. 2019;121:274–278.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2018.09.134
122.
Dequin PF, Hazouard E, Legras A, Lanotte R, Perrotin D. Cardiopulmonary resuscitation in the prone position: Kouwenhoven revisited. Intensive Care Med. 1996;22:1272. doi: 10.1007/BF01709349
123.
Dooney N. Prone CPR for transient asystole during lumbosacral spinal surgery. Anaesth Intensive Care. 2010;38:212–213.
124.
Gomes DDS, Bersot CDA. Cardiopulmonary resuscitation in the prone position. Open J Anesthesiol. 2012;2:199–201.
125.
Haffner E, Sostarich AM, Fösel T. Successful cardiopulmonary resuscitation in prone position [in German]. Anaesthesist. 2010;59:1099–1101. doi: 10.1007/s00101-010-1785-8
126.
Loewenthal A, De Albuquerque AM, Lehmann-Meurice C, Otteni JC. Efficacy of external cardiac massage in a patient in the prone position [in French]. Ann Fr Anesth Reanim. 1993;12:587–589. doi: 10.1016/s0750-7658(05)80627-6
127.
Mishra N, Singh S, Elayat A, Kaushal A. Cardiac arrest in the prone position caused by central venous cannulation-induced cardiac tamponade. Korean J Anesthesiol. 2019;72:394–395. doi: 10.4097/kja.19105
128.
Miranda CC, Newton MC. Successful defibrillation in the prone position. Br J Anaesth. 2001;87:937–938. doi: 10.1093/bja/87.6.937
129.
Sun WZ, Huang FY, Kung KL, Fan SZ, Chen TL. Successful cardiopulmonary resuscitation of two patients in the prone position using reversed precordial compression. Anesthesiology. 1992;77:202–204. doi: 10.1097/00000542-199207000-00027
130.
Taylor JCL, Buchanan CCR, Rumball MJ. Cardiac arrest during craniotomy in prone position. Trends Anaesth Crit Care. 2013;3:224–226.
131.
Albin MS, Ritter RR, Pruett CE, Kalff K. Venous air embolism during lumbar laminectomy in the prone position: report of three cases. Anesth Analg. 1991;73:346–349. doi: 10.1213/00000539-199109000-00021
132.
Chen HL, Wong CS, Ho ST, Chang FL, Hsu CH, Wu CT. A lethal pulmonary embolism during percutaneous vertebroplasty. Anesth Analg. 2002;95:1060–1062, table of contents. doi: 10.1097/00000539-200210000-00049
133.
Dumont TM, Stockwell DW, Horgan MA. Venous air embolism: an unusual complication of atlantoaxial arthrodesis: case report. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010;35:E1238–E1240. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181f62600
134.
Ewah B, Calder I. Intraoperative death during lumbar discectomy. Br J Anaesth. 1991;66:721–723. doi: 10.1093/bja/66.6.721
135.
Miyakoshi N, Hongo M, Kasukawa Y, Ishikawa Y, Kudo D, Shimada Y. Intraoperative visible air bubbling recorded as a sign of massive venous air embolism during prone position surgery for extensive ossification of spinal ligaments: a case report with a video clip. World Neurosurg. 2019;131:38–42. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2019.07.166
136.
Pan Y, Qiu B, Yu F, Hu B. Fatal air embolism during endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography (ERCP): a case report. J Med Coll PLA. 2012;27:239–243.
137.
Pinheiro LC, Carmona BM, de Nazareth Chaves Fascio M, de Souza IS, de Azevedo RAA, Barbosa FT. Cardiac arrest after epidural anesthesia for a esthetic plastic surgery: a case report [in Portuguese]. Rev Bras Anestesiol. 2017;67:544–547. doi: 10.1016/j.bjan.2015.03.006
138.
Burki A, Mahboob S, Fatima T. CPR in prone position during neurosurgery. Anaesth Pain Intensive Care. 2017;21:275–278.
139.
Gueugniaud PY, Muchada R, Bertin-Maghit M, Griffith N, Petit P. Non-invasive continuous haemodynamic and PETCO2 monitoring during peroperative cardiac arrest. Can J Anaesth. 1995;42:910–913. doi: 10.1007/BF03011039
140.
Kaloria N, Bhagat H, Singla N. Venous air embolism during removal of bony spur in a child of split cord malformation. J Neurosci Rural Pract. 2017;8:483–484. doi: 10.4103/jnrp.jnrp_508_16
141.
Kelleher A, Mackersie A. Cardiac arrest and resuscitation of a 6-month old achondroplastic baby undergoing neurosurgery in the prone position. Anaesthesia. 1995;50:348–350. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.1995.tb04615.x
142.
Lee-Archer PF, Chaseling B. Air embolism during posterior spinal fusion in a 10-year-old girl: a case report. A A Case Rep. 2017;8:307–309. doi: 10.1213/XAA.0000000000000498
143.
Mayorga-Buiza MJ, Rivero-Garvia M, Gomez-Gonzalez E, Marquez-Rivas J. Cardiac pulmonary resuscitation in prone position: the best option for posterior fossa neurosurgical patients. Paediatr Anaesth. 2018;28:746–747. doi: 10.1111/pan.13448
144.
Reid JM, Appleton PJ. A case of ventricular fibrillation in the prone position during back stabilisation surgery in a boy with Duchenne’s muscular dystrophy. Anaesthesia. 1999;54:364–367. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2044.1999.00835.x
145.
Sutherland RW, Winter RJ. Two cases of fatal air embolism in children undergoing scoliosis surgery. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 1997;41:1073–1076. doi: 10.1111/j.1399-6576.1997.tb04839.x
146.
Tobias JD, Mencio GA, Atwood R, Gurwitz GS. Intraoperative cardiopulmonary resuscitation in the prone position. J Pediatr Surg. 1994;29:1537–1538. doi: 10.1016/0022-3468(94)90208-9
147.
Smelt WL. Cardiac arrest during desflurane anaesthesia in a patient with Duchenne’s muscular dystrophy. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2005;49:267–269. doi: 10.1111/j.1399-6576.2004.00596.x
148.
Tofil NM, Dollar J, Zinkan L, Youngblood AQ, Peterson DT, White ML, Stooksberry TN, Jarrell SA, King C. Performance of anesthesia residents during a simulated prone ventricular fibrillation arrest in an anesthetized pediatric patient. Paediatr Anaesth. 2014;24:940–944. doi: 10.1111/pan.12406
149.
Mazer SP, Weisfeldt M, Bai D, Cardinale C, Arora R, Ma C, Sciacca RR, Chong D, Rabbani LE. Reverse CPR: a pilot study of CPR in the prone position. Resuscitation. 2003;57:279–285. doi: 10.1016/s0300-9572(03)00037-6
150.
Wei J, Tung D, Sue SH, Wu SV, Chuang YC, Chang CY. Cardiopulmonary resuscitation in prone position: a simplified method for outpatients. J Chin Med Assoc. 2006;69:202–206. doi: 10.1016/S1726-4901(09)70219-9
151.
West, RL, Otto, Q, Drennan, IR, Rudd, S, Parnia, S, Böttiger, BW, Soar, J; International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation Advanced Life Support Task Force. CPR-related cognitive activity, consciousness, awareness and recall and its management: scoping review. Accessed March 19, 2021. https://costr.ilcor.org/document/consciousness-during-cpr-als-tf-scoping-review.
152.
Gamper G, Willeit M, Sterz F, Herkner H, Zoufaly A, Hornik K, Havel C, Laggner AN. Life after death: posttraumatic stress disorder in survivors of cardiac arrest–prevalence, associated factors, and the influence of sedation and analgesia. Crit Care Med. 2004;32:378–383. doi: 10.1097/01.CCM.0000108880.97967.C0
153.
Parnia S, Spearpoint K, de Vos G, Fenwick P, Goldberg D, Yang J, Zhu J, Baker K, Killingback H, McLean P, et al. AWARE: AWAreness during REsuscitation: a prospective study. Resuscitation. 2014;85:1799–1805. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2014.09.004
154.
Olaussen A, Shepherd M, Nehme Z, Smith K, Jennings PA, Bernard S, Mitra B. CPR-induced consciousness: a cross-sectional study of healthcare practitioners’ experience. Australas Emerg Nurs J. 2016;19:186–190. doi: 10.1016/j.aenj.2016.07.002
155.
Olaussen A, Nehme Z, Shepherd M, Jennings PA, Bernard S, Mitra B, Smith K. Consciousness induced during cardiopulmonary resuscitation: An observational study. Resuscitation. 2017;113:44–50. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2017.01.018
156.
Doan TN, Adams L, Schultz BV, Bunting D, Parker L, Rashford S, Bosley E. Insights into the epidemiology of cardiopulmonary resuscitation-induced consciousness in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Emerg Med Australas. 2020;32:769–776. doi: 10.1111/1742-6723.13505
157.
Bernier GM. Maintenance of consciousness during closed-chest massage. JAMA. 1962;181:446–447. doi: 10.1001/jama.1962.03050310086018c
158.
Miller JB, Davie RD, Douglas DM. The efficiency of cardiac massage in ventricular fibrillation: description of an instance of recovery of consciousness without spontaneous heart beat. Br J Anaesth. 1961;33:22–23. doi: 10.1093/bja/33.1.22
159.
Lewinter JR, Carden DL, Nowak RM, Enriquez E, Martin GB. CPR-dependent consciousness: evidence for cardiac compression causing forward flow. Ann Emerg Med. 1989;18:1111–1115. doi: 10.1016/s0196-0644(89)80942-4
160.
Quinn JV, Hebert PC, Stiell IG. Need for sedation in a patient undergoing active compression-decompression cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Acad Emerg Med. 1994;1:463–466, discussion 466-467. doi: 10.1111/j.1553-2712.1994.tb02529.x
161.
McDonald G. Code blue stories. Hosp Physician. 2005;41:12.
162.
Yu HY, Yeh HL, Wang SS, Tsai MK, Chen YS, Ko WJ, Lin FY. Ultra long cardiopulmonary resuscitation with intact cerebral performance for an asystolic patient with acute myocarditis. Resuscitation. 2007;73:307–308. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2006.08.012
163.
Bihari S, Rajajee V. Prolonged retention of awareness during cardiopulmonary resuscitation for asystolic cardiac arrest. Neurocrit Care. 2008;9:382–386. doi: 10.1007/s12028-008-9099-2
164.
Tobin JM, Mihm FG. A hemodynamic profile for consciousness during cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Anesth Analg. 2009;109:1598–1599. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0b013e3181b89432
165.
Ulrichs CJ, Böttiger BW, Padosch SA. Total recall: is it ethical not to sedate people during successful resuscitation? Resuscitation. 2014;85:e49. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2013.12.026
166.
Fauber, J. New CPR devices save lives, medical college study finds. January 18, 2011. Accessed March 10, 2021. https://archive.jsonline.com/news/health/114171424.html/
167.
Greb C, Heightman AJ. Mechanical CPR helps save the day–and the patient. JEMS: J Emerg Med Serv. January 29, 2014. Accessed January 5, 2021. https://www.jems.com/patient-care/mechanical-cpr-helps-save-day-and-patien/
168.
Gwinnutt C. Awareness during resuscitation. Resuscitation. 2015;97:e17. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2014.12.036
169.
Hoppenfeld MS, Kotov A, Ortega R. Ventricular fibrillation and consciousness are not mutually exclusive. Resuscitation. 2016;100:e1–e2. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2015.11.025
170.
Oksar M, Turhanoglu S. Is it possible to maintain consciousness and spontaneous ventilation with chest compression in the early phase of cardiac arrest? Case Rep Anesthesiol. 2016;2016:3158015. doi: 10.1155/2016/3158015
171.
Pound J, Verbeek PR, Cheskes S. CPR induced consciousness during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a case report on an emerging phenomenon. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2017;21:252–256. doi: 10.1080/10903127.2016.1229823
172.
Rice DT, Nudell NG, Habrat DA, Smith JE, Ernest EV. CPR induced consciousness: it’s time for sedation protocols for this growing population. Resuscitation. 2016;103:e15–e16. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2016.02.013
173.
Grandi T, De Carlo S, Carosi V, Visentin A, Fanton N, Baldo D, and Paganini M. Six cases of CPR-induced consciousness in witnessed cardiac arrest. Italian J Emerg Med. Accessed March 1, 2021. https://www.itjem.org/2017/03/01/six-cases-of-cpr-induced-consciousness-in-witnessed-cardiac-arrest/
174.
Gray R. Consciousness with cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Can Fam Physician. 2018;64:514–517.
175.
Wacht O, Huri R, Strugo R. Case study: combative cardiac patient: what do you do when a patient regains consciousness during mechanical CPR? EMS World. 2015;44:29–33.
176.
Pinto J, Almeida P, Ribeiro F, Simões R. cardiopulmonary resuscitation induced consciousness: a case report in an elderly patient. Eur J Case Rep Intern Med. 2020;7:001409. doi: 10.12890/2020_001409
177.
Sukumar V. Having a conscious patient during cardiopulmonary resuscitation: is it not time to consider sedation protocol? A case report. A A Pract. 2019;13:250–252. doi: 10.1213/XAA.0000000000001037
178.
Asghar A, Salim B, Tahir S, Islam F, Khan MF. Awareness during cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Indian J Crit Care Med. 2020;24:136–137. doi: 10.5005/jp-journals-10071-23345
179.
Chin KC, Yang SC, Chiang WC. Video of cardiopulmonary resuscitation induced consciousness during ventricular fibrillation. Resuscitation. 2020;155:22–23. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2020.07.006
180.
Lapostolle F, Petrovic T, Alhéritière A, Agostinucci JM, Adnet F. Life signs in “dead” patients. Resuscitation. 2012;83:e164. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2012.01.045
181.
Bhatt S, Alison BJ, Wallace EM, Crossley KJ, Gill AW, Kluckow M, te Pas AB, Morley CJ, Polglase GR, Hooper SB. Delaying cord clamping until ventilation onset improves cardiovascular function at birth in preterm lambs. J Physiol. 2013;591:2113–2126. doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.2012.250084
182.
Hooper SB, Polglase GR, te Pas AB. A physiological approach to the timing of umbilical cord clamping at birth. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2015;100:F355–F360. doi: 10.1136/archdischild-2013-305703
183.
Perlman JM, Wyllie J, Kattwinkel J, Wyckoff MH, Aziz K, Guinsburg R, Kim HS, Liley HG, Mildenhall L, Simon WM, et al; on behalf of the Neonatal Resuscitation Chapter Collaborators. Part 7: neonatal resuscitation: 2015 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations. Circulation. 2015;132(suppl 1):S204–S241. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000276
184.
Deleted in proof.
185.
Wyllie J, Perlman JM, Kattwinkel J, Wyckoff MH, Aziz K, Guinsburg R, Kim HS, Liley HG, Mildenhall L, Simon WM, et al; Neonatal Resuscitation Chapter Collaborators. Part 7: neonatal resuscitation: 2015 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations. Resuscitation. 2015;95:e169–e201. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2015.07.045
186.
Seidler AL, Gyte GML, Rabe H, Díaz-Rossello JL, Duley L, Aziz K, Testoni Costa-Nobre D, Davis PG, Schmölzer GM, Ovelman C, et al; International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation Neonatal Life Support Task Force. Umbilical cord management for newborns <34 weeks’ gestation: a meta-analysis. Pediatrics. 2021;147:e20200576. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-0576
187.
Costa-Nobre, DT, Davis, PG, Soll, R, Niermeyer, S, El-Naggar, W, de Almeida, MF, Fabres, JG, Fawke, J, Foglia, EE, Guinsburg, R, et al. Preterm umbilical cord management. 2021. Accessed March 19, 2021. https://costr.ilcor.org/document/cord-management-at-birth-for-preterm-infants-nls-787-systematic-review
188.
Aladangady N, McHugh S, Aitchison TC, Wardrop CA, Holland BM. Infants’ blood volume in a controlled trial of placental transfusion at preterm delivery. Pediatrics. 2006;117:93–98. doi: 10.1542/peds.2004-1773
189.
Armanian AM, Tehrani H, Ansari M, Ghaemi S. Is “delayed umbilical cord clamping” beneficial for premature newborns? Int J Pediatr. 2017;5:4909–4918. doi: 10.22038/ijp.2016.7909
190.
Backes CH, Huang H, Iams JD, Bauer JA, Giannone PJ. Timing of umbilical cord clamping among infants born at 22 through 27 weeks’ gestation. J Perinatol. 2016;36:35–40. doi: 10.1038/jp.2015.117
191.
Baenziger O, Stolkin F, Keel M, von Siebenthal K, Fauchere JC, Das Kundu S, Dietz V, Bucher HU, Wolf M. The influence of the timing of cord clamping on postnatal cerebral oxygenation in preterm neonates: a randomized, controlled trial. Pediatrics. 2007;119:455–459. doi: 10.1542/peds.2006-2725
192.
Das S, Sarkar N, Bhattacharya M, Basu S, Sanyal D, Chatterjee A, Aich B, Chatterjee K. Neurological outcome at 30 months of age after mild hypothermia via selective head cooling in term neonates with perinatal asphyxia using low-cost coolcap: a single-center randomized control pilot trial in India. J Pediatr Neurol. 2017;15:157–165. doi: 10.1055/s-0037-1603681
193.
Dipak NK, Nanavat RN, Kabra NK, Srinivasan A, Ananthan A. Effect of delayed cord clamping on hematocrit, and thermal and hemodynamic stability in preterm neonates: a randomized controlled trial. Indian Pediatr. 2017;54:112–115. doi: 10.1007/s13312-017-1011-8
194.
Dong XY, Sun XF, Li MM, Yu ZB, Han SP. Influence of delayed cord clamping on preterm infants with a gestational age of <32 weeks [in Chinese]. Zhongguo Dang Dai Er Ke Za Zhi. 2016;18:635–638.
195.
Duley L, Dorling J, Pushpa-Rajah A, Oddie SJ, Yoxall CW, Schoonakker B, Bradshaw L, Mitchell EJ, Fawke JA; Cord Pilot Trial Collaborative Group. Randomised trial of cord clamping and initial stabilisation at very preterm birth. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2018;103:F6–F14. doi: 10.1136/archdischild-2016-312567
196.
Finn D, Ryan DH, Pavel A, O’Toole JM, Livingstone V, Boylan GB, Kenny LC, Dempsey EM. Clamping the Umbilical Cord in Premature Deliveries (CUPiD): neuromonitoring in the immediate newborn period in a randomized, controlled trial of preterm infants born at <32 weeks of gestation. J Pediatr. 2019;208:121–126.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2018.12.039
197.
Gokmen Z, Ozkiraz S, Tarcan A, Kozanoglu I, Ozcimen EE, Ozbek N. Effects of delayed umbilical cord clamping on peripheral blood hematopoietic stem cells in premature neonates. J Perinat Med. 2011;39:323–329. doi: 10.1515/jpm.2011.021
198.
Hofmeyr GJ, Bolton KD, Bowen DC, Govan JJ. Periventricular/intraventricular haemorrhage and umbilical cord clampings: findings and hypothesis. S Afr Med J. 1988;73:104–106.
199.
Hofmeyr GJ, Gobetz L, Bex PJ, Van der Griendt M, Nikodem C, Skapinker R, Delahunt T. Periventricular/intraventricular hemorrhage following early and delayed umbilical cord clamping: a randomized controlled trial. Online J Curr Clin Trials. 1993:110.
200.
Kazemi M, Akbarianrad Z, Zahedpasha Y, Mehraein R, Mojaveri M. Effects of delayed cord clamping on intraventricular hemorrhage in preterm infants. Iranian J Pediatr. 2017;27:e6570. doi: 10.5812/ijp.6570
201.
Kinmond S, Aitchison TC, Holland BM, Jones JG, Turner TL, Wardrop CA. Umbilical cord clamping and preterm infants: a randomised trial. BMJ. 1993;306:172–175. doi: 10.1136/bmj.306.6871.172
202.
Kugelman A, Borenstein-Levin L, Riskin A, Chistyakov I, Ohel G, Gonen R, Bader D. Immediate versus delayed umbilical cord clamping in premature neonates born < 35 weeks: a prospective, randomized, controlled study. Am J Perinatol. 2007;24:307–315. doi: 10.1055/s-2007-981434
203.
Mercer JS, McGrath MM, Hensman A, Silver H, Oh W. Immediate and delayed cord clamping in infants born between 24 and 32 weeks: a pilot randomized controlled trial. J Perinatol. 2003;23:466–472. doi: 10.1038/sj.jp.7210970
204.
Mercer JS, Vohr BR, McGrath MM, Padbury JF, Wallach M, Oh W. Delayed cord clamping in very preterm infants reduces the incidence of intraventricular hemorrhage and late-onset sepsis: a randomized, controlled trial. Pediatrics. 2006;117:1235–1242. doi: 10.1542/peds.2005-1706
205.
McDonnell M, Henderson-Smart DJ. Delayed umbilical cord clamping in preterm infants: a feasibility study. J Paediatr Child Health. 1997;33:308–310. doi: 10.1111/j.1440-1754.1997.tb01606.x
206.
Oh W, Fanaroff AA, Carlo WA, Donovan EF, McDonald SA, Poole WK; Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Neonatal Research Network. Effects of delayed cord clamping in very-low-birth-weight infants. J Perinatol. 2011;31(suppl 1):S68–S71. doi: 10.1038/jp.2010.186
207.
Rana A, Agarwal K, Ramji S, Gandhi G, Sahu L. Safety of delayed umbilical cord clamping in preterm neonates of less than 34 weeks of gestation: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol Sci. 2018;61:655–661. doi: 10.5468/ogs.2018.61.6.655
208.
Rabe H, Wacker A, Hülskamp G, Hörnig-Franz I, Schulze-Everding A, Harms E, Cirkel U, Louwen F, Witteler R, Schneider HP. A randomised controlled trial of delayed cord clamping in very low birth weight preterm infants. Eur J Pediatr. 2000;159:775–777. doi: 10.1007/pl00008345
209.
Ruangkit C, Bumrungphuet S, Panburana P, Khositseth A, Nuntnarumit P. A randomized controlled trial of immediate versus delayed umbilical cord clamping in multiple-birth infants born preterm. Neonatology. 2019;115:156–163. doi: 10.1159/000494132
210.
Tarnow-Mordi W, Morris J, Kirby A, Robledo K, Askie L, Brown R, Evans N, Finlayson S, Fogarty M, Gebski V, et al; Australian Placental Transfusion Study Collaborative Group. Delayed versus Immediate cord clamping in preterm infants. N Engl J Med. 2017;377:2445–2455. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1711281
211.
Alan S, Arsan S, Okulu E, Akin IM, Kilic A, Taskin S, Cetinkaya E, Erdeve O, Atasay B. Effects of umbilical cord milking on the need for packed red blood cell transfusions and early neonatal hemodynamic adaptation in preterm infants born ≤1500 g: a prospective, randomized, controlled trial. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol. 2014;36:e493–e498. doi: 10.1097/MPH.0000000000000143
212.
Elimian A, Goodman J, Escobedo M, Nightingale L, Knudtson E, Williams M. Immediate compared with delayed cord clamping in the preterm neonate: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;124:1075–1079. doi: 10.1097/aog.0000000000000556
213.
El-Naggar W, Simpson D, Hussain A, Armson A, Dodds L, Warren A, Whyte R, McMillan D. Cord milking versus immediate clamping in preterm infants: a randomised controlled trial. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2019;104:F145–F150. doi: 10.1136/archdischild-2018-314757
214.
Hosono S, Mugishima H, Fujita H, Hosono A, Minato M, Okada T, Takahashi S, Harada K. Umbilical cord milking reduces the need for red cell transfusions and improves neonatal adaptation in infants born at less than 29 weeks’ gestation: a randomised controlled trial. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2008;93:F14–F19. doi: 10.1136/adc.2006.108902
215.
Katheria A, Blank D, Rich W, Finer N. Umbilical cord milking improves transition in premature infants at birth. PLoS One. 2014;9:e94085. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0094085
216.
Kilicdag H, Gulcan H, Hanta D, Torer B, Gokmen Z, Ozdemir SI, Antmen BA. Is umbilical cord milking always an advantage? J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2016;29:615–618. doi: 10.3109/14767058.2015.1012067
217.
Lago Leal V, Pamplona Bueno L, Cabanillas Vilaplana L, Nicolás Montero E, Martín Blanco M, Fernández Romero C, El Bakkali S, Pradillo Aramendi T, Sobrino Lorenzano L, Castellano Esparza P, et al. Effect of milking maneuver in preterm infants: a randomized controlled trial. Fetal Diagn Ther. 2019;45:57–61. doi: 10.1159/000485654
218.
Li J, Yu B, Wang W, Luo D, Dai QL, Gan XQ. Does intact umbilical cord milking increase infection rates in preterm infants with premature prolonged rupture of membranes? J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2020;33:184–190. doi: 10.1080/14767058.2018.1487947
219.
March MI, Hacker MR, Parson AW, Modest AM, de Veciana M. The effects of umbilical cord milking in extremely preterm infants: a randomized controlled trial. J Perinatol. 2013;33:763–767. doi: 10.1038/jp.2013.70
220.
Mercer JS, Erickson-Owens DA, Vohr BR, Tucker RJ, Parker AB, Oh W, Padbury JF. Effects of placental transfusion on neonatal and 18 month outcomes in preterm infants: a randomized controlled trial. J Pediatr. 2016;168:50–55.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2015.09.068
221.
Silahli M, Duman E, Gokmen Z, Toprak E, Gokdemir M, Ecevit A. The relationship between placental transfusion, and thymic size and neonatal morbidities in premature infants: a randomized control trial. J Pak Med Assoc. 2018;68:1560–1565.
222.
Song SY, Kim Y, Kang BH, Yoo HJ, Lee M. Safety of umbilical cord milking in very preterm neonates: a randomized controlled study. Obstet Gynecol Sci. 2017;60:527–534. doi: 10.5468/ogs.2017.60.6.527
223.
Ram Mohan G, Shashidhar A, Chandrakala BS, Nesargi S, Suman Rao PN. Umbilical cord milking in preterm neonates requiring resuscitation: a randomized controlled trial. Resuscitation. 2018;130:88–91. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2018.07.003
224.
Katheria A, Reister F, Essers J, Mendler M, Hummler H, Subramaniam A, Carlo W, Tita A, Truong G, Davis-Nelson S, et al. Association of umbilical cord milking vs delayed umbilical cord clamping with death or severe intraventricular hemorrhage among preterm infants. JAMA. 2019;322:1877–1886. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.16004
225.
Katheria AC, Truong G, Cousins L, Oshiro B, Finer NN. Umbilical cord milking versus delayed cord clamping in preterm infants. Pediatrics. 2015;136:61–69. doi: 10.1542/peds.2015-0368
226.
Krueger MS, Eyal FG, Peevy KJ, Hamm CR, Whitehurst RM, Lewis DF. Delayed cord clamping with and without cord stripping: a prospective randomized trial of preterm neonates. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;212:394.e1–394.e5. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2014.12.017
227.
Pratesi S, Montano S, Ghirardello S, Mosca F, Boni L, Tofani L, Dani C. Placental Circulation Intact Trial (PCI-T): resuscitation with the placental circulation intact vs. cord milking for very preterm infants: a feasibility study. Front Pediatr. 2018;6:364. doi: 10.3389/fped.2018.00364
228.
Rabe H, Jewison A, Fernandez Alvarez R, Crook D, Stilton D, Bradley R, Holden D; Brighton Perinatal Study Group. Milking compared with delayed cord clamping to increase placental transfusion in preterm neonates: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;117(pt 1):205–211. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181fe46ff
229.
Shirk SK, Manolis SA, Lambers DS, Smith KL. Delayed clamping vs milking of umbilical cord in preterm infants: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2019;220:482.e1–482.e8. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2019.01.234
230.
Downey CL, Bewley S. Historical perspectives on umbilical cord clamping and neonatal transition. J R Soc Med. 2012;105:325–329. doi: 10.1258/jrsm.2012.110316
231.
Hooper SB, Binder-Heschl C, Polglase GR, Gill AW, Kluckow M, Wallace EM, Blank D, Te Pas AB. The timing of umbilical cord clamping at birth: physiological considerations. Matern Health Neonatol Perinatol. 2016;2:4. doi: 10.1186/s40748-016-0032-y
232.
Niermeyer S, Velaphi S. Promoting physiologic transition at birth: re-examining resuscitation and the timing of cord clamping. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med. 2013;18:385–392. doi: 10.1016/j.siny.2013.08.008
233.
Bhutta ZA, Das JK, Rizvi A, Gaffey MF, Walker N, Horton S, Webb P, Lartey A, Black RE; Lancet Nutrition Interventions Review Group, the Maternal and Child Nutrition Study Group. Evidence-based interventions for improvement of maternal and child nutrition: what can be done and at what cost? Lancet. 2013;382:452–477. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60996-4
234.
Seidler AL, Duley L, Katheria AC, De Paco Matallana C, Dempsey E, Rabe H, Kattwinkel J, Mercer J, Josephsen J, Fairchild K, et al; iCOMP Collaboration. Systematic review and network meta-analysis with individual participant data on cord management at preterm birth (iCOMP): study protocol. BMJ Open. 2020;10:e034595. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-034595
235.
Gomersall J, Berber S, Middleton P, McDonald SJ, Niermeyer S, El-Naggar W, Davis PG, Schmölzer GM, Ovelman C, Soll RF; International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation Neonatal Life Support Task Force. Umbilical cord management at term and late preterm birth: a meta-analysis. Pediatrics. 2021;147:e2020015404. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-015404
236.
Georgieff MK. Iron assessment to protect the developing brain. Am J Clin Nutr. 2017;106(suppl 6):1588S–1593S. doi: 10.3945/ajcn.117.155846
237.
Kling PJ. Iron nutrition, erythrocytes, and erythropoietin in the NICU: erythropoietic and neuroprotective effects. Neoreviews. 2020;21:e80–e88. doi: 10.1542/neo.21-2-e80
238.
Gunnarsson BS, Thorsdottir I, Palsson G, Gretarsson SJ. Iron status at 1 and 6 years versus developmental scores at 6 years in a well-nourished affluent population. Acta Paediatr. 2007;96:391–395. doi: 10.1111/j.1651-2227.2007.00086.x
239.
Grantham-McGregor S, Ani C. A review of studies on the effect of iron deficiency on cognitive development in children. J Nutr. 2001;131:649S–666S; discussion 666S-668S. doi: 10.1093/jn/131.2.649S
240.
Lozoff B, Jimenez E, Smith JB. Double burden of iron deficiency in infancy and low socioeconomic status: a longitudinal analysis of cognitive test scores to age 19 years. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2006;160:1108–1113. doi: 10.1001/archpedi.160.11.1108
241.
Perlman JM, Wyllie J, Kattwinkel J, Atkins DL, Chameides L, Goldsmith JP, Guinsburg R, Hazinski MF, Morley C, Richmond S, et al; on behalf of the Neonatal Resuscitation Chapter Collaborators. Part 11: neonatal resuscitation: 2010 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations. Circulation. 2010;122(suppl 2):S516–S538. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.110.971127
242.
Perlman JM, Wyllie J, Kattwinkel J, Atkins DL, Chameides L, Goldsmith JP, Guinsburg R, Hazinski MF, Morley C, Richmond S, et al; Neonatal Resuscitation Chapter Collaborators. Neonatal resuscitation: 2010 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations. Pediatrics. 2010;126:e1319–e1344. doi: 10.1542/peds.2010-2972B
243.
Wyllie J, Perlman JM, Kattwinkel J, Atkins DL, Chameides L, Goldsmith JP, Guinsburg R, Hazinski MF, Morley C, Richmond S, et al; Neonatal Resuscitation Chapter Collaborators. Part 11: neonatal resuscitation: 2010 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations. Resuscitation. 2010;81(suppl 1):e260–e287. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2010.08.029
244.
El-Naggar, W, Davis, PG, Soll, RF, Costa-Nobre, DT, de Almeida, MF, Fabres, JG, Fawke, J, Foglia, EE, Guinsburg, R, Hosono, S, et al. Cord management at birth for term and late preterm infants. 2021. Accessed March 19, 2021. https://costr.ilcor.org/document/cord-management-at-birth-for-term-and-late-preterm-infants-nls-1551-systematic-review
245.
Backes CH, Huang H, Cua CL, Garg V, Smith CV, Yin H, Galantowicz M, Bauer JA, Hoffman TM. Early versus delayed umbilical cord clamping in infants with congenital heart disease: a pilot, randomized, controlled trial. J Perinatol. 2015;35:826–831. doi: 10.1038/jp.2015.89
246.
Ceriani Cernadas JM, Carroli G, Pellegrini L, Ferreira M, Ricci C, Casas O, Lardizabal J, Morasso Mdel C. The effect of early and delayed umbilical cord clamping on ferritin levels in term infants at six months of life: a randomized, controlled trial [in Portuguese]. Arch Argent Pediatr. 2010;108:201–208. doi: 10.1590/S0325-00752010000300005
247.
Chopra A, Thakur A, Garg P, Kler N, Gujral K. Early versus delayed cord clamping in small for gestational age infants and iron stores at 3 months of age: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Pediatr. 2018;18:234. doi: 10.1186/s12887-018-1214-8
248.
Datta BV, Kumar A, Yadav R. A randomized controlled trial to evaluate the role of brief delay in cord clamping in preterm neonates (34-36 weeks) on short-term neurobehavioural outcome. J Trop Pediatr. 2017;63:418–424. doi: 10.1093/tropej/fmx004
249.
Al-Tawil MM, Abdel-Aal MR, Kaddah MA. A randomized controlled trial on delayed cord clamping and iron status at 3-5 months in term neonates held at the level of maternal pelvis. J Neonatal Perinatal Med. 2012;5:319–326. doi: 10.3233/NPM-1263112
250.
Chaparro CM, Neufeld LM, Tena Alavez G, Eguia-Líz Cedillo R, Dewey KG. Effect of timing of umbilical cord clamping on iron status in Mexican infants: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2006;367:1997–2004. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(06)68889-2
251.
De Paco C, Herrera J, Garcia C, Corbalán S, Arteaga A, Pertegal M, Checa R, Prieto MT, Nieto A, Delgado JL. Effects of delayed cord clamping on the third stage of labour, maternal haematological parameters and acid-base status in fetuses at term. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2016;207:153–156. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2016.10.031
252.
Emhamed MO, van Rheenen P, Brabin BJ. The early effects of delayed cord clamping in term infants born to Libyan mothers. Trop Doct. 2004;34:218–222. doi: 10.1177/004947550403400410
253.
Fawzy A, Moustafa A, El-Kassar Y, Swelem M, El-agwany A, Diab D. Early versus delayed cord clamping of term births in Shatby Maternity University Hospital. Progresos de Obstetricia y Ginecología. 2015;58:389–392. doi: 10.1016/j.pog.2015.05.001
254.
Mohammad K, Tailakh S, Fram K, Creedy D. Effects of early umbilical cord clamping versus delayed clamping on maternal and neonatal outcomes: a Jordanian study. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2021;34:231–237. doi: 10.1080/14767058.2019.1602603
255.
Salari Z, Rezapour M, Khalili N. Late umbilical cord clamping, neonatal hematocrit and Apgar scores: a randomized controlled trial. J Neonatal Perinatal Med. 2014;7:287–291. doi: 10.3233/NPM-1463913
256.
Ultee CA, van der Deure J, Swart J, Lasham C, van Baar AL. Delayed cord clamping in preterm infants delivered at 34 36 weeks’ gestation: a randomised controlled trial. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2008;93:F20–F23. doi: 10.1136/adc.2006.100354
257.
Yadav AK, Upadhyay A, Gothwal S, Dubey K, Mandal U, Yadav CP. Comparison of three types of intervention to enhance placental redistribution in term newborns: randomized control trial. J Perinatol. 2015;35:720–724. doi: 10.1038/jp.2015.65
258.
Ceriani Cernadas JM, Carroli G, Pellegrini L, Otaño L, Ferreira M, Ricci C, Casas O, Giordano D, Lardizábal J. The effect of timing of cord clamping on neonatal venous hematocrit values and clinical outcome at term: a randomized, controlled trial. Pediatrics. 2006;117:e779–e786. doi: 10.1542/peds.2005-1156
259.
Chen X, Li X, Chang Y, Li W, Cui H. Effect and safety of timing of cord clamping on neonatal hematocrit values and clinical outcomes in term infants: a randomized controlled trial. J Perinatol. 2018;38:251–257. doi: 10.1038/s41372-017-0001-y
260.
Jahazi A, Kordi M, Mirbehbahani NB, Mazloom SR. The effect of early and late umbilical cord clamping on neonatal hematocrit. J Perinatol. 2008;28:523–525. doi: 10.1038/jp.2008.55
261.
Philip AG. Further observations on placental transfusion. Obstet Gynecol. 1973;42:334–343.
262.
Vural I, Ozdemir H, Teker G, Yoldemir T, Bilgen H, Ozek E. Delayed cord clamping in term large-for-gestational age infants: a prospective randomised study. J Paediatr Child Health. 2019;55:555–560. doi: 10.1111/jpc.14242
263.
Grajeda R, Pérez-Escamilla R, Dewey KG. Delayed clamping of the umbilical cord improves hematologic status of Guatemalan infants at 2 mo of age. Am J Clin Nutr. 1997;65:425–431. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/65.2.425
264.
Krishnan L, Kommu P, Thomas B, Akila B, Daniel M. Should delayed cord clamping be the standard of care in term low risk deliveries? A randomized controlled trial from a medical college hospital in south India. J Clin Neonatol. 2015;4:183–187. doi: 10.4103/2249-4847.159904
265.
Mercer JS, Erickson-Owens DA, Collins J, Barcelos MO, Parker AB, Padbury JF. Effects of delayed cord clamping on residual placental blood volume, hemoglobin and bilirubin levels in term infants: a randomized controlled trial. J Perinatol. 2017;37:260–264. doi: 10.1038/jp.2016.222
266.
Saigal S, O’Neill A, Surainder Y, Chua LB, Usher R. Placental transfusion and hyperbilirubinemia in the premature. Pediatrics. 1972;49:406–419.
267.
Salae R, Tanprasertkul C, Somprasit C, Bhamarapravatana K, Suwannarurk K. Efficacy of delayed versus immediate cord clamping in late preterm newborns following normal labor: a randomized control trial. J Med Assoc Thai. 2016;99(suppl 4):S159–S165.
268.
van Rheenen P, de Moor L, Eschbach S, de Grooth H, Brabin B. Delayed cord clamping and haemoglobin levels in infancy: a randomised controlled trial in term babies. Trop Med Int Health. 2007;12:603–616. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3156.2007.01835.x
269.
Andersson O, Hellström-Westas L, Andersson D, Domellöf M. Effect of delayed versus early umbilical cord clamping on neonatal outcomes and iron status at 4 months: a randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2011;343:d7157. doi: 10.1136/bmj.d7157
270.
Cavallin F, Galeazzo B, Loretelli V, Madella S, Pizzolato M, Visentin S, Trevisanuto D. Delayed cord clamping versus early cord clamping in elective cesarean section: a randomized controlled trial. Neonatology. 2019;116:252–259. doi: 10.1159/000500325
271.
Mercer JS, Erickson-Owens DA, Deoni SCL, Dean DC, Collins J, Parker AB, Wang M, Joelson S, Mercer EN, Padbury JF. Effects of delayed cord clamping on 4-month ferritin levels, brain myelin content, and neurodevelopment: a randomized controlled trial. J Pediatr. 2018;203:266–272.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2018.06.006
272.
Andersson O, Lindquist B, Lindgren M, Stjernqvist K, Domellöf M, Hellström-Westas L. Effect of delayed cord clamping on neurodevelopment at 4 years of age: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Pediatr. 2015;169:631–638. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2015.0358
273.
Erickson-Owens DA, Mercer JS, Oh W. Umbilical cord milking in term infants delivered by cesarean section: a randomized controlled trial. J Perinatol. 2012;32:580–584. doi: 10.1038/jp.2011.159
274.
Upadhyay A, Gothwal S, Parihar R, Garg A, Gupta A, Chawla D, Gulati IK. Effect of umbilical cord milking in term and near term infants: randomized control trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013;208:120.e1–120.e6. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2012.10.884
275.
Alzaree F, Elbohoty A, Abdellatif M. Early versus delayed umbilical cord clamping on physiologic anemia of the term newborn infant. Open Access Maced J Med Sci. 2018;6:1399–1404. doi: 10.3889/oamjms.2018.286
276.
Jaiswal P, Upadhyay A, Gothwal S, Singh D, Dubey K, Garg A, Vishnubhatala S. Comparison of two types of intervention to enhance placental redistribution in term infants: randomized control trial. Eur J Pediatr. 2015;174:1159–1167. doi: 10.1007/s00431-015-2511-y
277.
Vatansever B, Demirel G, Ciler Eren E, Erel O, Neselioglu S, Karavar HN, Gundogdu S, Ulfer G, Bahadir S, Tastekin A. Is early cord clamping, delayed cord clamping or cord milking best? J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2018;31:877–880. doi: 10.1080/14767058.2017.1300647
278.
Andersson O, Rana N, Ewald U, Målqvist M, Stripple G, Basnet O, Subedi K, Kc A. Intact cord resuscitation versus early cord clamping in the treatment of depressed newborn infants during the first 10 minutes of birth (Nepcord III): a randomized clinical trial. Matern Health Neonatol Perinatol. 2019;5:15. doi: 10.1186/s40748-019-0110-z
279.
Kc A, Rana N, Målqvist M, Jarawka Ranneberg L, Subedi K, Andersson O. Effects of delayed umbilical cord clamping vs early clamping on anemia in infants at 8 and 12 months: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Pediatr. 2017;171:264–270. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2016.3971
280.
Kc A, Singhal N, Gautam J, Rana N, Andersson O. Effect of early versus delayed cord clamping in neonate on heart rate, breathing and oxygen saturation during first 10 minutes of birth: randomized clinical trial. Matern Health Neonatol Perinatol. 2019;5:7. doi: 10.1186/s40748-019-0103-y
281.
Ishaq FAnwar A, Shahid N, Mahmood R, Abid H. Impact of early versus delayed cord clamping on mean hemoglobin level in term neonates. Pak Pediatr J. 2016;40:237–241.
282.
Katheria AC, Brown MK, Faksh A, Hassen KO, Rich W, Lazarus D, Steen J, Daneshmand SS, Finer NN. Delayed cord clamping in newborns born at term at risk for resuscitation: a feasibility randomized clinical trial. J Pediatr. 2017;187:313–317.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2017.04.033
283.
Nouraie S, Amiralii Akbari S, Vameghi R, Akbarzade Baghban A. The effect of the timing of umbilical cord clamping on hemoglobin levels, neonatal outcomes and developmental status in infants at 4 months old. Iran J Child Neurol. 2019;13:45–55.
284.
Spears RL, Anderson GV, Brotman S, Farrier J, Kwan J, Masto A, Perrin L, Stebbins R. The effect of early versus late cord clamping on signs of respiratory distress. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1966;95:564–568. doi: 10.1016/0002-9378(66)90151-7
285.
Rana N, Kc A, Målqvist M, Subedi K, Andersson O. Effect of delayed cord clamping of term babies on neurodevelopment at 12 months: a randomized controlled trial. Neonatology. 2019;115:36–42. doi: 10.1159/000491994
286.
Nelson NM, Enkin MW, Saigal S, Bennett KJ, Milner R, Sackett DL. A randomized clinical trial of the Leboyer approach to childbirth. N Engl J Med. 1980;302:655–660. doi: 10.1056/NEJM198003203021203
287.
Sun M, Song X, Shi W, Li Y, Shan N, Zhang H. Delayed umbilical cord clamping in cesarean section reduces postpartum bleeding and the rate of severe asphyxia. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol. 2017;44:14–16.
288.
Oxford Midwives Research Group. A study of the relationship between the delivery to cord clamping interval and the time of cord separation. Midwifery. 1991;7:167–176. doi: 10.1016/s0266-6138(05)80195-0
289.
Withanathantrige M, Goonewardene I. Effects of early versus delayed umbilical cord clamping during antepartum lower segment caesarean section on placental delivery and postoperative haemorrhage: a randomised controlled trial. Ceylon Med J. 2017;62:5–11. doi: 10.4038/cmj.v62i1.8425
290.
Ersdal HL, Linde J, Mduma E, Auestad B, Perlman J. Neonatal outcome following cord clamping after onset of spontaneous respiration. Pediatrics. 2014;134:265–272. doi: 10.1542/peds.2014-0467
291.
Roehr CC, Davis PG, Weiner GM, Jonathan Wyllie J, Wyckoff MH, Trevisanuto D. T-piece resuscitator or self-inflating bag during neonatal resuscitation: a scoping review. Pediatr Res. 2021;89:760–766. doi: 10.1038/s41390-020-1005-4
292.
Trevisanuto, D, Roehr, CC, Davis, PG, Schmölzer, GM, Wyckoff, MH, Rabi, Y, de Almeida, MF, El-Naggar, W, Fabres, JG, Fawke, J, et al. Devices for administering positive pressure ventilation (PPV) at birth: (NLS#870) systematic review. Accessed March 11, 2021. https://costr.ilcor.org/document/devices-for-administering-positive-pressure-ventilation-ppv-at-birth-nls-870-systematic-review
293.
Dawson JA, Schmölzer GM, Kamlin CO, Te Pas AB, O’Donnell CP, Donath SM, Davis PG, Morley CJ. Oxygenation with T-piece versus self-inflating bag for ventilation of extremely preterm infants at birth: a randomized controlled trial. J Pediatr. 2011;158:912–918.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2010.12.003
294.
Kookna S, Ajay Singh K, Pandit S, Dhawan N. T-piece resuscitator or self inflating bag for positive pressure ventilation during neonatal resuscitation: a randomized controlled trial. IOSR J Dent Med Sci. 2019;18:66–74.
295.
Szyld E, Aguilar A, Musante GA, Vain N, Prudent L, Fabres J, Carlo WA; Delivery Room Ventilation Devices Trial Group. Comparison of devices for newborn ventilation in the delivery room. J Pediatr. 2014;165:234–239.e3. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2014.02.035
296.
Thakur A, Saluja S, Modi M, Kler N, Garg P, Soni A, Kaur A, Chetri S. T-piece or self inflating bag for positive pressure ventilation during delivery room resuscitation: an RCT. Resuscitation. 2015;90:21–24. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2015.01.021
297.
Guinsburg R, de Almeida MFB, de Castro JS, Gonçalves-Ferri WA, Marques PF, Caldas JPS, Krebs VLJ, Souza Rugolo LMS, de Almeida JHCL, Luz JH, et al. T-piece versus self-inflating bag ventilation in preterm neonates at birth. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2018;103:F49–F55. doi: 10.1136/archdischild-2016-312360
298.
Holte K, Ersdal H, Eilevstjønn J, Gomo Ø, Klingenberg C, Thallinger M, Linde J, Stigum H, Yeconia A, Kidanto H, et al. Positive end-expiratory pressure in newborn resuscitation around term: a randomized controlled trial. Pediatrics. 2020;146:e20200494. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-0494
299.
Björklund LJ, Ingimarsson J, Curstedt T, John J, Robertson B, Werner O, Vilstrup CT. Manual ventilation with a few large breaths at birth compromises the therapeutic effect of subsequent surfactant replacement in immature lambs. Pediatr Res. 1997;42:348–355. doi: 10.1203/00006450-199709000-00016
300.
Haddad LB, Mascaretti RS, Valle LAPA, Rebello CM. A self-inflating bag may cause hypocapnia in a rabbit model of manual ventilation compared to the T-piece resuscitator. Am J Perinatol. 2017;34:1405–1410. doi: 10.1055/s-0037-1603732
301.
Hillman NH, Moss TJ, Kallapur SG, Bachurski C, Pillow JJ, Polglase GR, Nitsos I, Kramer BW, Jobe AH. Brief, large tidal volume ventilation initiates lung injury and a systemic response in fetal sheep. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2007;176:575–581. doi: 10.1164/rccm.200701-051OC
302.
Hawkes CP, Ryan CA, Dempsey EM. Comparison of the T-piece resuscitator with other neonatal manual ventilation devices: a qualitative review. Resuscitation. 2012;83:797–802. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2011.12.020
303.
Hussey SG, Ryan CA, Murphy BP. Comparison of three manual ventilation devices using an intubated mannequin. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2004;89:F490–F493. doi: 10.1136/adc.2003.047712
304.
Hinder M, McEwan A, Drevhammer T, Donaldson S, Tracy MB. T-piece resuscitators: how do they compare? Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2019;104:F122–F127. doi: 10.1136/archdischild-2018-314860
305.
Tracy MB, Halliday R, Tracy SK, Hinder MK. Newborn self-inflating manual resuscitators: precision robotic testing of safety and reliability. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2019;104:F403–F408. doi: 10.1136/archdischild-2018-315391
306.
Dainty KN, Atkins DL, Breckwoldt J, Maconochie I, Schexnayder SM, Skrifvars MB, Tijssen J, Wyllie J, Furuta M, Aickin R, et al; International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation’s (ILCOR) Pediatric; Neonatal Life Support Task Force; Education, Implementation and Teams Task Force. Family presence during resuscitation in paediatric and neonatal cardiac arrest: a systematic review. Resuscitation. 2021;162:20–34. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2021.01.017
307.
Dainty, KN, Atkins, DL, Breckwoldt, J, Maconochie, I, Schexnayder, SM, Skrifvars, MB, Tijssen, J, Wyllie, J, Furuta, M; International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation’s Pediatric, Neonatal Life Support and Education, Implementation and Teams Task Forces. Family presence during resuscitation CoSTR. 2021. Accessed March 19, 2021. https://costr.ilcor.org/document/systematic-review-nls-family-presence-during-resus-neonatal-costr
308.
Zehnder E, Law BHY, Schmölzer GM. Does parental presence affect workload during neonatal resuscitation? Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2020;105:559–561. doi: 10.1136/archdischild-2020-318840
309.
Arnold L, Sawyer A, Rabe H, Abbott J, Gyte G, Duley L, Ayers S; Very Preterm Birth Qualitative Collaborative Group. Parents’ first moments with their very preterm babies: a qualitative study. BMJ Open. 2013;3:e002487. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2012-002487
310.
Harvey ME, Pattison HM. Being there: a qualitative interview study with fathers present during the resuscitation of their baby at delivery. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2012;97:F439–F443. doi: 10.1136/archdischild-2011-301482
311.
Lindberg B, Axelsson K, Ohrling K. The birth of premature infants: experiences from the fathers’ perspective. J Neonatal Nurs. 2007;13:142–149. doi: 10.1016/j.jnn.2007.05.004
312.
Sawyer A, Ayers S, Bertullies S, Thomas M, Weeks AD, Yoxall CW, Duley L. Providing immediate neonatal care and resuscitation at birth beside the mother: parents’ views, a qualitative study. BMJ Open. 2015;5:e008495. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008495
313.
Harvey ME, Pattison HM. The impact of a father’s presence during newborn resuscitation: a qualitative interview study with healthcare professionals. BMJ Open. 2013;3:e002547. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-002547
314.
Yoxall CW, Ayers S, Sawyer A, Bertullies S, Thomas M, Weeks AD, Duley L. Providing immediate neonatal care and resuscitation at birth beside the mother: clinicians’ views, a qualitative study. BMJ Open. 2015;5:e008494. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008494
315.
Katheria AC, Sorkhi SR, Hassen K, Faksh A, Ghorishi Z, Poeltler D. Acceptability of bedside resuscitation with intact umbilical cord to clinicians and patients’ families in the United States. Front Pediatr. 2018;6:100. doi: 10.3389/fped.2018.00100
316.
Bray, JE, Eastwood, K, Bhanji, F, Breckwoldt, J, Cheng, A, Duff, J, Gilfoyle, E, Hsieh, M, Lauridsen, K, Lockey, A, et al; ILCOR Education, Implementation, and Teams Task Force. Self-directed digital BLS training: EIT 647 task force systematic review. Accessed March 3, 2021. https://costr.ilcor.org/document/self-directed-digital-bls-training-eit-647-tf-systematic-review
317.
Ali S, Athar M, Ahmed SM. A randomised controlled comparison of video versus instructor-based compression only life support training. Indian J Anaesth. 2019;63:188–193. doi: 10.4103/ija.IJA_737_18
318.
Assadi T, Mofidi M, Rezai M, Hafezinnoghadam P, Maghsoudi M, Mosaddegh R, Aghdam H. The comparison between two methods of basic life support instruction: video self-instruction versus traditional method. Hong Kong J Emerg Med. 2015;22:291–296.
319.
Beskind DL, Stolz U, Thiede R, Hoyer R, Burns W, Brown J, Ludgate M, Tiutan T, Shane R, McMorrow D, et al. Viewing a brief chest-compression-only CPR video improves bystander CPR performance and responsiveness in high school students: a cluster randomized trial. Resuscitation. 2016;104:28–33. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2016.03.022
320.
Bylow H, Karlsson T, Lepp M, Claesson A, Lindqvist J, Herlitz J. Effectiveness of web-based education in addition to basic life support learning activities: a cluster randomised controlled trial. PLoS One. 2019;14:e0219341. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0219341
321.
Cerezo Espinosa C, Nieto Caballero S, Juguera Rodríguez L, Castejón-Mochón JF, Segura Melgarejo F, Sánchez Martínez CM, López López CA, Pardo Ríos M. Learning cardiopulmonary resuscitation theory with face-to-face versus audiovisual instruction for secondary school students: a randomized controlled trial. Emergencias. 2018;30:28–34.
322.
Chung CH, Siu AY, Po LL, Lam CY, Wong PC. Comparing the effectiveness of video self-instruction versus traditional classroom instruction targeted at cardiopulmonary resuscitation skills for laypersons: a prospective randomised controlled trial. Hong Kong Med J. 2010;16:165–170.
323.
de Vries W, Turner NM, Monsieurs KG, Bierens JJ, Koster RW. Comparison of instructor-led automated external defibrillation training and three alternative DVD-based training methods. Resuscitation. 2010;81:1004–1009. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2010.04.006
324.
Doucet L, Lammens R, Hendrickx S, Dewolf P. App-based learning as an alternative for instructors in teaching basic life support to school children: a randomized control trial. Acta Clin Belg. 2019;74:317–325. doi: 10.1080/17843286.2018.1500766
325.
Dracup K, Moser DK, Doering LV, Guzy PM. Comparison of cardiopulmonary resuscitation training methods for parents of infants at high risk for cardiopulmonary arrest. Ann Emerg Med. 1998;32:170–177. doi: 10.1016/s0196-0644(98)70133-7
326.
Dracup K, Moser DK, Doering LV, Guzy PM, Juarbe T. A controlled trial of cardiopulmonary resuscitation training for ethnically diverse parents of infants at high risk for cardiopulmonary arrest. Crit Care Med. 2000;28:3289–3295. doi: 10.1097/00003246-200009000-00029
327.
Einspruch EL, Lynch B, Aufderheide TP, Nichol G, Becker L. Retention of CPR skills learned in a traditional AHA Heartsaver course versus 30-min video self-training: a controlled randomized study. Resuscitation. 2007;74:476–486. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2007.01.030
328.
Hasselager A, Bohnstedt C, Østergaard D, Sønderskov C, Bihrmann K, Tolsgaard MG, Lauritsen TLB. Improving the cost-effectiveness of laypersons’ paediatric basic life support skills training: a randomised non-inferiority study. Resuscitation. 2019;138:28–35. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2019.02.032
329.
Heard DG, Andresen KH, Guthmiller KM, Lucas R, Heard KJ, Blewer AL, Abella BS, Gent LM, Sasson C. Hands-only cardiopulmonary resuscitation education: a comparison of on-screen with compression feedback, classroom, and video education. Ann Emerg Med. 2019;73:599–609. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2018.09.026
330.
Kim HS, Kim HJ, Suh EE. The effect of patient-centered CPR education for family caregivers of patients with cardiovascular diseases. J Korean Acad Nurs. 2016;46:463–474. doi: 10.4040/jkan.2016.46.3.463
331.
Krogh LQ, Bjørnshave K, Vestergaard LD, Sharma MB, Rasmussen SE, Nielsen HV, Thim T, Løfgren B. E-learning in pediatric basic life support: a randomized controlled non-inferiority study. Resuscitation. 2015;90:7–12. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2015.01.030
332.
Li F, Zhang JS, Sheng XY, Wang JL, Shen XM, Xia WP, Shen LX, Jiang F. Effects of three different first-aid training methods on knowledge retention of caregivers and teachers: a randomized and longitudinal cohort study in China. Public Health. 2020;178:97–104. doi: 10.1016/j.puhe.2019.08.021
333.
Liberman M, Golberg N, Mulder D, Sampalis J. Teaching cardiopulmonary resuscitation to CEGEP students in Quebec: a pilot project. Resuscitation. 2000;47:249–257. doi: 10.1016/s0300-9572(00)00236-7
334.
Lynch B, Einspruch EL, Nichol G, Becker LB, Aufderheide TP, Idris A. Effectiveness of a 30-min CPR self-instruction program for lay responders: a controlled randomized study. Resuscitation. 2005;67:31–43. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2005.04.017
335.
Lynch B, Einspruch EL. With or without an instructor, brief exposure to CPR training produces significant attitude change. Resuscitation. 2010;81:568–575. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2009.12.022
336.
Lyness, AL. Effectiveness of interactive video to teach CPR theory and skills. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the Association for Educational Communications aid Technology (Anaheim, CA, Jan. 17-23, 1985). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service, ED 256 324).
337.
Mancini ME, Cazzell M, Kardong-Edgren S, Cason CL. Improving workplace safety training using a self-directed CPR-AED learning program. AAOHN J. 2009;57:159–167; quiz 168. doi: 10.3928/08910162-20090401-02
338.
Meischke HW, Rea T, Eisenberg MS, Schaeffer SM, Kudenchuk P. Training seniors in the operation of an automated external defibrillator: a randomized trial comparing two training methods. Ann Emerg Med. 2001;38:216–222. doi: 10.1067/mem.2001.115621
339.
Nas J, Thannhauser J, Vart P, van Geuns RJ, Muijsers HEC, Mol JQ, Aarts GWA, Konijnenberg LSF, Gommans DHF, Ahoud-Schoenmakers SGAM, et al. Effect of face-to-face vs virtual reality training on cardiopulmonary resuscitation quality: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Cardiol. 2020;5:328–335. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2019.4992
340.
Pedersen TH, Kasper N, Roman H, Egloff M, Marx D, Abegglen S, Greif R. Self-learning basic life support: a randomised controlled trial on learning conditions. Resuscitation. 2018;126:147–153. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2018.02.031
341.
Raaj N, Gopichandran L, Baidya D, Devagourou B. A comparative study to evaluate the effectiveness of mannequin demonstration versus video teaching programme on basic life support to the family members of adult patient at high risk of cardiopulmonary arrest. Int J Nurs Education. 2016;8:142–147.
342.
Reder S, Cummings P, Quan L. Comparison of three instructional methods for teaching cardiopulmonary resuscitation and use of an automatic external defibrillator to high school students. Resuscitation. 2006;69:443–453. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2005.08.020
343.
Roppolo LP, Pepe PE, Campbell L, Ohman K, Kulkarni H, Miller R, Idris A, Bean L, Bettes TN, Idris AH. Prospective, randomized trial of the effectiveness and retention of 30-min layperson training for cardiopulmonary resuscitation and automated external defibrillators: the American Airlines study. Resuscitation. 2007;74:276–285. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2006.12.017
344.
Roppolo LP, Heymann R, Pepe P, Wagner J, Commons B, Miller R, Allen E, Horne L, Wainscott MP, Idris AH. A randomized controlled trial comparing traditional training in cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) to self-directed CPR learning in first year medical students: the two-person CPR study. Resuscitation. 2011;82:319–325. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2010.10.025
345.
Thorén AB, Axelsson AB, Herlitz J. DVD-based or instructor-led CPR education: a comparison. Resuscitation. 2007;72:333–334. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2006.09.013
346.
Todd KH, Braslow A, Brennan RT, Lowery DW, Cox RJ, Lipscomb LE, Kellermann AL. Randomized, controlled trial of video self-instruction versus traditional CPR training. Ann Emerg Med. 1998;31:364–369. doi: 10.1016/s0196-0644(98)70348-8
347.
Todd KH, Heron SL, Thompson M, Dennis R, O’Connor J, Kellermann AL. Simple CPR: A randomized, controlled trial of video self-instructional cardiopulmonary resuscitation training in an African American church congregation. Ann Emerg Med. 1999;34:730–737. doi: 10.1016/s0196-0644(99)70098-3
348.
Van Raemdonck V, Monsieurs KG, Aerenhouts D, De Martelaer K. Teaching basic life support: a prospective randomized study on low-cost training strategies in secondary schools. Eur J Emerg Med. 2014;21:284–290. doi: 10.1097/MEJ.0000000000000071
349.
Yeung J, Kovic I, Vidacic M, Skilton E, Higgins D, Melody T, Lockey A. The School Lifesavers Study: a randomised controlled trial comparing the impact of Lifesaver only, face-to-face training only, and Lifesaver with face-to-face training on CPR knowledge, skills and attitudes in UK school children. Resuscitation. 2017;120:138–145. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2017.08.010
350.
Barr GC, Rupp VA, Hamilton KM, Worrilow CC, Reed JF, Friel KS, Dusza SW, Greenberg MR. Training mothers in infant cardiopulmonary resuscitation with an instructional DVD and manikin. J Am Osteopath Assoc. 2013;113:538–545. doi: 10.7556/jaoa.2013.005
351.
Batcheller AM, Brennan RT, Braslow A, Urrutia A, Kaye W. Cardiopulmonary resuscitation performance of subjects over forty is better following half-hour video self-instruction compared to traditional four-hour classroom training. Resuscitation. 2000;43:101–110. doi: 10.1016/s0300-9572(99)00132-x
352.
Braslow A, Brennan RT, Newman MM, Bircher NG, Batcheller AM, Kaye W. CPR training without an instructor: development and evaluation of a video self-instructional system for effective performance of cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Resuscitation. 1997;34:207–220. doi: 10.1016/s0300-9572(97)01096-4
353.
Edwards MJ, Hannah KJ. An examination of the use of interactive videodisc cardiopulmonary resuscitation instruction for the lay community. Comput Nurs. 1985;3:250–252.
354.
Hasani H, Bahrami M, Malekpour A, Dehghani M, Allahyary E, Amini M, Abdorahimi M, Khani S, Kalantari Meibodi M, Kojuri J. Evaluation of teaching methods in mass CPCR training in different groups of the society: an observational study. Medicine (Baltimore). 2015;94:e859. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000000859
355.
Isbye DL, Rasmussen LS, Lippert FK, Rudolph SF, Ringsted CV. Laypersons may learn basic life support in 24min using a personal resuscitation manikin. Resuscitation. 2006;69:435–442. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2005.10.027
356.
Jones I, Handley AJ, Whitfield R, Newcombe R, Chamberlain D. A preliminary feasibility study of a short DVD-based distance-learning package for basic life support. Resuscitation. 2007;75:350–356. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2007.04.030
357.
Long CA. Teaching parents infant CPR: lecture or audiovisual tape? MCN Am J Matern Child Nurs. 1992;17:30–32. doi: 10.1097/00005721-199201000-00011
358.
Djärv, T, Douma, M, Palmieri, T, Meyran, D, Berry, D, Kloeck, D, Bendall, J, Morrison, LJ, Singletary, EM, Zideman, D International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation First Aid and Pediatric Life Support Task Forces. Duration of cooling with water for thermal burns as a first aid intervention: FA 770 systematic review. Accessed March 10, 2021. https://costr.ilcor.org/document/duration-of-cooling-with-water-for-thermal-burns-as-a-first-aid-intervention-fa-770-systematic-review
359.
Cuttle L, Kravchuk O, Wallis B, Kimble RM. An audit of first-aid treatment of pediatric burns patients and their clinical outcome. J Burn Care Res. 2009;30:1028–1034. doi: 10.1097/BCR.0b013e3181bfb7d1
360.
Fein M, Quinn J, Watt K, Nichols T, Kimble R, Cuttle L. Prehospital paediatric burn care: new priorities in paramedic reporting. Emerg Med Australas. 2014;26:609–615. doi: 10.1111/1742-6723.12313
361.
Griffin BR, Frear CC, Babl F, Oakley E, Kimble RM. Cool running water first aid decreases skin grafting requirements in pediatric burns: a cohort study of two thousand four hundred ninety-five children. Ann Emerg Med. 2020;75:75–85. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2019.06.028
362.
Wood FM, Phillips M, Jovic T, Cassidy JT, Cameron P, Edgar DW; Steering Committee of the Burn Registry of Australia and New Zealand (BRANZ). Water first aid is beneficial in humans post-burn: evidence from a bi-national cohort study. PLoS One. 2016;11:e0147259. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0147259
363.
Wright EH, Tyler M, Vojnovic B, Pleat J, Harris A, Furniss D. Human model of burn injury that quantifies the benefit of cooling as a first aid measure. Br J Surg. 2019;106:1472–1479. doi: 10.1002/bjs.11263
364.
Tung KY, Chen ML, Wang HJ, Chen GS, Peck M, Yang J, Liu CC. A seven-year epidemiology study of 12,381 admitted burn patients in Taiwan: using the internet registration system of the Childhood Burn Foundation. Burns. 2005;31(suppl 1):S12–S17. doi: 10.1016/j.burns.2004.10.006
365.
Cho YS, Choi YH. Comparison of three cooling methods for burn patients: a randomized clinical trial. Burns. 2017;43:502–508. doi: 10.1016/j.burns.2016.09.010
366.
Singletary EM, Zideman DA, De Buck ED, Chang WT, Jensen JL, Swain JM, Woodin JA, Blanchard IE, Herrington RA, Pellegrino JL, et al; on behalf of the First Aid Chapter Collaborators. Part 9: first aid: 2015 International Consensus on First Aid Science With Treatment Recommendations. Circulation. 2015;132(suppl 1):S269–S311. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000278
367.
Zideman DA, Singletary EM, De Buck ED, Chang WT, Jensen JL, Swain JM, Woodin JA, Blanchard IE, Herrington RA, Pellegrino JL, et al; First Aid Chapter Collaborators. Part 9: first aid: 2015 International Consensus on First Aid Science With Treatment Recommendations. Resuscitation. 2015;95:e225–e261. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2015.07.047
368.
Borra, V, De Brier, N, Berry, D, Zideman, D, Singletary, EM, International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation First Aid Task Force. Oral rehydration solutions for treating exertion-related dehydration: FA 584 systematic review. Accessed March 10, 2021. https://costr.ilcor.org/document/oral-rehydration-solutions-for-treating-exertion-related-dehydration-fa-was-584-systematic-review
369.
Amano T, Sugiyama Y, Okumura J, Fujii N, Kenny GP, Nishiyasu T, Inoue Y, Kondo N, Sasagawa K, Enoki Y, et al. Effects of isomaltulose ingestion on postexercise hydration state and heat loss responses in young men. Exp Physiol. 2019;104:1494–1504. doi: 10.1113/EP087843
370.
Chang CQ, Chen YB, Chen ZM, Zhang LT. Effects of a carbohydrate-electrolyte beverage on blood viscosity after dehydration in healthy adults. Chin Med J (Engl). 2010;123:3220–3225.
371.
Pérez-Idárraga A, Aragón-Vargas LF. Postexercise rehydration: potassium-rich drinks versus water and a sports drink. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. 2014;39:1167–1174. doi: 10.1139/apnm-2013-0434
372.
Shirreffs SM, Watson P, Maughan RJ. Milk as an effective post-exercise rehydration drink. Br J Nutr. 2007;98:173–180. doi: 10.1017/S0007114507695543
373.
Utter AC, Quindry JC, Emerenziani GP, Valiente JS. Effects of rooibos tea, bottled water, and a carbohydrate beverage on blood and urinary measures of hydration after acute dehydration. Res Sports Med. 2010;18:85–96. doi: 10.1080/15438620903321102
374.
Valiente JS, Utter AC, Quindry JC, Nieman DC. Effects of commercially formulated water on the hydration status of dehydrated collegiate wrestlers. J Strength Cond Res. 2009;23:2210–2216. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181bac56e
375.
Volterman KA, Obeid J, Wilk B, Timmons BW. Effect of milk consumption on rehydration in youth following exercise in the heat. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. 2014;39:1257–1264. doi: 10.1139/apnm-2014-0047
376.
Wijnen AH, Steennis J, Catoire M, Wardenaar FC, Mensink M. Post-exercise rehydration: effect of consumption of beer with varying alcohol content on fluid balance after mild dehydration. Front Nutr. 2016;3:45. doi: 10.3389/fnut.2016.00045
377.
Wong SH, Williams C, Adams N. Effects of ingesting a large volume of carbohydrate-electrolyte solution on rehydration during recovery and subsequent exercise capacity. Int J Sport Nutr Exerc Metab. 2000;10:375–393. doi: 10.1123/ijsnem.10.4.375
378.
González-Alonso J, Heaps CL, Coyle EF. Rehydration after exercise with common beverages and water. Int J Sports Med. 1992;13:399–406. doi: 10.1055/s-2007-1021288
379.
Niksefat M, Akbari-Fakhrabadi M, Mousavi Z, Ziaee V, Fallah J, Memari AH. Yogurt drink effectively rehydrates athletes after a strenuous exercise session. Acta Medica Bulgarica. 2019;46:43–49. doi: https://doi.org/10.2478/amb-2019-0008
380.
Seifert J, Harmon J, DeClercq P. Protein added to a sports drink improves fluid retention. Int J Sport Nutr Exerc Metab. 2006;16:420–429. doi: 10.1123/ijsnem.16.4.420
381.
Wong SH, Chen Y. Effect of a carbohydrate-electrolyte beverage, lemon tea, or water on rehydration during short-term recovery from exercise. Int J Sport Nutr Exerc Metab. 2011;21:300–310. doi: 10.1123/ijsnem.21.4.300
382.
Kalman DS, Feldman S, Krieger DR, Bloomer RJ. Comparison of coconut water and a carbohydrate-electrolyte sport drink on measures of hydration and physical performance in exercise-trained men. J Int Soc Sports Nutr. 2012;9:1. doi: 10.1186/1550-2783-9-1
383.
Evans GH, Miller J, Whiteley S, James LJ. A sodium drink enhances fluid retention during 3 hours of post-exercise recovery when ingested with a standard meal. Int J Sport Nutr Exerc Metab. 2017;27:344–350. doi: 10.1123/ijsnem.2016-0196
384.
Ismail I, Singh R, Sirisinghe RG. Rehydration with sodium-enriched coconut water after exercise-induced dehydration. Southeast Asian J Trop Med Public Health. 2007;38:769–785.
385.
Saat M, Singh R, Sirisinghe RG, Nawawi M. Rehydration after exercise with fresh young coconut water, carbohydrate-electrolyte beverage and plain water. J Physiol Anthropol Appl Human Sci. 2002;21:93–104. doi: 10.2114/jpa.21.93
386.
Seery S, Jakeman P. A metered intake of milk following exercise and thermal dehydration restores whole-body net fluid balance better than a carbohydrate-electrolyte solution or water in healthy young men. Br J Nutr. 2016;116:1013–1021. doi: 10.1017/S0007114516002907
387.
Lau WY, Kato H, Nosaka K. Water intake after dehydration makes muscles more susceptible to cramp but electrolytes reverse that effect. BMJ Open Sport Exerc Med. 2019;5:e000478. doi: 10.1136/bmjsem-2018-000478
388.
Sayer L, Rodriguez-Sanchez N, Rodriguez-Giustiniani P, Irwin C, McCartney D, Cox GR, Galloway SDR, Desbrow B. Effect of drinking rate on the retention of water or milk following exercise-induced dehydration. Int J Sport Nutr Exerc Metab. 2019:1–11. doi: 10.1123/ijsnem.2019-0176
389.
Jiménez-Pavón D, Cervantes-Borunda MS, Díaz LE, Marcos A, Castillo MJ. Effects of a moderate intake of beer on markers of hydration after exercise in the heat: a crossover study. J Int Soc Sports Nutr. 2015;12:26. doi: 10.1186/s12970-015-0088-5
390.
Flores-Salamanca R, Aragón-Vargas LF. Postexercise rehydration with beer impairs fluid retention, reaction time, and balance. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. 2014;39:1175–1181. doi: 10.1139/apnm-2013-0576
391.
Charlton NP, Goolsby CA, Zideman DA, Maconochie IK, Morley PT, Singletary EM. Appropriate tourniquet types in the pediatric population: a systematic review. Cureus. 2021;13:e14474. doi: 10.7759/cureus.14474
392.
Singletary EM, Zideman DA, Bendall JC, Berry DA, Borra V, Carlson JN, Cassan P, Chang WT, Charlton NP, Djärv T, et al; First Aid Science Collaborators. 2020 International Consensus on First Aid Science With Treatment Recommendations. Resuscitation. 2020;156:A240–A282. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2020.09.016
393.
Singletary EM, Zideman DA, Bendall JC, Berry DC, Borra V, Carlson JN, Cassan P, Chang WT, Charlton NP, Djärv T, et al; on behalf of the First Aid Science Collaborators. 2020 International Consensus on First Aid Science With Treatment Recommendations. Circulation. 2020;142(suppl 1):S284–S334. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000897
394.
Charlton, NP, Goolsby, CA, Singletary, EM, Zideman, D, Maconochie, I; International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation First Aid and Pediatric Life Support Task Forces. Pediatric tourniquet types: first aid new TF SR. Accessed March 10, 2021. https://costr.ilcor.org/document/pediatric-tourniquet-types-first-aid-new-tf-sr
395.
Harcke HT, Lawrence LL, Gripp EW, Kecskemethy HH, Kruse RW, Murphy SG. Adult tourniquet for use in school-age emergencies. Pediatrics. 2019;143:e20183447. doi: 10.1542/peds.2018-3447
396.
Kelly JR, Levy MJ, Reyes J, Anders J. Effectiveness of the combat application tourniquet for arterial occlusion in young children. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2020;88:644–647. doi: 10.1097/TA.0000000000002594
397.
El-Sherif N, Lowndes B, Franz W, Hallbeck MS, Belau S, Sztajnkrycer MD. Sweating the little things: tourniquet application efficacy in two models of pediatric limb circumference. Mil Med. 2019;184(suppl 1):361–366. doi: 10.1093/milmed/usy283
398.
Kragh JF, Wright-Aldossari B, Aden JK, Dubick MA. Ease of use of emergency tourniquets on simulated limbs of infants: deliberate practice. J Spec Oper Med. 2019;19:41–47.
399.
Huygelen V, Borra V, De Buck E, Vandekerckhove P. Effective methods for tick removal: a systematic review. J Evid Based Med. 2017;10:177–188. doi: 10.1111/jebm.12257
400.
Charlton, NP, Carlson, JN, Borra, V, Singletary, EM, Zideman, DA; International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation First Aid and Pediatric Life Support Task Forces. Methods of tick removal: first aid systematic review. Accessed March 10, 2021. https://costr.ilcor.org/document/methods-of-tick-removal-first-aid-systematic-review
401.
Bowles DE, McHugh CP, Spradling SL. Evaluation of devices for removing attached Rhipicephalus sanguineus (Acari: Ixodidae). J Med Entomol. 1992;29:901–902. doi: 10.1093/jmedent/29.5.901
402.
Duscher GG, Peschke R, Tichy A. Mechanical tools for the removal of Ixodes ricinus female ticks: differences of instruments and pulling or twisting? Parasitol Res. 2012;111:1505–1511. doi: 10.1007/s00436-012-2987-6
403.
Zenner L, Drevon-Gaillot E, Callait-Cardinal MP. Evaluation of four manual tick-removal devices for dogs and cats. Vet Rec. 2006;159:526–529. doi: 10.1136/vr.159.16.526
404.
Akin Belli A, Dervis E, Kar S, Ergonul O, Gargili A. Revisiting detachment techniques in human-biting ticks. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2016;75:393–397. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2016.01.032
405.
de Boer R, van den Bogaard AE. Removal of attached nymphs and adults of Ixodes ricinus (Acari: Ixodidae). J Med Entomol. 1993;30:748–752. doi: 10.1093/jmedent/30.4.748
406.
Needham GR. Evaluation of five popular methods for tick removal. Pediatrics. 1985;75:997–1002.
407.
Şahin AR, Hakkoymaz H, Taşdoğan AM, Kireçci E. Evaluation and comparison of tick detachment techniques and technical mistakes made during tick removal. Ulus Travma Acil Cerrahi Derg. 2020;26:405–410. doi: 10.14744/tjtes.2020.59680
408.
Stewart RL, Burgdorfer W, Needham GR. Evaluation of three commercial tick removal tools. Wilderness Environ Med. 1998;9:137–142. doi: 10.1580/1080-6032(1998)009[0137:eotctr]2.3.co;2
409.
Berry D, Carlson JN, Singletary E, Zideman DA, Ring J. Use of cryotherapy for managing epistaxis in the first aid setting: a scoping review. Cureus. 2021;13:e14832. doi: 10.7759/cureus.14832
410.
Porter M, Marais J, Tolley N. The effect of ice packs upon nasal mucosal blood flow. Acta Otolaryngol. 1991;111:1122–1125. doi: 10.3109/00016489109100766
411.
Teymoortash A, Sesterhenn A, Kress R, Sapundzhiev N, Werner JA. Efficacy of ice packs in the management of epistaxis. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci. 2003;28:545–547. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2273.2003.00773.x
412.
Porter MJ. A comparison between the effect of ice packs on the forehead and ice cubes in the mouth on nasal submucosal temperature. Rhinology. 1991;29:11–15.
413.
Scheibe M, Wüstenberg EG, Hüttenbrink KB, Zahnert T, Hummel T. Studies on the effects of ice collars on nasal blood volume using optical rhinometry. Am J Rhinol. 2006;20:394–396. doi: 10.2500/ajr.2006.20.2883
414.
Ozturk M, Mutlu F, Kara A, Derin S, Topdag M. Evaluation of the effect of nasal dorsal skin cooling on nasal mucosa by acoustic rhinometry. J Laryngol Otol. 2014;128:1067–1070. doi: 10.1017/S0022215114002886
415.
Yamagiwa M, Hilberg O, Pedersen OF, Lundqvist GR. Evaluation of the effect of localized skin cooling on nasal airway volume by acoustic rhinometry. Am Rev Respir Dis. 1990;141(pt 1):1050–1054. doi: 10.1164/ajrccm/141.4_Pt_1.1050
416.
Khan M, Conroy K, Ubayasiri K, Constable J, Smith ME, Williams RJ, Kuhn I, Smith M, Philpott C. Initial assessment in the management of adult epistaxis: systematic review. J Laryngol Otol. 2017;131:1035–1055. doi: 10.1017/S0022215117002031
417.
Pope LE, Hobbs CG. Epistaxis: an update on current management. Postgrad Med J. 2005;81:309–314. doi: 10.1136/pgmj.2004.025007
418.
Upile T, Jerjes W, Sipaul F, Maaytah ME, Singh S, Hopper C, Wright A. A change in UK epistaxis management. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2008;265:1349–1354. doi: 10.1007/s00405-008-0657-1
419.
Wong AS, Anat DS. Epistaxis: a guide to assessment and management. J Fam Pract. 2018;67:E13–E20.
420.
Beck R, Sorge M, Schneider A, Dietz A. Current approaches to epistaxis treatment in primary and secondary care. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2018;115:12–22. doi: 10.3238/arztebl.2018.0012
421.
Record S. Practice guideline: epistaxis in children. J Pediatr Health Care. 2015;29:484–488. doi: 10.1016/j.pedhc.2015.06.002
422.
O’Sullivan, I. Epistaxis. 2005. Accessed February 24, 2021. https://emed.ie/HE-ENT/ENT/Epistaxis.php
422a.
Guidelines 2000 for cardiopulmonary resuscitation and emergency cardiovascular care. Part 5: new guidelines for first aid. The American Heart Association in collaboration with the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation. Circulation. 2000;102 (suppl 1):I-77–I-85. doi: 10.1161/circ.102.suppl_1.I-136
422b.
Australian Resuscitation Council, New Zealand Resuscitation Council. ANZCOR guideline 9.1.1 – first aid for management of bleeding. 2017. Accessed September 17, 2021. https://www.nzrc.org.nz/assets/Guidelines/First-Aid/All-First-Aid-Guidelines-Nov-2016.pdf
423.
Couper K, Taylor-Phillips S, Grove A, Freeman K, Osokogu O, Court R, Mehrabian A, Morley PT, Nolan JP, Soar J, et al. COVID-19 in cardiac arrest and infection risk to rescuers: a systematic review. Resuscitation. 2020;151:59–66. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2020.04.022
424.
Perkins GD, Morley PT, Nolan JP, Soar J, Berg K, Olasveengen T, Wyckoff M, Greif R, Singletary N, Castren M, et al. International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation: COVID-19 consensus on science, treatment recommendations and task force insights. Resuscitation. 2020;151:145–147. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2020.04.035
425.
Couper, K, Taylor-Phillips, S, Grove, A, Freeman, K, Osokogu, O, Court, R, Mehrabian, A, Morley, P, Nolan, JP, Soar, J, et al; International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation. COVID-19 infection risk to rescuers from patients in cardiac arrest. Accessed March 2, 2021. https://costr.ilcor.org/document/covid-19-infection-risk-to-rescuers-from-patients-in-cardiac-arrest
426.
Ott M, Milazzo A, Liebau S, Jaki C, Schilling T, Krohn A, Heymer J. Exploration of strategies to reduce aerosol-spread during chest compressions: a simulation and cadaver model. Resuscitation. 2020;152:192–198. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2020.05.012
427.
Chalumeau M, Bidet P, Lina G, Mokhtari M, André MC, Gendrel D, Bingen E, Raymond J. Transmission of Panton-Valentine leukocidin-producing Staphylococcus aureus to a physician during resuscitation of a child. Clin Infect Dis. 2005;41:e29–e30. doi: 10.1086/431762
428.
Nam HS, Yeon MY, Park JW, Hong JY, Son JW. Healthcare worker infected with Middle East respiratory syndrome during cardiopulmonary resuscitation in Korea, 2015. Epidemiol Health. 2017;39:e2017052. doi: 10.4178/epih.e2017052
429.
El-Boghdadly K, Wong DJN, Owen R, Neuman MD, Pocock S, Carlisle JB, Johnstone C, Andruszkiewicz P, Baker PA, Biccard BM, et al. Risks to healthcare workers following tracheal intubation of patients with COVID-19: a prospective international multicentre cohort study. Anaesthesia. 2020;75:1437–1447. doi: 10.1111/anae.15170
430.
Loeb M, McGeer A, Henry B, Ofner M, Rose D, Hlywka T, Levie J, McQueen J, Smith S, Moss L, et al. SARS among critical care nurses, Toronto. Emerg Infect Dis. 2004;10:251–255. doi: 10.3201/eid1002.030838
431.
Raboud J, Shigayeva A, McGeer A, Bontovics E, Chapman M, Gravel D, Henry B, Lapinsky S, Loeb M, McDonald LC, et al. Risk factors for SARS transmission from patients requiring intubation: a multicentre investigation in Toronto, Canada. PLoS One. 2010;5:e10717. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0010717
432.
Ran L, Chen X, Wang Y, Wu W, Zhang L, Tan X. Risk factors of healthcare workers with coronavirus disease 2019: a retrospective cohort study in a designated hospital of Wuhan in China. Clin Infect Dis. 2020;71:2218–2221. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciaa287
433.
Liu W, Tang F, Fang L-Q, de Vlas SJ, Ma H-J, Zhou J-P, Looman CWN, Richardus JH, Cao W-C. Risk factors for SARS infection among hospital healthcare workers in Beijing: a case control study. Trop Med Int Health. 2009;14(suppl 1):52–59. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3156.2009.02255.x
434.
Christian MD, Loutfy M, McDonald LC, Martinez KF, Ofner M, Wong T, Wallington T, Gold WL, Mederski B, Green K, et al; SARS Investigation Team. Possible SARS coronavirus transmission during cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Emerg Infect Dis. 2004;10:287–293. doi: 10.3201/eid1002.030700
435.
Kim WY, Choi W, Park SW, Wang EB, Lee WJ, Jee Y, Lim KS, Lee HJ, Kim SM, Lee SO, et al. Nosocomial transmission of severe fever with thrombocytopenia syndrome in Korea. Clin Infect Dis. 2015;60:1681–1683. doi: 10.1093/cid/civ128
436.
Knapp J, Weigand MA, Popp E. Transmission of tuberculosis during cardiopulmonary resuscitation: focus on breathing system filters. Notfall and Rettungsmedizin. 2015;19:48–51. doi: 10.1007/s10049-015-0100-2
437.
Schumacher J, Gray SA, Michel S, Alcock R, Brinker A. Respiratory protection during simulated emergency pediatric life support: a randomized, controlled, crossover study. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2013;28:33–38. doi: 10.1017/S1049023X12001525
438.
Watson L, Sault W, Gwyn R, Verbeek PR. The “delay effect” of donning a gown during cardiopulmonary resuscitation in a simulation model. CJEM. 2008;10:333–338. doi: 10.1017/s1481803500010332
439.
Tian Y, Tu X, Zhou X, Yu J, Luo S, Ma L, Liu C, Zhao Y, Jin X. Wearing a N95 mask increases rescuer’s fatigue and decreases chest compression quality in simulated cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Am J Emerg Med. 2021;44:434–438. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2020.05.065
440.
Shin H, Oh J, Lim TH, Kang H, Song Y, Lee S. Comparing the protective performances of 3 types of N95 filtering facepiece respirators during chest compressions: a randomized simulation study. Medicine (Baltimore). 2017;96:e8308. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000008308
441.
Serin S, Caglar B. The effect of different personal protective equipment masks on health care workers’ cardiopulmonary resuscitation performance during the Covid-19 pandemic. J Emerg Med. 2021;60:292–298. doi: 10.1016/j.jemermed.2020.11.005
442.
Deakin CD, O’Neill JF, Tabor T. Does compression-only cardiopulmonary resuscitation generate adequate passive ventilation during cardiac arrest? Resuscitation. 2007;75:53–59. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2007.04.002

eLetters(0)

eLetters should relate to an article recently published in the journal and are not a forum for providing unpublished data. Comments are reviewed for appropriate use of tone and language. Comments are not peer-reviewed. Acceptable comments are posted to the journal website only. Comments are not published in an issue and are not indexed in PubMed. Comments should be no longer than 500 words and will only be posted online. References are limited to 10. Authors of the article cited in the comment will be invited to reply, as appropriate.

Comments and feedback on AHA/ASA Scientific Statements and Guidelines should be directed to the AHA/ASA Manuscript Oversight Committee via its Correspondence page.

Information & Authors

Information

Published In

Go to Circulation
Go to Circulation
Circulation
Pages: e645 - e721
PubMed: 34813356

Versions

You are viewing the most recent version of this article.

History

Published online: 11 November 2021
Published in print: 1 March 2022

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Keywords

  1. AHA Scientific Statements
  2. advanced cardiac life support
  3. cardiopulmonary resuscitation
  4. first aid
  5. health plan implementation
  6. infant, newborn

Subjects

Authors

Affiliations

Myra H. Wyckoff, MD, NLS Chair
Eunice M. Singletary, MD, FA Chair
Jasmeet Soar, MA, MB, BChir, ALS Chair
Theresa M. Olasveengen, MD, PhD, BLS Chair
Robert Greif, MD, MME, EIT Chair
Helen G. Liley, MBChB, NLS Vice Chair
David Zideman, LVO, QHP(C), MBBS, FA Vice Chair
Farhan Bhanji, MD, MSc(Ed), EIT Vice Chair
Lars W. Andersen, MD, MPH, PhD, DMSc
Suzanne R. Avis, B App Sc, MPH
Khalid Aziz, MBBS, MA, Med(IT)
Jason C. Bendall, MBBS, MM, PhD
David C. Berry, PhD, MHA
Bernd W. Böttiger, MD, ML, DEAA
Janet E. Bray, RN, PhD
Jan Breckwoldt, MD, MME
Jestin N. Carlson, MD, MS
Maaret Castrén, MD, PhD
Wei-Tien Chang, MD, PhD
Nathan P. Charlton, MD
Sung Phil Chung, MD, PhD
Julie Considine, RN, PhD
Daniela T. Costa-Nobre, MD, MHS
Katie N. Dainty, MSc, PhD
Maria Fernanda de Almeida, MD, PhD
Edison F. de Paiva, MD, PhD
Charles D. Deakin, MA, MD
Therese Djärv, MD, PhD
Matthew J. Douma, PhD(c), RN
Ian R. Drennan, ACP, PhD
Kathryn J. Eastwood, PhD, BParamedicStud, BNurs
Jonathan L. Epstein, MEMS, NRP
Jorge G. Fabres, MD, MSPH
Judith C. Finn, PhD, RN
Elizabeth E. Foglia, MD, MA, MSCE
Fredrik Folke, MD, PhD
Elaine Gilfoyle, MD, MMEd
Craig A. Goolsby, MD, MEd*
Amy Grove, PhD, CPsychol
Ruth Guinsburg, MD, PhD
Tetsuo Hatanaka, MD, PhD
Mary Fran Hazinski, RN, MSN
Mathias J. Holmberg, MD, MPH
Shigeharu Hosono, MD, PhD
Ming-Ju Hsieh, MD, MSc, PhD
Kevin K.C. Hung, MBChB, MPH
Tetsuya Isayama, MD, MSc, PhD
Vishal S. Kapadia, MD, MSCS
Mandira Daripa Kawakami, MD, PhD
David A. Kloeck, MBBCh, FCPaed, Crit Care (SA)
Peter J. Kudenchuk, MD
Kasper G. Lauridsen, MD
Eric J. Lavonas, MD, MS
Andrew S. Lockey, MBChB, PhD
Carolina Malta Hansen, MD, PhD
David Markenson, MD, MBA
Tasuku Matsuyama, MD, PhD
Christopher J.D. McKinlay, PhD, MBChB
Amin Mehrabian, PharmD
Raina M. Merchant, MD, MSHP
Laurie J. Morrison, MD, MSc
Michael Nemeth, AEMCA(f), MA
Robert W. Neumar, MD, PhD
Tonia Nicholson, MBBS, BscPsych
Susan Niermeyer, MD, MPH
Chika Nishiyama, RN, DrPH
Aaron M. Orkin, MD, MSc, MPH, PhD(c)
Osokogu Osemeke, MD, PhD
Michael J. Parr, MB, BS
Catherine Patocka, MDCM, MHPE
Jeffrey L. Pellegrino, PhD, MPH
Gavin D. Perkins, MB, ChB, MMEd, MD
Jeffrey M. Perlman, MBChB
Joshua C. Reynolds, MD, MS
Giuseppe Ristagno, MD, PhD
Charles C. Roehr, MD, PhD
Tetsuya Sakamoto, MD, PhD