2022 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations: Summary From the Basic Life Support; Advanced Life Support; Pediatric Life Support; Neonatal Life Support; Education, Implementation, and Teams; and First Aid Task Forces
This article has been corrected.
VIEW CORRECTIONAbstract
This is the sixth annual summary of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations. This summary addresses the most recently published resuscitation evidence reviewed by International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation Task Force science experts. Topics covered by systematic reviews include cardiopulmonary resuscitation during transport; approach to resuscitation after drowning; passive ventilation; minimizing pauses during cardiopulmonary resuscitation; temperature management after cardiac arrest; use of diagnostic point-of-care ultrasound during cardiac arrest; use of vasopressin and corticosteroids during cardiac arrest; coronary angiography after cardiac arrest; public-access defibrillation devices for children; pediatric early warning systems; maintaining normal temperature immediately after birth; suctioning of amniotic fluid at birth; tactile stimulation for resuscitation immediately after birth; use of continuous positive airway pressure for respiratory distress at term birth; respiratory and heart rate monitoring in the delivery room; supraglottic airway use in neonates; prearrest prediction of in-hospital cardiac arrest mortality; basic life support training for likely rescuers of high-risk populations; effect of resuscitation team training; blended learning for life support training; training and recertification for resuscitation instructors; and recovery position for maintenance of breathing and prevention of cardiac arrest. Members from 6 task forces have assessed, discussed, and debated the quality of the evidence using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria and generated consensus treatment recommendations. Insights into the deliberations of the task forces are provided in the Justification and Evidence-to-Decision Framework Highlights sections, and priority knowledge gaps for future research are listed.
This is the sixth 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) publications summarizing the ILCOR task force analyses of published resuscitation evidence. The 2022 review includes 21 topics addressed with systematic reviews (SysRevs) by the 6 task forces. Although only a SysRev can generate a full CoSTR and updated treatment recommendations, many other topics were reviewed through more streamlined approaches, detailed later.
Draft CoSTRs for all topics evaluated with SysRevs were posted on a rolling basis from June 2021 through March 2022 on the ILCOR website. These draft CoSTRs include a summary of all data included in the review, as well as draft treatment recommendations. Each CoSTR posting is followed by a 2-week period, during which public comments are accepted. Task forces consider these comments and provide responses. The 21 draft CoSTR statements were viewed ≈27 818 times, and 238 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 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; and results are presented in tables when possible for improved clarity. 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. Complete evidence-to-decision tables are included in Supplemental Appendix A. Last, the task forces have prioritized knowledge gaps requiring future research. Links to the published reviews and full online CoSTRs are provided in the individual sections.
The CoSTRs are based on task force analysis of the data through the GRADE approach. Each analysis has been detailed in either a SysRev conducted by an expert 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, and 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, for a dose-response effect, or if any residual confounding would be thought to decrease 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 relative risk 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 are reported.
In some cases, a previously published SysRev that meets specific methodological criteria can be used to generate a CoSTR using the GRADE-adolopment process.1 Adolopment combines adoption, adaptation, and development and avoids the unnecessary repetition of the SysRev process. It includes the same process of bias assessment and data extraction, with the existing SysRev used as a starting point. Searches are updated if needed, and studies published since the SysRev are added.
The task forces generate treatment recommendations after weighing the evidence and after 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 2022. 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 they 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 less comprehensive search is carried out to screen for significant new data and to 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 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 Supplemental Appendix B.
The following topics are addressed in this CoSTR summary:
Basic Life Support
•
Passive ventilation techniques (SysRev)
•
Minimizing pauses in chest compressions (SysRev)
•
Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) during transport (SysRev)
•
Compressions-airway-breaths (C-A-B) or airway-breaths-compressions (A-B-C) in drowning (new topic; SysRev)
•
Paddle size and placement for defibrillation (EvUp)
•
Barrier devices (EvUp)
•
Chest compression rate (EvUp)
•
Rhythm check timing (EvUp)
•
Timing of CPR cycles (2 minutes versus other; EvUp)
•
Public-access automated external defibrillator (AED) programs (EvUp)
•
Checking for circulation during basic life support (BLS; EvUp)
•
Rescuer fatigue in compression-only CPR (EvUp)
•
Harm from CPR to subjects not in cardiac arrest (EvUp)
•
Harm to rescuers from CPR (EvUp)
•
Hand positioning during compressions (EvUp)
•
Dispatch-assisted compression-only versus conventional CPR (EvUp)
•
Emergency medical services chest compression–only versus conventional CPR (EvUp)
•
Compression-to-ventilation ratio (EvUp)
•
CPR before defibrillation (EvUp)
•
Chest compression depth (EvUp)
•
Chest wall recoil (EvUp)
•
Foreign body airway obstruction (EvUp)
•
Firm surface for CPR (EvUp)
•
In-hospital chest compression–only CPR versus conventional CPR (EvUp)
•
Analysis of rhythm during chest compressions (EvUp)
•
Alternative compression techniques (cough, precordial thump, fist pacing; EvUp)
•
Tidal volumes and ventilation rates (EvUp)
•
Lay rescuer chest compression–only versus conventional CPR (EvUp)
•
Starting CPR (C-A-B versus A-C-B; EvUp)
•
Dispatcher recognition of cardiac arrest (EvUp)
•
Resuscitation care for suspected opioid-associated emergencies (EvUp)
•
CPR before call for help (EvUp)
•
Video-based dispatch (EvUp)
•
Head-up CPR (EvUp)
Advanced Life Support
•
Targeted temperature management (TTM) after cardiac arrest (SysRev)
•
Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) as a diagnostic tool during cardiac arrest (SysRev)
•
Vasopressin and corticosteroids for cardiac arrest (SysRev)
•
Post–cardiac arrest coronary angiography (CAG; SysRev Update)
•
Vasopressors during cardiac arrest (EvUp)
•
Cardiac arrest from pulmonary embolism (EvUp)
Pediatric Life Support
•
Public-access devices (SysRev)
•
Pediatric early warning systems (PEWSs; SysRev)
•
Sequence of compression and ventilation (EvUp)
•
Chest compression–only versus conventional CPR (EvUp)
•
Drugs for the treatment of bradycardia (EvUp)
•
Emergency transcutaneous pacing for bradycardia (EvUp)
•
Extracorporeal CPR for pediatric cardiac arrest (EvUp)
•
Intraosseous versus intravenous route of drug administration (EvUp)
•
Sodium bicarbonate administration for children in cardiac arrest (EvUp)
•
TTM (EvUp)
Neonatal Life Support
•
Maintaining normal temperature immediately after birth in late preterm and term infants (SysRev)
•
Suctioning clear amniotic fluid at birth (SysRev)
•
Tactile stimulation for resuscitation immediately after birth (SysRev)
•
Delivery room heart rate monitoring to improve outcomes for newborn infants (SysRev)
•
Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) versus no CPAP for term respiratory distress in the delivery room (SysRev)
•
Supraglottic airways (SGAs) for neonatal resuscitation (SysRev)
•
Respiratory function monitoring during neonatal resuscitation at birth (SysRev)
Education, Implementation, and Teams
•
Prearrest prediction of survival after in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA; SysRev)
•
BLS training for likely rescuers of high-risk populations (SysRev)
•
Patient outcome and resuscitation team members attending advanced life support (ALS) courses (SysRev with EvUp)
•
Blended learning for life support education (SysRev)
•
Faculty development approaches for life support courses (ScopRev)
•
Willingness to provide CPR (EvUp)
•
Team and leadership training (EvUp)
•
Medical emergency teams for adults (EvUp)
•
Community initiatives to promote BLS (EvUp)
•
Debriefing of CPR performance (EvUp)
•
Spaced learning (EvUp)
First Aid
•
The recovery position for maintenance of adequate ventilation and the prevention of cardiac arrest (SysRev)
•
Oral dilution for caustic substance ingestion (EvUp)
•
Recognition of anaphylaxis (EvUp)
•
Compression wraps for acute closed ankle joint injury (EvUp)
•
Open chest wound dressings (EvUp)
•
Bronchodilators for acute asthma exacerbation (EvUp)
•
Optimal duration of cooling of burns with water (EvUp)
•
Preventive interventions for presyncope (EvUp)
•
Single-stage scoring systems for concussion (EvUp)
•
Cooling techniques for exertional hyperthermia and heatstroke (EvUp)
•
First aid use of supplemental oxygen for acute stroke (EvUp)
•
Methods of glucose administration for hypoglycemia in the first aid setting (EvUp)
•
Pediatric tourniquet types for life-threatening extremity bleeding (EvUp)
Readers are encouraged to monitor the ILCOR website2 to provide feedback on planned SysRevs and to provide comments when additional draft reviews are posted.
Basic Life Support
Passive Ventilation Techniques (SysRev)
Rationale for Review
This topic was prioritized by the BLS Task Force because the topic had not been reviewed since the 2015 CoSTR recommendations. This SysRev was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; CRD42021293309). The full text of this CoSTR can be found on the ILCOR website.3
PICO, Study Design, and Time Frame
•
Population: Adults and children with presumed cardiac arrest in any setting
•
Intervention: Any passive ventilation technique (eg, positioning the body, opening the airway, passive oxygen administration, Boussignac tube, constant flow insufflation of oxygen) in addition to chest compressions
•
Comparator: Standard CPR
•
Outcome:
A. Critical: Survival to hospital discharge with good neurological outcome, survival to hospital discharge
B. Important: Return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC)
•
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 if there was an English abstract. The literature search was updated to October 16, 2021.
Consensus on Science
Two RCTs, 1 observational study, and a very small pilot RCT were identified.4–7 The overall certainty of evidence was rated as very low. All the individual studies were at a critical risk of bias and indirectness. Because of a high degree of heterogeneity, the meta-analyses included only 2 RCTs in which passive ventilation through constant-flow insufflation of oxygen with the aid of a modified tracheal tube was compared with mechanical ventilation.4,5 The observational study evaluated passive oxygen insufflation as part of a minimally interrupted CPR bundle (also including uninterrupted preshock and postshock chest compressions and early epinephrine administration).6 The pilot RCT compared 9 patients who received chest compression–induced ventilation that included CPAP with 11 patients who received volume-controlled ventilation during CPR.7 Key results are presented in Table 1.
Outcomes (importance) | Participants, studies, n | Certainty of evidence (GRADE) | RR (95% CI) | Anticipated absolute effects |
---|---|---|---|---|
Discharge with favorable outcome (critical) | 1019 patients, 1 observational study6 | Very low | 1.03 (0.84–1.26) | 3 patients more/1000 (15 fewer–25 more) |
Survival to ICU discharge (critical) | 791 patients, 2 RCTs4,5 | Low | 0.96 (0.31–2.85) | 1 patient fewer/1000 (14 fewer–38 more) |
Survival to admission (important) | 791 patients, 2 RCTs4,5 | Low | 0.92 (0.64–1.24) | 14 patients fewer/1000 (61 fewer–41 more) |
ROSC (important) | 791 patients, 2 RCTs4,5 | Low | 0.98 (0.85–1.12) | 4 patients fewer/1000 (31 fewer–25 more) |
ROSC (important) | 1019 patients, 1 observational study6 | Very low | 0.85 (0.77–1.00) | 45 patients fewer/1000 (69 fewer–0 more) |
ROSC (important) | 20 patients, 1 pilot RCT study7 | Very low | 0.85 (0.77–1.00) | 45 patients fewer/1000 (69 fewer–0 more) |
CPR indicates cardiopulmonary resuscitation; GRADE, Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation; ICU, intensive care unit; RCT, randomized controlled trial; ROSC, return of spontaneous circulation; and RR, risk ratio.
Treatment Recommendations
We suggest against the routine use of passive ventilation techniques during conventional CPR (weak recommendation, very low–certainty evidence).
Justification and Evidence-to-Decision Framework Highlights
The complete evidence-to-decision table is included in Supplemental Appendix A.
Passive ventilation may represent an alternative to intermittent positive-pressure ventilation (PPV). It may shorten interruptions in chest compressions for advanced airway management and may overcome the potential harm from PPV (increased intrathoracic pressure leading to reduced venous return to the heart and reduced coronary perfusion pressure, then increased pulmonary vascular resistance).
The 2 larger RCTs4,5 that were included compared intermittent PPV through a tracheal tube with continuous insufflation of oxygen through a modified tracheal tube, that is, a Boussignac tube. The Boussignac tube used in these studies generates a constant tracheal pressure of ≈10 cm H2O. When available, the active compression-decompression device was used to perform CPR. These adjuncts may have played a role in the generation and magnitude of passive ventilation. The included observational study6 was highly confounded because multiple aspects of the CPR protocols compared were different, including the ventilation strategies, rhythm check timing, compression-to-ventilation ratios, and compression intervals between shocks. Overall, the certainty of evidence was rated as very low primarily because of the risk of bias attributable to indirectness.
We acknowledge that when emergency medical services systems have adopted a bundle of care that includes minimally interrupted cardiac resuscitation with passive ventilation, it is reasonable to continue with that strategy in the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary.
Task Force Knowledge Gaps
•
The efficacy of passive ventilation in the lay rescuer setting
•
The optimal method for ensuring a patent airway
•
Whether there is a critical volume of air movement required to maintain ventilation/oxygenation
•
The effectiveness of passive insufflation in children
Minimizing Pauses in Chest Compressions (SysRev)
Rationale for Review
This topic was prioritized by the BLS Task Force because the topic had not been reviewed since the 2015 CoSTR. This SysRev was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42019154784). The full text of this CoSTR can be found on the ILCOR website.8
PICO, Study Design, and Time Frame
•
Population: Adults in cardiac arrest in any setting
•
Intervention: Minimizing of pauses in chest compressions (higher CPR or chest compression fraction or shorter perishock pauses compared with control)
•
Comparator: Standard CPR (lower CPR fraction or longer perishock pauses compared with intervention)
•
Outcome:
A. Critical: Survival to hospital discharge with good neurological outcome and survival to hospital discharge
B. Important: ROSC
•
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 if there was an English abstract. The literature search was updated to December 17, 2021.
Consensus on Science
Three RCTs9–11 and 21 observational studies12–32 were identified. The evidence identified was divided into 5 categories, and results are summarized in Table 2:
Category | Studies | Certainty of evidence (GRADE) | Main findings |
---|---|---|---|
1. RCTs on interventions that affect pauses | 3 RCTs9–11 | Very low | New AED strategies resulted in higher CPR fractions and shorter preshock and postshock pauses but no differences in survival.9,10Continuous chest compression strategy resulted in higher CPR fractions and lower survival to hospital admission; there were no difference in survival to discharge.11 |
2. Studies comparing before and after or different systems’ CPR fraction | 6 observational studies12–17 | Very low | One study evaluated incremental changes in various CPR quality metrics and outcomes over time and found that from 2006–2016 both CPR fraction and the proportion of survivors with favorable survival increased.13The other studies observing improved CPR fractions and perishock pauses did not observe significant improvements in survival.12,14–17 |
3. Associations between chest compression pauses and outcomes | 5 observational studies18–22 | Very low | Two studies found increased CPR fraction to be associated with improved survival,18,19 whereas 2 did not.20,21 The fifth study found increasing CPR fraction to be associated with improved ROSC.22 One study found increasing peri shock pause to be associated with lower survival,20 whereas another did not.21 |
4a. Outcomes compared for chest compression pause categories: CPR fraction | 7 observational studies18,21–26 | Very low | One study showed higher favorable neurological outcome and survival to discharge in arrests with CPR fraction >80% compared with <80% in the subgroup with >20-min CPR duration but no differences in survival in the corresponding patient subgroups with 5- or 10-min CPR durations.23 Two studies observed higher survival to discharge in arrests with lower CPR fractions (<40% vs >80%) and lower survival with higher CPR fractions (<60% vs <80% and 60%–79%).24,25 One study observed lower ROSC with CPR fraction >80% compared with <80%.26 There were no significant differences in outcomes in the remaining 3 studies.18,21,22 |
4b. Outcomes compared for chest compression pause categories: perishock pauses | 4 observational studies21,25,28,29 | Three studies observed higher survival in patients with shorter preshock pauses (<10 s) compared with longer preshock pauses (>10–20 s),21,25,28,29 and 2 studies observed higher survival in patients with shorter perishock pauses (<20 s) compared with longer perishock pauses (>20–40 s).25,28 One study did not find improved survival with preshock pause <10 s compared with >10 s.21 | |
5. Pauses compared between survivors and nonsurvivors | 8 observational studies20,26–32 | Very low | One study observed higher CPR fractions during the first 5 min in nonsurvivors compared with survivors20; 1 study observed higher CPR fractions in patients with downtimes >15 min without ROSC26; 1 observed higher CPR fractions in patients with ROSC.27 In the remaining 5 studies, no difference was observed.28–32 |
AED indicates automated external defibrillator; CPR, cardiopulmonary resuscitation; GRADE, Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation; RCT, randomized controlled trial; and ROSC, return of spontaneous circulation.
1.
RCTs designed to evaluate interventions affecting quality of CPR
2.
Observational studies comparing outcomes before and after interventions designed to improve quality of care (including pauses in chest compressions) or between different systems that had differences in CPR fraction
3.
Observational studies exploring associations between pauses in chest compressions and outcomes
4.
Observational studies in which outcomes were compared between groups in different chest compression pause categories
5.
Observational studies in which pauses in compressions were compared between survivors and nonsurvivors
The overall certainty of evidence was rated as very low for all outcomes, primarily because of a very serious risk of bias. All the individual studies were at a critical risk of bias attributable to confounding. Because of this and a high degree of heterogeneity, no meta-analyses could be performed, and the individual studies are difficult to interpret.
Treatment Recommendations
We suggest that CPR fraction and perishock pauses in clinical practice be monitored as part of a comprehensive quality improvement program for cardiac arrest designed to ensure high-quality CPR delivery and resuscitation care across resuscitation systems (weak recommendation, very low–certainty evidence).
We suggest that preshock and postshock pauses in chest compressions be as short as possible (weak recommendation, very low–certainty evidence).
We suggest that the CPR fraction during cardiac arrest (CPR time devoted to compressions) should be as high as possible and be at least 60% (weak recommendation, very low–certainty evidence).
Justification and Evidence-to-Decision Framework Highlights
The complete evidence-to-decision table is included in Supplemental Appendix A.
In making these recommendations, the BLS Task Force considered that low CPR fractions may not necessarily reflect lower quality of CPR, but we felt that it was important to provide a minimum value to aid guideline creators. The consensus within the resuscitation community is that high-quality CPR is important for patient outcomes and that high-quality CPR includes high CPR or chest compression fraction and short peri shock pauses. Although the exact targets of these CPR metrics are uncertain, the strong belief in the benefit of minimizing pauses in compressions (along with the physiological rationale for the detrimental effect of no compressions) makes prospective clinical trials of long versus short compression pauses unlikely. The evidence identified in this review was either indirect (in that the interventional studies were developed for related purposes) or observational. Observational studies are challenged by the association between pauses in compressions and good outcome because resuscitation attempts of short duration in patients with shockable rhythms tend to have better outcomes than resuscitation attempts of long duration in patients with nonshockable rhythms. The number and proportion of pauses will depend on both cardiac rhythm and the duration of the resuscitation attempt; therefore, an optimal target will depend on the cardiac arrest characteristics. These factors make interpreting observational data and providing guidance for CPR metrics particularly challenging.
Experimental animal data indicate possible positive effects of postconditioning (improved cardiac and neurological function in animals treated with short, controlled pauses during initial CPR).33,34 There are no human data to inform postconditioning during cardiac arrest. Weighing a theoretical possibility of positive effects from limited pauses in chest compressions against a certain detrimental effect of lack of chest compressions, we believe that it is reasonable to assume that there is a low risk of harm from a lack of chest compression pauses and that the possibility for desirable effects from fewer pauses outweighs this.
Task Force Knowledge Gaps
•
Effect of a strategy of minimizing pauses in compressions compared with longer pauses in compressions
•
Evaluation of limited pauses in compressions as part of a postconditioning strategy in humans
•
Optimal pauses and CPR metrics for various subgroups (shockable versus nonshockable, short versus longer resuscitations, etc)
CPR During Transport (SysRev)
Rationale for Review
A ScopRev was completed for the 2020 CoSTR, and this topic was subsequently prioritized by the BLS Task Force. This SysRev was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021240615). The full text of these CoSTRs can be found on the ILCOR website.35
PICO, Study Design, and Time Frame
•
Population: Adults and children receiving CPR after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA)
•
Intervention: Transport with ongoing CPR
•
Comparator: Completing CPR on scene (until ROSC or termination of resuscitation)
•
Outcome:
A. Critical: Survival to hospital discharge with good neurological outcome and survival to hospital discharge
B. Important: Quality of CPR metrics on scene versus during transport (reported outcomes may include rate of chest compressions, depth of chest compressions, chest compression fraction, interruptions to chest compressions, leaning on chest/incomplete release, rate of ventilation, volume of ventilation, duration of ventilation, pressure of ventilation), ROSC
•
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 if there was an English abstract. The literature search was updated to June 15, 2021.
Consensus on Science
The identified studies were divided into those evaluating the effect of transport with ongoing CPR on CPR quality and those evaluating the effect of transport with ongoing CPR on patient outcomes (survival). These results are reported in separate tables (Tables 3 and 4). The studies evaluating the effect of transport with ongoing CPR on CPR quality included a wide range of quality outcomes, including the impact of transport on the following:
Category | Studies | Certainty of evidence (GRADE) | Main findings |
---|---|---|---|
Correct hand positioning | 2 manikin studies36,37 | Very low | Simulated helicopter rescue; 1 study with fewer correct compressions in flight,37 1 study with no difference36 |
Chest compression rate | 5 observational studies38–424 manikin studies36,43–45 | Very low | One study with slightly faster compressions during transport,42 2 showed increased variation,40,42 3 showed no difference.38,39,41 Manikin studies had divergent results.36,43–45 |
Chest compression depth | 4 observational studies39–424 manikin studies36,43–45 | Very low | One study with deeper compressions42 and 1 with more correct depth41 during transport, 2 with no difference.39,40 Manikin studies had divergent results.36,43–45 |
Pauses | 1 manikin study45 | Very low | Pauses during transport within guidelines45 |
Leaning on the chest/incomplete release | 2 manikin studies37,45 | Very low | Manikin studies with divergent results37,45 |
CPR fraction | 4 observational studies38–40,422 manikin studies43,45 | Very low | 3 studies showed lower CPR fractions during transport,38–40 1 showed no difference.40 Manikin studies had divergent results.43,45 |
Ventilation | 2 observational studies38,39 | Very low | One study with faster ventilations during transport,39 1 study with no difference38 |
Overall correct CPR | 1 observational study421 manikin study46 | Very low | High-quality CPR observed both before and during transport.42 Fewer correct compressions on manikin during transport46 |
CPR indicates cardiopulmonary resuscitation; and GRADE, Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation.
Outcomes (importance) | Participants, Studies, n | Certainty of evidence (GRADE) | RR (95% CI) | Anticipated absolute effects |
---|---|---|---|---|
Discharge with favorable outcome (critical) | 27 705 patients, 1 observational study47 | Very low | 0.39 (0.33–0.47) | 2 patients fewer/1000 (2 fewer–3 fewer) |
Survival to discharge (critical) | 27 705 patients, 1 observational study47 | Very low | 0.46 (0.42–0.52) | 5 patients fewer/1000 (4 fewer–5 fewer) |
ROSC (important) | 27 705 patients, 1 observational study47 | Very low | 0.41 (0.39–0.43) | 23 patients fewer/1000 (22 fewer–24 fewer) |
GRADE indicates Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation; ROSC, return of spontaneous circulation; and RR, risk ratio.
1.
Correct hand positioning
2.
Chest compression rate
3.
Chest compression depth
4.
Pauses in compressions
5.
Leaning on the chest/incomplete release
6.
Chest compression fraction/hands-off time
7.
Ventilation
8.
Overall correct CPR
Treatment Recommendations
We suggest that providers deliver resuscitation at the scene rather than undertake ambulance transport with ongoing resuscitation unless there is an appropriate indication to justify transport (eg, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation; weak recommendation, very low–certainty evidence).
The quality of manual CPR may be reduced during transport. We recommend that whenever transport is indicated, emergency medical services providers should focus on the delivery of high-quality CPR throughout transport (strong recommendation, very low–certainty evidence).
Delivery of manual CPR during transport increases the risk of injury to providers. We recommend that emergency medical services systems have a responsibility to assess this risk and, when practicable, to implement measures to mitigate the risk (good practice statement).
Justification and Evidence-to-Decision Framework Highlights
The complete evidence-to-decision table is included in Supplemental Appendix A.
In making these recommendations, the BLS Task Force considered the complexity of the decision to transport or remain on scene, including patient factors (age, comorbidities), clinical considerations (scope of practice of clinicians‚ pathogenesis, rhythm, response to treatment), logistic considerations (location of arrest, challenges of extrication, resources required, journey to hospital), patient and responder safety considerations, and hospital capability (extracorporeal membrane oxygenation or other advanced interventions). The BLS Task Force’s interpretation of available evidence for CPR quality outcomes is summarized in Table 5.
Category | Interpretation |
---|---|
Correct hand positioning | Transport appears to have little impact on correct hand positioning. |
Chest compression rate | Appropriate chest compression rates can be achieved during transport; however, there is greater variation in chest compression rate during transport compared with at the scene. |
Chest compression depth | Appropriate chest compression depth can be achieved during transport; however, there is greater variation in chest compression depth during transport compared with at the scene. |
Pauses | Transport appears to have little impact on extending pauses. |
Leaning on the chest/incomplete release | Transport appears to have little impact on complete release. |
CPR fraction | There is significant variation in chest compression fraction. Transport appears to have a negative impact on chest compression fraction. |
Ventilation | Transport appears to have little impact on ventilation rates. |
Overall correct CPR | There is significant variation in overall correct CPR. Transport appears to have a negative impact on overall correct CPR. |
BLS indicates Basic Life Support; and CPR, cardiopulmonary resuscitation.
The BLS Task Force’s interpretation of available evidence for survival outcomes was that the single study that was identified reported lower survival among transported patients.47 The certainty of evidence was very low, with considerable risk of remaining confounding despite the use of propensity score matching. Overall, the task force’s concerns about decreased CPR quality and provider safety when delivering CPR during transport outweighed the benefits of bringing patients to the hospital unless the hospital could offer specific treatments not available in the prehospital setting (eg, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, CAG, echocardiography, or other potential investigations or treatments).
Task Force Knowledge Gaps
•
There are only a few studies in humans.
•
There are no studies in children.
•
There are no studies addressing the impact on patient outcomes of CPR quality during transport.
•
There are no studies on the impact of the presence or absence of an advanced airway on the effect of transport on ventilation during CPR.
C-A-B or A-B-C in Drowning (SysRev)
Rationale for Review
This topic was prioritized by the BLS Task Force after the ScopRev that was completed for the 2020 CoSTR. This SysRev was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021259983). The full text of this CoSTR can be found on the ILCOR website.48
PICO, Study Design, and Time Frame
•
Population: Adults and children in cardiac arrest after drowning
•
Intervention: Resuscitation that incorporates a compression-first strategy (C-A-B)
•
Comparator: Resuscitation that starts with ventilation (A-B-C)
•
Outcome:
A. Critical: Survival to hospital discharge with good neurological outcome and survival to hospital discharge
B. Important: ROSC
•
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 if there was an English abstract. The literature search was updated to October 16, 2021.
Consensus on Science
Seven hundred thirty abstracts were reviewed, of which 9 were reviewed in full text. No studies were identified as relevant to the PICO question comparing initial resuscitation strategies (ventilation first or compression first) for cardiac arrests caused by drowning. To determine good practice statements, the reviewers identified literature and other consensus statements that related indirectly to the research question.
Treatment Recommendations
We recommend a compression-first strategy (C-A-B) for laypeople providing resuscitation for adults and children in cardiac arrest caused by drowning (good practice statement).
We recommend that health care professionals and those with a duty to respond to drowning (eg, lifeguards) consider providing rescue breaths/ventilation first (A-B-C) before chest compressions if they have been trained to do so (good practice statement).
Justification and Evidence-to-Decision Framework Highlights
The rationale for the ventilation-first strategy (differing from adult BLS treatment recommendations) is based on the hypoxic mechanism of cardiac arrest in drowning and the belief that earlier ventilation will reverse the hypoxia sooner, either preventing the patient from progressing from respiratory arrest to cardiac arrest or increasing the likelihood of ROSC after correcting the underlying pathogenesis.
A similar rationale is commonly invoked in pediatric cardiac arrest in which hypoxia is a more common cause than primary cardiac events.49 ILCOR reviewed the evidence for initial resuscitation strategy in pediatric cardiac arrest in both 2015 and 2020.50,51 No human studies were identified, and the Pediatric Life Support (PLS) Task Force did not recommend either strategy as superior. Instead, the task force noted that a compression-first strategy prioritized uniformity with adult guidelines and simplicity and a ventilation-first strategy prioritized more rapid reversal of hypoxia. Two manikin RCTs that were identified in the review demonstrated that ventilation was delayed by only 5.7 to 6 seconds with a compression-first strategy compared with a ventilation-first strategy.52,53
There is only indirect evidence to support a ventilation-first strategy in drowning. Another SysRev of resuscitation after drowning is currently being done to determine the impact of any ventilation at all as part of the resuscitation strategy. However, a recent ScopRev found that bystander CPR including ventilation was associated with better survival.54 One retrospective observational study compared in-water resuscitation (ie, ventilation) with no ventilation for drowning victims in respiratory (and possibly cardiac) arrest. Survival (87.5% versus 25%) and survival with favorable functional outcome (52.6% versus 7.4%) were higher in the in-water resuscitation cohort.55 Another study describes significantly worse functional outcomes in children who drowned who experienced cardiac arrest compared with respiratory arrest only (81% versus 0%; P <0.001). Intervening with ventilation early in the arrest process before the heart has stopped (ie, addressing the hypoxic mechanism) may improve outcomes.56
The recommendation for a compression-first strategy (C-A-B) for lay rescuers prioritizes simplicity and cohesiveness in training recommendations for laypeople, with the goal of faster resuscitation initiation. The recommendation is supported by manikin studies finding that there was limited delay in ventilation even with a compression-first strategy.
The recommendation for health care professionals and those with a duty to respond to consider providing rescue breaths/ventilation first (A-B-C) considers the indirect evidence suggesting that earlier ventilations may improve outcomes. It is unclear whether earlier ventilation may improve outcomes after cardiac arrest has occurred or if the benefit is exclusively in preventing respiratory arrest from deteriorating into cardiac arrest.
Task Force Knowledge Gaps
•
No studies directly evaluated this question.
•
Further research informed by the Utstein template for drowning may address this ongoing uncertainty.
Topics Reviewed by EvUps
The topics reviewed by EvUps are summarized in Table 6, with the PICO number, existing treatment recommendation, number of relevant studies identified, key findings, and whether a SysRev was deemed worthwhile. Complete EvUps can be found in Supplemental Appendix B.
Topic/PICO | Year(s) last updated | Existing treatment recommendation | RCTs since last review, n | Observational studies since last review, n | Key findings | Sufficient data to warrant SysRev? |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ALS-E-030A Paddle size and placement for defibrillation | 2010 CoSTR; 2020 ScopRev | It 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 below 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. | 0 | 0 | No new studies identified | No |
BLS 342 Barrier devices | 2005 CoSTR | Providers should take appropriate safety precautions when feasible and when resources are available to do so, especially if the subject is known to have a serious infection (for example, HIV, tuberculosis, HBV, or SARS). | 0 | 0 | No new studies identified | No |
BLS 343 Chest compression rate | 2015 CoSTR; 2020 ScopRev | We recommend a manual chest compression rate of 100–120/min (strong recommendation, very low–certainty evidence). | 0 | 2 | PICOSTs BLS 343, 366, and 367 have been evaluated together to identify any evidence looking at the interplay between the 3 CPR metrics. Two new observational studies on rate and depth—but not on recoil—since last ScopRev were identified. Findings were consistent with current guidelines. | No |
BLS 345 Rhythm check timing | 2020 CoSTR | We suggest immediate resumption of chest compressions after shock delivery for adults in cardiac arrest in any setting (weak recommendation, very low–certainty evidence). | 0 | 0 | No new studies identified | No |
BLS 346 Timing of CPR cycles (2 min vs other) | 2020 CoSTR | We suggest pausing chest compressions every 2 min to assess the cardiac rhythm (weak recommendation, low-certainty evidence). | 0 | 0 | No new studies identified | No |
BLS 347 Public-access AED programs | 2020 CoSTR | We recommend the implementation of PAD programs for patients with OHCA (strong recommendation, low-certainty evidence). | 0 | 1 | One observational study on a PAD program at Tokyo railroad stations presented significant benefits and cost-effectiveness in line with previous recommendations. | No |
BLS 348 Check for circulation during BLS | 2015 CoSTR | Outside of the ALS environment, when 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 for the value of a pulse check. | 0 | 0 | No new studies since 2021. Some relevant articles showing the effectiveness of ultrasound to check for circulation were identified. | No |
BLS 349 Rescuer fatigue in CCO-CPR | 2015 CoSTR | We recommend no modification to current CCO-CPR guidelines for cardiac arrest to mitigate rescuer fatigue (strong recommendation, very low–certainty evidence). | 0 | 0 | No new clinical or simulation studies were identified that addressed the criteria. Simulation studies on manikins were identified. Consider reviewing CCO-CPR rest intervals in the future. | No |
BLS 353 Harm from CPR to victims not in arrest | 2020 CoSTR | We recommend that laypeople initiate CPR for presumed cardiac arrest without concerns of harm to patients not in cardiac arrest (strong recommendation, very low–certainty evidence). | 0 | 0 | No new studies identified | No |
BLS 354 Harm to rescuers from CPR | 2015 CoSTR; 2020 ScopRev | Evidence 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 a defibrillator shock with an AED during BLS is also safe. The incidence and morbidity of defibrillator-related injuries in the rescuers are low. | 0 | 2 | One study found low risk of physical injury reported by volunteer citizen responders dispatched to OHCA. One study found low risk of harm from defibrillation in rescuers wearing polyethylene gloves. Future reviews might focus specifically on safety of lay responder programs. | No |
BLS 357 Hand position during compressions | 2020 CoSTR | We suggest performing chest compressions on the lower half of the sternum on adults in cardiac arrest (weak recommendation, very low–certainty evidence). | 0 | 0 | No new studies addressing this question were identified, but 2 simulation/training studies highlighting difficulties for lay rescuers in identifying correct hand position were identified. | No |
BLS 359 Dispatch-assisted CCO-CPR vs conventional CPR | 2019 CoSTR | We recommend that dispatchers provide CCO-CPR instructions to callers for adults with suspected OHCA (strong recommendation, low-certainty evidence). | 0 | 0 | No new studies identified | No |
BLS 360 EMS CCO-CPR vs conventional CPR | 2020 CoSTR | We 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). | 0 | 1 | One new study since 2021 was identified. Median inspiratory tidal volume generated by manual chest compressions without ventilation was 20 mL (IQR, 13–28 mL), which was judged inadequate to provide adequate alveolar ventilation. | No |
BLS 362 CV ratio | 2017 CoSTR | We suggest a CV ratio of 30:2 compared with any other CV ratio in patients with cardiac arrest (weak recommendation, very low–quality evidence). | 0 | 0 | No new studies identified | No |
BLS 363 CPR before defibrillation | 2020 CoSTR | We suggest a short period of CPR until the defibrillator is ready for analysis or defibrillation in unmonitored cardiac arrest (weak recommendation, low-certainty evidence). | 0 | 0 | No new studies identified Observational data exploring AMSA and ETCO2 to guide defibrillation might be relevant for ALS. | No |
BLS 366 Chest compression depth | 2015 CoSTR; 2020 ScopRev | We recommend a chest compression depth of ≈5 cm (2 in; strong recommendation, low-certainty evidence) while avoiding excessive chest compression depths (>6 cm [>2.4 in] in an average adult) during manual CPR (weak recommendation, low-certainty evidence). | 0 | 2 | PICOSTs BLS 343, 366, and 367 have been evaluated together to identify any evidence looking at the interplay among the 3 CPR metrics. Two new observational studies on rate and depth, but not recoil, since last ScopRev were identified. Findings were consistent with current guidelines. | No |
BLS 367 Chest wall recoil | 2015 CoSTR; 2020 ScopRev | We 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). | 0 | 2 | PICOSTs BLS 343, 366, and 367 have been evaluated together to identify any evidence looking at the interplay among the 3 CPR metrics. Two new observational studies on rate and depth, but not recoil, since last ScopRev were identified. Findings were consistent with current guidelines. | No |
BLS 368 Foreign-body airway obstruction | 2020 CoSTR | We suggest that backslaps be used initially in adults and children with a foreign-body airway obstruction and an ineffective cough (weak recommendation, very low–certainty evidence). We suggest that abdominal thrusts be used in adults and children (>1 y of age) with a foreign-body airway obstruction and an ineffective cough when backslaps 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 a foreign-body airway obstruction (weak recommendation, very low–certainty evidence). We suggest that appropriately skilled health care providers use Magill forceps to remove a foreign-body airway obstruction in patients with OHCA resulting from foreign-body airway obstruction (weak recommendation, very low–certainty evidence). We suggest that chest thrusts be used in unconscious adults and children with a foreign-body airway obstruction (weak recommendation, very low–certainty evidence). We suggest that bystanders undertake interventions to support foreign-body airway obstruction 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). | 0 | 1 | A single new case series was identified that describes 8 cases of the use of a vacuum cleaner to clear foreign-body airway obstruction. | No |
BLS 370 Firm surface for CPR | 2020 CoSTR | We suggest performing 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 the bed to the floor to improve chest compression depth (weak recommendation, very low–certainty evidence). During IHCA, we suggest in favor of either a backboard or no-backboard strategy to improve chest compression depth (conditional recommendation, very low–certainty evidence). | 0 | 3 | Three additional manikin RCTs were identified, evaluating CPR quality with a backboard, on a dentist chair, and on a dynamic mattress. | No |
BLS 372 In-hospital CCO-CPR vs conventional CPR | 2017 CoSTR | Whenever tracheal intubation or an SGA is achieved during in-hospital CPR, we suggest that providers perform continuous compressions with PPV delivered without pausing chest compressions (weak recommendation, very low–certainty evidence). | 0 | 0 | No new studies identified | No |
BLS 373 Analysis of rhythm during chest compression | 2020 CoSTR | We 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). | 0 | 2 | Two new observational studies since last SysRev were identified. Analysis during CPR led to fewer pauses in chest compressions. | Yes |
BLS 374 Alternative compression techniques (cough, precordial thump, fist pacing) | 2020 CoSTR | We 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 (for example, 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 (for example, 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). | 0 | 0 | No new studies identified | No |
BLS 546 Tidal volumes and ventilation rates | 2010 CoSTR | For 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 a 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. | 0 | 0 | No new studies identified Identified studies evaluated tidal volumes during mechanical ventilation and after ROSC. | No |
BLS 547 Lay rescuer CCO-CPR vs conventional CPR | 2020 CoSTR | We 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 adult patients in cardiac arrest (weak recommendation, very low–certainty evidence). | 0 | 0 | Only manikin/training studies since 2020 | No |
BLS 661 Starting CPR (C-A-B vs A-B-C) | 2020 CoSTR | We suggest starting CPR with compressions rather than ventilation in adults with cardiac arrest (weak recommendation, very low–certainty evidence). | 0 | 0 | No new studies identified | No |
BLS 740 Dispatcher recognition of cardiac arrest | 2020 CoSTR | We recommend that dispatch centers implement a standardized algorithm or standardized criteria to immediately determine whether 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. | 1 | 6 | One RCT was identified in which calls processed with machine learning recognized arrest 93.1% vs 90.5% in control group (P =0.15). Six observational studies evaluated various interventions or compared different systems with regard to recognition of cardiac arrest. | Yes |
BLS 811 Resuscitation care for suspected opioid-associated emergencies | 2020 CoSTR | We 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). | 0 | 0 | No new studies identified | No |
BLS 1527 CPR before call for help | 2020 CoSTR | We 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). | 0 | 0 | No new studies identified | No |
BLS Video-Based Dispatch Systems | 2021 CoSTR | We suggest that the usefulness of video-based dispatch systems be assessed in clinical trials or research initiatives (weak recommendation, very low–certainty evidence). | 0 | 2 | Two additional observational studies were identified. One study reported an association between video dispatch and survival. The other reported better CPR quality with video dispatch. | No |
BLS Head-Up CPR | 2021 CoSTR | 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). | 0 | 0 | No new studies identified Observational data exploring AMSA and ETCO2 to guide defibrillation might be relevant for ALS. | No |
AED indicates automated external defibrillator; ALS, advanced life support; AMSA, amplitude spectral area; BLS, basic life support; CCO-CPR, chest compression–only cardiopulmonary resuscitation; CoSTR, Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations; CPR, cardiopulmonary resuscitation; CV, compression-to-ventilation; EMS, emergency medical services; EvUp, evidence update; HBV, hepatitis B virus; IHCA, in-hospital cardiac arrest; IQR, interquartile range; OHCA, out-of-hospital cardiac arrest; PAD, public-access defibrillation; PICO, population, intervention, comparator, outcome; PICOST, population, intervention, comparator, outcomes, study design, timeframe; PPV, positive-pressure ventilation; RCT, randomized controlled trial; SARS, severe acute respiratory syndrome; ScopRev, scoping review; and SGA, supraglottic airway.
*
Complete EvUps are in Supplemental Appendix B.
ALS Task Force
Temperature Management After Cardiac Arrest (SysRev)
Rationale for Review
Active temperature control has been a cornerstone of care for those who remain comatose after cardiac arrest. This SysRev was prompted by the publication of 2 large randomized trials comparing different strategies of temperature management since the previous ILCOR review in 2015.57 A SysRev was therefore conducted on behalf of the ALS Task Force (PROSPERO; CRD42020217954).58 The complete CoSTR can be found online.59
PICO, Study Design, and Time Frame
For this PICO, study design, and time frame, 6 comparisons were included. Population, outcome, study design, and time frame included were the same for all comparisons.
•
Population: Adults in Any Setting (In-Hospital or Out-of-Hospital) With Cardiac Arrest
Use of TTM
•
Intervention: TTM at 32° C to 34° C
•
Comparator: No TTM (normothermia/fever prevention)
Timing
•
Intervention: TTM induction before a specific time point (eg, prehospital or intracardiac arrest, ie, before ROSC)
•
Comparator: TTM induction after that specific time point
Temperature
•
Intervention: TTM at a specific temperature (eg, 33° C)
•
Comparator: TTM at a different specific temperature (eg, 36° C)
Duration
•
Intervention: TTM for a specific duration (eg, 48 hours)
•
Comparator: TTM at a different specific duration (eg, 24 hours)
Method
•
Intervention: TTM with a specific method (eg, external)
•
Comparator: TTM with a different specific method (eg, internal)
Rewarming
•
Intervention: TTM with a specific rewarming rate
•
Comparator: TTM with a different specific rewarming rate or no specific rewarming rate
•
Outcome: Critical—Survival and favorable neurological/functional outcome at discharge/≥30 days
•
Study design: Controlled trials in humans, including RCTs and nonrandomized trials (eg, pseudorandomized trials). Observational studies, ecological studies, case series, case reports, reviews, abstracts, editorials, comments, letters to the editor, and unpublished studies were excluded. Studies assessing cost-effectiveness were included for a descriptive summary.
•
Time frame: All years and all languages were included if there was an English abstract. The literature search was conducted on October 30, 2020, and updated for clinical trials on June 17, 2021.
Consensus on Science
The search identified 2328 unique records, of which 139 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility. Articles reporting data from 32 trials published between 2001 and 2021 were included. The search identified 1 cost-effectiveness analysis. We did not identify any trials assessing rewarming rate.
A Note on Terminology
In the SysRev, studies were pooled such that the intervention labeled as TTM in the PICO question was targeting hypothermia (32° C–34° C), and the comparator labeled as no TTM was targeting normothermia or fever prevention. To avoid confusion and to accurately reflect the content of the included trials, we have replaced the term TTM with temperature control with hypothermia, and we replaced no TTM with temperature control with normothermia or fever prevention. To provide additional clarity for interpreting future clinical trials, SysRevs, and CoSTRs, the Task Force proposes new ILCOR definitions for the various forms of temperature control in post–cardiac arrest care under Justification and Evidence-to-Decision Framework Highlights.
Use of Temperature Control With Hypothermia
We identified 6 RCTs comparing the use of temperature control with hypothermia and temperature control with normothermia or fever prevention.60–65 No differences were found across any outcome, and key results are presented in Table 7.
Outcomes (importance) | Participants, studies, n | Certainty of evidence (GRADE) | RR (95% CI) | Anticipated absolute effects |
---|---|---|---|---|
Survival to hospital discharge (critical) | 2836 patients, 5 RCTs60,61,63–65 | Low | 1.12 (0.92–1.35) | 55 patients more/1000 (37 fewer–161 more) |
Favorable neurological outcome at discharge or 30 d (critical) | 2139 patients, 3 RCTs60,61,63 | Low | 1.30 (0.83–2.03) | 115 patients more/1000 (65 fewer–395 more) |
Survival to 90 or 180 d (critical) | 2776 patients, 5 RCTs61–65 | Low | 1.08 (0.89–1.30) | 35 patients more/1000 (48 fewer–130 more) |
Favorable neurological outcome at 90 or 180 d (critical) | 2753 patients, 5 RCTs61–65 | Low | 1.21 (0.91–1.61) | 76 patients more/1000 (33 fewer–222 more) |
GRADE indicates Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation; RCT, randomized controlled trial; and RR, risk ratio.
Use of Prehospital Cooling
We identified 10 RCTs66–75 comparing the use of prehospital cooling with no prehospital cooling after OHCA, and no differences in critical outcomes were found (Table 8).
Outcomes (importance) | Participants, studies, n | Certainty of evidence (GRADE) | RR (95% CI) | Anticipated absolute effects |
---|---|---|---|---|
Survival to hospital discharge (critical) | 4808 patients, 10 RCTs66–75 | Moderate | 1.01 (0.92–1.11) | 2 patients more/1000 (19 fewer–27 more) |
Favorable neurological outcome at discharge (critical) | 4666 patients, 9 RCTs60,66–72,74,75 | Moderate | 1.00 (0.90–1.11) | 0 patients fewer/1000 (22 fewer–24 more) |
GRADE indicates Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation; RCT, randomized controlled trial; and RR, risk ratio.
Specific Temperature Comparisons
A single large RCT,76 now known as the TTM trial, compared temperature control at 33° C with temperature control at 36° C and found no statistically significant difference in patient outcomes. Key results are presented in Table 9. Two much smaller RCTs compared management at 32° C versus 34° C, 32° C versus 33° C, and 33° C versus 34° C, finding no statistically significant difference for any of the comparisons.77,78
Outcomes (importance) | Participants, studies, n | Certainty of evidence (GRADE) | RR (95% CI) | Anticipated absolute effects |
---|---|---|---|---|
Favorable neurological outcome at 180 d (critical) | 933 patients, 1 RCT76 | Low | 0.98 (0.86–1.13) | 10 patients fewer/1000 (68 fewer–63 more) |
Survival at 180 d (critical) | 939 patients, 1 RCT76 | Low | 0.99 (0.88–1.12) | 5 patients fewer/1000 (63 fewer–63 more) |
Favorable neurological outcome at discharge (critical) | 938 patients, 1 RCT76 | Low | 0.96 (0.83–1.11) | 18 patients fewer/1000 (78 fewer–50 more) |
GRADE indicates Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation; RCT, randomized controlled trial; and RR, risk ratio.
Duration of Cooling
A single RCT79 including 451 patients found no statistically significant difference in survival or favorable neurological outcome at 6 months between 48 and 24 hours of temperature control with hypothermia.
Method of Temperature Control
Three RCTs80–82 including a total of 523 patients found no difference in survival or favorable neurological outcome at hospital discharge/28 days with endovascular cooling compared with surface cooling devices.
Rewarming
No studies were identified evaluating rewarming strategies.
Treatment Recommendations
We suggest actively preventing fever by targeting a temperature ≤37.5° C for patients who remain comatose after ROSC from cardiac arrest (weak recommendation, low-certainty evidence).
Whether subpopulations of cardiac arrest patients may benefit from targeting hypothermia at 32° C to 34° C remains uncertain.
Comatose patients with mild hypothermia after ROSC should not be actively warmed to achieve normothermia (good practice statement).
We recommend against the routine use of prehospital cooling with rapid infusion of large volumes of cold intravenous fluid immediately after ROSC (strong recommendation, moderate-certainty evidence).
We suggest surface or endovascular temperature control techniques when temperature control is used in comatose patients after ROSC (weak recommendation, low-certainty evidence).
When a cooling device is used, we suggest using a temperature control device that includes a feedback system based on continuous temperature monitoring to maintain the target temperature (good practice statement).
We suggest active prevention of fever for at least 72 hours in post–cardiac arrest patients who remain comatose (good practice statement).
Justification and Evidence-to-Decision Framework Highlights
The complete evidence-to-decision table is provided in Supplemental Appendix A.
In making these recommendations, the ALS Task Force agreed that we should continue to recommend active temperature control to prevent fever in post–cardiac arrest patients, although the evidence for this is limited.
The ALS Task Force also discussed the terminology of temperature control and felt that current terminology is somewhat problematic. The term TTM on its own is not helpful, and it is preferable to use the terms active temperature control, hypothermia, normothermia, or fever prevention. The ALS Task Force has also avoided use of the term TTM because this term is now very closely linked to the TTM and TTM2 RCTs. To provide additional clarity for interpreting future clinical trials, SysRevs, and CoSTRs, the Task Force proposes that the following terms be used:
•
Temperature control with hypothermia: Active temperature control with the target temperature below the normal range
•
Temperature control with normothermia: Active temperature control with the target temperature in the normal range
•
Temperature control with fever prevention: Monitoring temperature and actively preventing and treating temperature above the normal range
•
No temperature control: No protocolized active temperature control strategy
The majority of the ALS Task Force favored fever prevention as a strategy over hypothermia on the basis of evidence and because this intervention requires fewer resources and had fewer side effects than hypothermia treatment. The specifics of how normothermia was achieved were thought to be important, and the Task Force noted that in the TTM2 trial61 pharmacological measures (acetaminophen), uncovering the patient, and lowering ambient temperature were used to maintain a temperature of ≤37.5° C (99.5° F) in the normothermia/fever prevention group. If the temperature was >37.7° C (99.9° F), a cooling device was used and set at a target temperature of 37.5° C (99.5° F). Ninety-five percent of patients in the hypothermia group and 46% in the fever prevention group received temperature control with a device.
Several members of the task force wanted to leave open the option to use hypothermia (33° C). The discussions included the following:
•
No trials have shown that normothermia is better than hypothermia.
•
Among patients with nonshockable cardiac arrest, the Hyperion trial64 showed better survival with favorable functional outcome in the hypothermia group (although 90-day survival was not significantly different and the Fragility Index was only 1).
•
The largest temperature control studies have included mainly cardiac arrests with a primary cardiac cause, and this may not reflect the total population of post–cardiac arrest patients treated.
•
Concerns were raised that the TTM2 trial cooling rates, which were similar to those in other studies, were too slow and that the time to target temperature was outside the therapeutic window.
•
There was a unanimous desire to leave open the opportunity for further research on post–cardiac arrest hypothermia.
•
There were concerns that poor implementation of temperature control may lead to patient harm. For example, the publication of the TTM trial in 2013 may have led to some clinicians abandoning temperature control after cardiac arrest, which in turn was associated with worse outcomes.83–85
•
The comparison between 33° C and 36° C was included in a sensitivity analysis of 33° C versus normothermia/fever prevention. This did not change the point estimates.
•
The task force made a good practice statement supporting the avoidance of active warming of patients who have passively become mildly hypothermic (eg, 32° C–36° C) immediately after ROSC because there was concern that rewarming may be a harmful intervention. In the TTM2 trial, patients in the normothermia/fever prevention arm who had an initial temperature >33° C were not actively warmed.61 In the Hyperion trial, patients allocated to normothermia whose temperature was <36.5° C at randomization were warmed at 0.25° C/h to 0.5° C/h and then maintained at 36.5° C to 37.5° C.64
The recommendation about prehospital cooling is unchanged from 2015 because we found no evidence that any method of prehospital cooling improved outcomes. The ALS Task Force recommends against the rapid infusion of large volumes of cold fluid immediately after ROSC in the prehospital setting because of higher rates of rearrest and pulmonary edema with that intervention in the largest of the included studies.72
There was no consensus on whether a feedback (versus no feedback) cooling device should be used routinely, so this was added as a good practice statement because there is no evidence that this approach improves outcomes. There was consensus that temperature should be continually monitored by the cooling device to enable active control of temperature and to maintain a stable temperature. There was a comment that endovascular cooling may be superior for temperature control. Two recent SysRevs have conflicting conclusions.86,87
Our treatment recommendation on duration of temperature control is a good practice statement based on trials controlling temperature for at least 72 hours in those patients who remained sedated or comatose.
Task Force Knowledge Gaps
•
Whether fever prevention changes outcome compared with no temperature control
•
The effect of temperature control after extracorporeal CPR
•
The effect of temperature control after IHCA
•
Whether there is a therapeutic window within which hypothermic temperature control is effective in the clinical setting
•
If a therapeutic window exists, whether there are clinically feasible cooling strategies that can rapidly achieve therapeutic target temperatures within the therapeutic window
•
Whether the clinical effectiveness of hypothermia is dependent on providing the appropriate dose (target temperature and duration) on the basis of the severity of brain injury
•
Whether there are subsets of post–cardiac arrest patients who would benefit from hypothermic temperature control as currently practiced
•
Whether temperature control using a cooling device with feedback is more effective than temperature control without a feedback-controlled cooling device
POCUS as a Diagnostic Tool During Cardiac Arrest (SysRev)
Rationale for Review
A SysRev of the diagnostic accuracy of POCUS was prioritized by the ALS Task Force because ultrasound use during CPR continues to grow in popularity, often with the goal of identifying a reversible cause of arrest that can then be treated. This CoSTR focuses entirely on POCUS as a diagnostic tool and does not replace the 2021 CoSTR on POCUS as a prognostic tool during CPR.88 The diagnostic SysRev was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020205207) and the full text of the CoSTR can be found online.89‚90
PICO, Study Design, and Time Frame
•
Population: Adults with cardiac arrest in any setting
•
Intervention: A particular finding on POCUS during CPR
•
Comparator: An external confirmatory test or process including some component other than POCUS
•
Outcome: Important—A specific cause or pathophysiological state that may have led to cardiac arrest
•
Study design: Randomized and nonrandomized trials, cohort studies (prospective and retrospective), and case-control studies with data on both POCUS findings and an external reference standard to contribute to a contingency table (ie, true-positive, false-positive, false-negative, true-negative). Animal studies, ecological studies, case series, case reports, narrative reviews, abstracts, editorials, comments, letters to the editor, and unpublished studies were not excluded.
•
Time frame: All years and all languages were included if there was an English abstract. The literature search was updated through October 6, 2021.
Consensus on Science
The overall certainty of evidence was rated as very low for diagnosis of all target conditions primarily because of risk of bias, inconsistency, and imprecision. As a result of critical risk of bias across all included studies and a high degree of clinical heterogeneity, no meta-analyses could be performed, and individual studies are difficult to interpret.
Only a single observational study91 provided sufficient information to calculate the sensitivity and specificity of POCUS for specific pathophysiological states, and these results are summarized in Table 10.
Target condition | Participants, n | Certainty of evidence (GRADE) | Sensitivity (95% CI) | Specificity (95% CI) |
---|---|---|---|---|
Cardiac tamponade | 48 | Very low | 1.00 (0.29–1.00) | 1.00 (0.88–1.00) |
Pulmonary embolism | 48 | Very low | 1.00 (0.16–1.00) | 0.97 (0.82–0.99) |
Myocardial infarction | 48 | Very low | 0.86 (0.57–0.98) | 0.94 (0.71–0.99) |
GRADE indicates Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation; and POCUS, point-of-care ultrasound.
*
The reference was autopsy or clinical adjudication in all cases.
For the target conditions of cardiac tamponade, pericardial effusion, pulmonary embolism, myocardial infarction, aortic dissection, and hypovolemia, 11 observational studies92–102 with a high risk of bias provided sufficient data to estimate individual positive predictive values only among small subsets of between 1 and 10 patients with OHCA, IHCA, or intraoperative cardiac arrest. Individual estimates of positive predictive value have very wide CIs and are difficult to interpret in the context of the very small subsets of subjects.
Treatment Recommendations
We suggest against routine use of POCUS during CPR to diagnose reversible causes of cardiac arrest (weak recommendation, very low–certainty evidence).
We suggest that if POCUS can be performed by experienced personnel without interrupting CPR, it may be considered as an additional diagnostic tool when clinical suspicion for a specific reversible cause is present (weak recommendation, very low–certainty evidence).
Any deployment of diagnostic POCUS during CPR should be carefully considered and weighed against the risks of interrupting chest compressions and misinterpreting the sonographic findings (good practice statement).
Justification and Evidence-to-Decision Framework Highlights
In making these recommendations, the ALS Task Force discussed that the inconsistent definitions and terminology used for sonographic evidence of specific causes of cardiac arrest were the primary source of clinical heterogeneity and that the establishment of uniform definitions and terminology to describe sonographic findings of reversible causes of cardiac arrest is very important.
The identified studies all have high risk of bias related to selection bias and ascertainment bias. Verification bias (when availability or use of the reference standard is influenced by test-positive or test-negative status) was present in all but 1 of the included studies. We strongly encourage subsequent investigations of POCUS during cardiac arrest to use methodology that mitigates these risks of bias, including standardized definition of time intervals for imaging acquisition, assessment of image quality, and experience of the sonographer, among others.
The task force discussed that the diagnostic utility of POCUS is affected by the clinical context. For example, a postoperative cardiac surgery patient with cardiac arrest may have a higher pretest probability for specific causes such as cardiac tamponade, pulmonary embolism, or acute hemorrhage. Conversely, the diagnostic utility of POCUS may be more limited in the context of undifferentiated cardiac arrest in the out-of-hospital setting.
Evidence showing that POCUS may increase the length of pauses in chest compressions was discussed as a very important consideration, especially given the lack of evidence for benefit from the use of POCUS.103,104 Some studies suggest that transesophageal echocardiography can eliminate this problem.105–107
The task force noted that POCUS findings that may indicate myocardial infarction or pulmonary embolism outside of cardiac arrest may be much less specific during CPR. For example, wall motion abnormalities may result from the ischemia of a low-flow state or a preexisting infarct as opposed to a de novo myocardial infarction. Not treating a reversible cause of cardiac arrest risks failure of the resuscitation attempt or more severe post–cardiac arrest injury. Treating an incorrect diagnosis suggested by POCUS risks iatrogenic injury or delayed identification of the true underlying cause.
Because of the resources involved and the use of POCUS in current clinical practice, the task force expects that most diagnostic applications of POCUS will occur in a hospital-based setting as opposed to the prehospital setting.
The prognostic utility of POCUS to predict clinical outcomes is covered in a separate PICO Study Design, and Time Frame section.89
Task Force Knowledge Gaps
•
The diagnostic accuracy of POCUS during cardiac arrest using methodology that sufficiently minimizes risk of bias, especially selection bias, ascertainment bias, and verification bias
•
Uniform definitions and terminology to describe sonographic findings of reversible causes of cardiac arrest or the associated reference standards
•
The interrater reliability of POCUS diagnostic findings during cardiac arrest
•
Resource requirements, cost-effectiveness, equity, acceptability, or feasibility of POCUS use during CPR
•
Whether use of POCUS during CPR changes patient outcomes
Use of Vasopressin and Corticosteroids During Cardiac Arrest (SysRev)
Rationale for Review
PICO, Study Design, and Time Frame
•
Population: Adults with cardiac arrest in any setting
•
Intervention: Administration of the combination of vasopressin and corticosteroids during CPR
•
Comparator: Not using vasopressin and corticosteroids during CPR
•
Outcome:
A. Critical: Health-related quality of life; survival with favorable functional outcome at discharge, 30, 60, 90, or 180 days, or 1 year; and survival at discharge, 30, 60, 90, or 180 days or 1 year
B. Important: ROSC
•
Study design: RCTs were eligible for inclusion. Observational studies and unpublished studies (eg, conference abstracts, trial protocols) were excluded.
•
Time frame: All years and all languages were included if there was an English abstract.
Consensus on Science
In-Hospital Cardiac Arrest
One of the included trials,108 which enrolled 501 patients, assessed health-related quality of life at 90 days measured by the EuroQol 5 Dimension 5 Level tool. Data were available from all 44 patients who survived to 90 days, and there was no difference in the EuroQol 5 Dimension 5 Level score.
Results from the meta-analysis of the 3 included RCTs for other clinical outcomes are presented in Table 11.
Outcomes (importance) | Participants, studies, n | Certainty of evidence (GRADE) | OR (95% CI) | Anticipated absolute effects |
---|---|---|---|---|
Favorable functional outcome at hospital discharge (critical) | 869 patients, 3 RCTs108,111,112 | Low | 1.64 (0.99–2.72) | 37 patients more/1000 (1 fewer–93 more) |
Survival to discharge (critical) | 869 patients, 3 RCTs108,111,112 | Low | 1.39 (0.90–2.14) | 34 patients more/1000 (9 fewer–91 more) |
ROSC (important) | 869 patients, 3 RCTs108,111,112 | Moderate | 2.09 (1.54–2.84) | 181 more/1000 (108 more–249 more) |
GRADE indicates Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation; OR, odds ratio; RCT, randomized controlled trials; and ROSC, return of spontaneous circulation.
Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest
We did not find any evidence specific to OHCA. Therefore, all the results for this population were the same, with the evidence downgraded for indirectness for the OHCA population.
Treatment Recommendations
We suggest against the use of the combination of vasopressin and corticosteroids in addition to usual care for adult IHCA because of low confidence in effect estimates for critical outcomes (weak recommendation, low- to moderate-certainty evidence).
We suggest against the use of the combination of vasopressin and corticosteroids in addition to usual care for adult OHCA (weak recommendation, very low– to low-certainty evidence).
Justification and Evidence-to-Decision Framework Highlights
In making these recommendations, the ALS Task Force considered that the intervention (vasopressin and corticosteroids) given intra-arrest improved ROSC, but this did not clearly translate into an effect on other outcomes.
In all studies, the combination of vasopressin and corticosteroids was administered in addition to standard intra-arrest treatments, including epinephrine and defibrillation. The task force noted that the earlier 2 studies111,112 reported improvements in outcomes beyond ROSC (eg, survival, favorable neurological outcome), but these effects were not observed in the later study.108 The earlier 2 studies included post-ROSC corticosteroids in addition to the intra-arrest vasopressin and steroids, which was not the case in the more recent study. The earlier 2 studies were considered by the ILCOR ALS Task Force in 2015113 to be not sufficiently generalizable (eg, high rate of asystolic cardiac arrest, low baseline survival rate) for the task force to make a treatment recommendation supporting the use of the combination of vasopressin and corticosteroids.
The task force noted that the incorporation of these drugs into ALS treatment would present practical challenges because the addition of new drugs would add complexity to current treatment protocols. This was thought not to be warranted at this time, given the low confidence in effect estimates for any outcomes beyond ROSC, as well as the fact that only the earlier trials including post-ROSC steroids reported any difference in survival outcomes.
The task force noted that time to drug administration was longer in the trial when this was led by the cardiac arrest team108 rather than dedicated research staff.111,112 Time to drug administration would likely be markedly longer in the prehospital setting. We discussed the potential interaction between vasopressin and corticosteroids and the current uncertainty as to whether either drug alone or the combination was driving the observed effect on ROSC.
The potential value of an improvement in ROSC when there was no observed effect on longer-term outcomes was discussed. The task force has previously suggested some other interventions without a clear survival benefit (eg, amiodarone or lidocaine for refractory shockable rhythm). Those drugs, however, appear to have a survival benefit in some subgroups (ie, witnessed arrest), which was not clearly the case for vasopressin and steroids.
Task Force Knowledge Gaps
•
Whether the combination of vasopressin and corticosteroids, in addition to current standard resuscitation, improves survival or favorable functional outcome
•
Whether improvement in ROSC with the combination of vasopressin and corticosteroids is a result of the specific combination of drugs or if only 1 of the medications is producing the effect
•
How timing of administration of the combination of vasopressin and corticosteroids during cardiac arrest modifies the effect
Post–Cardiac Arrest Coronary Angiography (SysRev)
Rationale for Review
A SysRev was conducted and a new CoSTR was generated on this topic for 2021.88 The search was updated this year to incorporate a new RCT on this topic and to identify any other relevant studies since publication of the previous SysRev. The original review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020160152).114
PICO, Study Design, and Time Frame
•
Population: Unresponsive adults (>18 years of age) with ROSC after cardiac arrest
•
Intervention: Emergent or early (2–6 hours) CAG with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) if indicated
•
Comparator: Delayed CAG (within 24 hours)
•
Outcome:
A. Critical: Survival to hospital discharge; functional survival to intensive care unit or hospital discharge; survival at 30, 90, and 180 days; functional survival at 30, 90, and 180 days
B. Important: Survival at 24 hours, coronary artery bypass graft, successful PCI, PCI frequency and adverse events of brain damage, recurrent cardiac arrest, arrhythmias, pneumonia, bleeding, acute worsening renal failure, injury or replacement therapy, shock, sepsis
•
Study design: RCTs and nonrandomized studies (non-RCTs, interrupted time series, controlled before-and-after studies, cohort studies) were eligible for inclusion for the 2021 CoSTR. Unpublished studies (eg, conference abstracts, trial protocols), case series, and case reports were excluded. For this 2022 update, only additional RCTs published since the prior search were included.
•
Time frame: All years and all languages were included if there was an English abstract. The initial search was run on April 29, 2020. For the 2022 update, the search was rerun on January 7, 2022.
Consensus on Science
One new RCT and 1 secondary analysis of a previous RCT were identified.115,116 This enabled additional meta-analyses of several critical outcomes for patients with no ST-segment elevation on a post-ROSC ECG, and these results are included here by subgroup of initial rhythm.
All Initial Rhythms and No ST-Segment Elevation
No statistically significant difference was noted in any of the critical outcomes comparing early CAG with late or no CAG. The updated results are presented in Table 12. Previously reported results from single studies are included in the full online CoSTR.118
Outcomes (importance) | Participants, studies, n | Certainty of evidence (GRADE) | RR (95% CI) | Anticipated absolute effects |
---|---|---|---|---|
Functional survival at 30 d (critical) | 629 patients, 2 RCTs115,117 | Low | 0.92 (0.66–1.29) | 30 patients fewer/1000 (146 fewer–103 more) |
Survival to 30 d (critical) | 629 patients, 2 RCTs115,117 | Low | 0.96 (0.70–1.33) | 18 patients fewer/1000 (174 fewer–135 more) |
PCI frequency (important) Intention-to-treat analysis (all randomized patients) | 629 patients, 2 RCTs115,117 | High | 1.37 (1.07–1.74) | 94 more/1000 (20 more–174 more) |
PCI frequency (important) Per-protocol analysis (only patients who received angiography) | 485 patients, 2 RCTs115,117 | 0.86 (0.68–1.07 | 62 fewer/1000 (143 fewer–28 more) |
CAG indicates coronary angiography; GRADE, Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation; PCI, percutaneous intervention; RCTs, randomized controlled trials; and RR, relative risk.
Shockable Initial Rhythm, No ST-Segment Elevation
The new RCT115 enrolled patients with all initial rhythms but provided a subgroup analysis of patients with initial shockable rhythm. A meta-analysis including the new data from the RCT and new data from a long-term outcome analysis of a previous trial116 is presented in Table 13. Results from single studies and all results with no new data from the 2021 CoSTR are available in the full online CoSTR.118
Outcomes (importance) | Participants, studies, n | Certainty of evidence (GRADE) | RR (95% CI) | Anticipated absolute effects |
---|---|---|---|---|
Survival to hospital discharge/30 d (critical) | 552 patients, 2 RCTs115,119 | Low | 0.96 (0.84–1.10) | 25 patients fewer/1000 (112 fewer–55 more) |
Quality of life per RAND-36 physical score (critical) | 235 patients, 1 RCT116 | Very low | No difference in mean values | Not applicable |
Quality of life per RAND-36 mental score (critical) | 235 patients, 1 RCT116 | Very low | No difference in mean values | Not applicable |
GRADE indicates Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation; RAND-36, RAND Corp 36-Item Short Form Survey; RCT, randomized controlled trial; and RR, relative risk.
All Initial Rhythms With ST-Segment Elevation
No new evidence was identified for this group. Previously reported evidence showed no statistically significant difference in outcomes based on early angiography or no early angiography. These results are presented in more detail in the online CoSTR.118
Adverse Events
New meta-analyses were performed that included the 1 additional RCT identified since the last review.115 No significant differences were seen in any of the reported adverse outcomes, including ischemic stroke, intracranial bleeds, recurrent cardiac arrest, cardiac arrhythmias, pneumonia, acute pulmonary edema, bleeding, and acute kidney failure. Additional details, including meta-analysis results, are included in the online CoSTR.118
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 angiography 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
The complete evidence-to-decision table is provided in Supplemental Appendix A.
This updated review used the search strategy from the 2021 CoSTR,88 restricting the inclusion criteria to RCTs only. We found 1 new RCT115 and 1 analysis of long-term outcomes from a previously included RCT.116 The new RCT enabled additional meta-analyses for some critical outcomes, but the overall results, and therefore the treatment recommendations, remain unchanged.
Without ST-Segment Elevation
In making the above recommendations, the ALS Task Force weighed the fact that we did not find sufficient evidence to demonstrate improved outcomes with early angiography for post–cardiac arrest patients without ST-segment elevation regardless of presenting cardiac arrest rhythm (shockable or nonshockable). Patients in cardiogenic shock after arrest were excluded from all studies, and there is unlikely to ever be 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 is important to note that this review examined early CAG compared with a combined control group of late CAG or no 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. We know that most patients admitted to hospital after cardiac arrest do not die of cardiac complications but instead die as a result of neurological injury. 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 task force acknowledges that early CAG, and percutaneous intervention 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 compelling evidence to change this approach in patients with ST-segment elevation after cardiac arrest.
Task Force Knowledge Gaps
•
Lack of a consistent definition for comparable time intervals to treatment for early compared with late angiography and PCI
•
Whether early CAG improves survival/survival with favorable neurological outcome for postarrest patients with ST-segment elevation
•
Whether angiography compared with no angiography improves outcomes in postarrest patients
•
Whether angiography and PCI may improve outcomes in the no ST-segment elevation cohort who present in shock
•
Whether CAG changes outcomes after IHCA
•
Limited evidence for longer-term outcomes
•
Relatively few studies examining health-related quality of life outcomes
•
Whether newer or alternative end points such as functional or biochemical measures may show a benefit with timing of CAG in patients with cardiac arrest
Topics Reviewed by EvUps
The topics reviewed by EvUps are summarized in Table 14, with the PICO number, existing treatment recommendation, number of relevant studies identified, key findings, and whether a SysRev was deemed worthwhile. Complete EvUps can be found in Supplemental Appendix B.
Topic/PICO | Year last updated | Existing treatment recommendation | RCTs since last review, n | Observational studies since last review, n | Key findings | Sufficient data to warrant SysRev? |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Vasopressors during cardiac arrest (ALS 659) | 2019 CoSTR | We recommend administration of epinephrine during CPR (strong recommendation, low- to moderate-certainty evidence). For nonshockable rhythms (PEA/asystole), we recommend administration of epinephrine as soon as feasible during CPR (strong recommendation, very low–certainty evidence). For shockable rhythms (VF/pVT), we suggest administration of epinephrine after initial defibrillation attempts are unsuccessful during CPR (weak recommendation, very low–certainty evidence). We suggest against the administration of vasopressin in place of epinephrine during CPR (weak recommendation, very low–certainty evidence). We suggest against the addition of vasopressin to epinephrine during CPR (weak recommendation, low-certainty evidence). | 0 (2 substudies of a prior RCT identified) | 10 | Studies support the effect of survival but uncertain effect on functional outcome. Observational studies continue to be limited by resuscitation time bias. | No |
Cardiac arrest from PE (ALS 581) | 2020 CoSTR | We suggest administering fibrinolytic drugs for cardiac arrest when PE is the suspected cause of cardiac arrest (weak recommendation, very low–certainty evidence). We suggest the use of fibrinolytic drugs, surgical embolectomy, or percutaneous mechanical thrombectomy for cardiac arrest when PE is the known cause of cardiac arrest (weak recommendation, very low–certainty evidence). The role of extracorporeal life support (ECPR) techniques was addressed in the 2019 ILCOR CoSTR. We 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). | 0 | 4 | Small studies that do not change management; there is a need for an EvUp focusing on ECPR for cardiac arrest from PE. | No |
ALS indicates advanced life support; CoSTR, International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations; CPR, cardiopulmonary resuscitation; ECPR, extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation; EvUp, evidence update; ILCOR, International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation; PE, pulmonary embolism; PEA, pulseless electric activity; PICO, population, intervention, comparator, outcome; pVT, pulseless ventricular tachycardia; RCT, randomized controlled trial; SysRev, systematic review; and VF, ventricular fibrillation.
Pediatric Life Support
Public-Access Devices (SysRev)
Rationale for Review
This topic was chosen because of growing literature on the inclusion of children in public-access defibrillation programs, the increasing use of AEDs for children generally, and the wider availability of AEDs in the community. The review was conducted on behalf of both the PLS and BLS Task Forces (PROSPERO; CRD42017080475). The full text of this CoSTR is available on the ILCOR website.120
PICO, Study Design, and Time Frame
•
Population: Infants, children, and adolescents with nontraumatic OHCA
•
Intervention: Application of, or shock delivery from, an AED by lay rescuers
•
Comparator: Standard care by lay rescuer without AED application
•
Outcome:
A. Critical: survival and functional outcome at hospital discharge
B. Important: ROSC; other outcomes as available
•
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 if there was an English abstract. The initial search was done on January 25, 2021, and updated on November 3, 2021.
Consensus on Science
The search identified 1163 unique articles, and 4 observational studies were included. Three articles121–123 were from the CARES (Cardiac Arrest Registry to Enhance Survival) database in the United States. The data reported did not correspond to the PICO study design and time frame question in a usable manner, although AED use was part of the analyses. Raw data provided by CARES included the number of children who had a cardiac arrest, age groups of those children, the number who had an AED applied, and the outcomes at hospital discharge. From those numbers, the relative risk of survival if an AED was applied was calculated. Because several studies from the Japanese Fire and Disaster Management Agency had overlapping dates for data inclusion, the last article124 (the most time inclusive) was chosen to avoid duplication of data.
Given the age-dependent risk of a shockable rhythm and age-dependent chance of survival, we analyzed the data in 3 age groups: <1, 1 to 12, and 13 to 18 years of age. The overall certainty of evidence was rated as very low for all outcomes, and the risk of bias was too high to enable meta-analysis. Table 15 summarizes the relative risks for the critical outcomes of Cerebral Performance Category (CPC) of 1 to 2 at 1 month, CPC of 1 to 2 at hospital discharge, and hospital discharge and bystander CPR with AED.
Age, y | Hospital discharge RR (95% CI) | CPC 1 to 2 at hospital discharge, RR (95% CI) | CPC 1 to 2 at 1 mo, RR (95% CI) |
---|---|---|---|
<1121–123 | 1.43 (0.22–9.37) | 1.82 (0.28–11.96) | |
1–12121–123 | 3.04 (2.18–4.25) | 3.85 (2.69–5.5) | |
13–18121–123 | 3.38 (2.74–4.16) | 3.75 (2.97–4.72) | |
0–17122 | 1.55 (1.12–2.12) | 1.49 (1.11–1.97) | |
6–17124 | 12.12 (4.97–17.12) |
AED indicates automated external defibrillator; CPC, Cerebral Performance Category; CPR, cardiopulmonary resuscitation; and RR, relative risk.
Treatment Recommendations
We suggest the use of an AED by lay rescuers for all children >1 year of age who have nontraumatic OHCA (weak recommendation, very low–certainty evidence).
We cannot make a recommendation for or against the use of an AED by lay rescuers for all children <1 year of age with nontraumatic OHCA.
Justification and Evidence-to-Decision Framework Highlights
The complete evidence-to-decision table is provided in Supplemental Appendix A.
For Children >1 Year of Age
In making these recommendations, the PLS Task Force considered that in all of the included studies, only a small percentage of children had an AED applied or shock delivered. The evidence showed that 120 of 7591 children from the CARES database had an AED applied and that 220 of 5899 children in the Japanese study had a shock delivered.121–124 In making a weak recommendation, we considered the high relative risk and the relatively low number needed to treat for improved hospital discharge and favorable neurological outcomes at hospital discharge or 30 days, but we recognized that relatively few patients had an AED applied. There may be significant selection bias in those children who had the AED applied. The rescuers who applied the AED may be those who had a greater skill set and thus provided higher-quality CPR. In addition to treating shockable rhythms, AEDs provide instructions on CPR, which may help lay rescuers to perform CPR even if a shock is not required and dispatch instructions are not available.
The task force did not evaluate outcomes with chest compressions only versus chest compressions with rescue breaths because of the few children who had AEDs applied. There was substantial discussion about the potential for harm in applying an AED by delaying CPR and increasing the number and duration of pauses. In making a final recommendation, we acknowledged that the data were from nonselected rescuers and those events likely occurred, but the relative risks were still significantly in favor of AED application.
For Children <1 Year of Age
The task force had a robust discussion about this treatment recommendation. In making no recommendation about the use of AEDs in children <1 year of age, the task force considered the lack of a significant difference in outcomes. However, few patients (12) in this age group had an AED applied, and only 1 survived. This may have resulted in a type II error; thus, the task force did not make any recommendation. The task force recognized that there is a small population of infants who do have shockable rhythms, mainly those with inherited arrhythmia syndromes or congenital cyanotic cardiac disease. These infants could benefit from AED application. In the absence of dispatch CPR instructions, AEDs assist lay rescuers by providing CPR instructions, which could increase survival in infants without shockable rhythms.
Task Force Knowledge Gaps
•
Absence of RCTs of AED use in children
•
The interaction between high-quality CPR and the effect of AED application. This is particularly important in light of the importance of rescue breaths with chest compressions in pediatric cardiac arrest.
•
Whether AED application alters outcomes on the basis of the type of CPR provided, that is, potential delay in the initiation of chest compressions, chest compression–only CPR, or conventional CPR with compressions and rescue breathing
•
Whether AED application affects survival/functional survival beyond 30 days
•
Whether there are possible advantages to using the pediatric modifications of AED application for younger children, especially those <8 years of age or who weigh <25 kg
•
Whether the application of an AED is beneficial beyond shock delivery such as by directing the rescuer to perform appropriate actions.
PEWSs With or Without Rapid Response Teams (SysRev)
Rationale for Review
This SysRev was prompted by our ScopRev of pediatric early warning scores conducted in 2020125 and was undertaken to review our current treatment recommendations for PEWSs (PROSPERO; CRD42021269579). PEWSs encompass both the use of an early warning score and a protocolized response to that score. The full text of this CoSTR can be found on the ILCOR website.126
PICO, Study Design, and Time Frame
•
Population: Infants, children, and adolescents in any inpatient setting
•
Intervention: PEWSs with or without rapid response teams or medical emergency teams
•
Comparator: No PEWS or standard care (without a scoring system)
•
Outcome:
A. Critical: significant clinical deterioration event, including but not limited to (1) unplanned/crash tracheal intubation, (2) unanticipated fluid resuscitation and inotropic/vasopressor use, (3) CPR or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and (4) death in patients (all-cause mortality) without a do-not-attempt-resuscitation order
B. Important: unplanned code events
•
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 if there was an English abstract. The literature search was updated to June 26, 2021.
Consensus on Science
We identified 12 studies, 1 RCT127 and 11 cohort studies,128–138 for inclusion in our SysRev (Table 16). The overall certainty of evidence was rated as very low (downgraded for very serious risk of bias and very serious imprecision) for all outcomes. Results are summarized in Table 16.
Outcomes | Number/type of studies | RR (95% CI) | Comments |
---|---|---|---|
Mortality (critical) | 1 RCT127 | 1.24 (0.95–1.62) | There was no significant difference in mortality with no PEWS compared with PEWS. Pooled analysis demonstrated a trend for increased mortality when no PEWS was used compared with use of PEWS. |
9 cohort studies128–136 | Pooled RR 1.17 (0.98–1.40) | ||
Cardiopulmonary arrest events (critical) | 6 cohort studies129–132,136,137 | Pooled IRR/RR, 1.22 (0.93–1.59) | There was a trend for increased cardiopulmonary arrest events with no PEWS compared with PEWS, but this was not statistically significant. |
Significant deterioration events (critical) | 1 RCT127 | 1.67 (1.34–2.08) | Pooled analysis of all studies demonstrated a non–statistically significant trend of increased significant clinical deterioration events with no PEWS compared with PEWS; limited by heterogeneity. |
5 cohort studies128,129,133,134,138 | Pooled RR, 1.09 (0.84–1.42) | ||
Unplanned code events (important) | 4 cohort studies130,132,133,135 | Pooled IRR/RR, 1.73 (1.01–2.96) | There was a statistically significant increase in unplanned code events when no PEWS was compared with PEWS. |
IRR indicates incidence rate ratio; PEWS, pediatric early warning system; RCT, randomized controlled trial; and RR, relative risk.
Treatment Recommendations
We suggest using PEWSs to monitor hospitalized children, with the aim of identifying those who may be deteriorating (weak recommendation, low-certainty evidence).
Justification and Evidence-to-Decision Framework Highlights
The full evidence-to-decision table is provided in Supplemental Appendix A.
In making these recommendations, the PLS Task Force considered the following: PEWSs should be part of an overall clinical response system, with the task force placing a higher value on improving health care providers’ ability to recognize and intervene for patients with deteriorating illness over the expense incurred by a health care system committing significant resources to implement these systems. The task force also noted that the complex process of optimizing patient care is likely to include both the implementation of PEWSs and ongoing education for health care providers. The PLS Task Force agreed that the decision to use PEWSs should be balanced between the use of existing resources and the capabilities of the health care setting to adapt to its use and the consequences of its use.
Evidence is limited, and there is equipoise about whether the use of PEWSs significantly decreases in-hospital pediatric mortality, significant clinical deterioration, and cardiopulmonary arrest events. In the context of resource-limited health systems, the need to use health care resources judiciously is especially important. Although no definitive benefits were found, the very weak evidence identified supports the use of PEWSs in systems with available resources that prioritize and value the potential to decrease the incidence of code events for inpatient children.
The task force recognized the significant limitations of the available evidence in its treatment recommendations but also the importance and the potential value of improving health care providers’ ability to recognize and intervene for patients with deteriorating illness. For settings already using PEWSs, local validation, site-specific adaptation of its use, and longitudinal evaluation of its effectiveness are important.
Task Force Knowledge Gaps
•
Whether PEWS decrease pediatric cardiopulmonary arrest or improve mortality
•
The relative contribution of PEWSs and other practice changes aimed at quality improvement (including educational processes, documentation review with feedback systems, and modification of other factors thought to improve the delivery of care) to changes in patient outcomes. Controlled trials and quality improvement methodology are suggested for further studies.
•
The effect of rapid response teams, alone and in combination with PEWSs
•
Whether the effect of PEWSs and rapid response teams varies by setting and patient type (eg, emergency department, pediatric oncology patients, patients in higher- versus lower-resource settings)
•
Prospective evaluations of different PEWSs for predicting, identifying, and providing early intervention for patients at risk for different forms of decompensation, including primary respiratory, circulatory, and neurological causes
•
Effectiveness of various methods for PEWS implementation and staff training; data on feasibility, cost-effectiveness, equity, and acceptability of integrating PEWSs into existing health care systems
Topics Reviewed by EvUps
The topics reviewed by EvUps are summarized in Table 17, with the PICO number, existing treatment recommendation, number of relevant studies identified, key findings, and whether a SysRev was deemed worthwhile. Complete EvUps can be found in Supplemental Appendix B.
Topic/PICO | Year last updated | Existing treatment recommendation | RCTs since last review | Observational studies since last review | Key findings | Sufficient data to warrant SysRev? |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Sequence of chest compressions and ventilations: C-A-B vs A-B-C (Peds 709) | 2020 CoSTR | The confidence in effect estimates is so low that the panel decided a recommendation was too speculative. | 0 | 0 | No new studies identified | No |
CCO-CPR vs conventional CPR (Peds 414) | 2020 EvUp 2017 CoSTR | We recommend that rescuers provide rescue breaths and chest compressions for pediatric IHCA and OHCA. If rescuers cannot provide rescue breaths, they should at least perform chest compressions (strong recommendation, low-quality evidence). | 0 | 1 | One published study supports our current recommendations. | No |
Drugs for the treatment of bradycardia (PLS new) | 2020 EvUp 2010 CoSTR | Epinephrine may be administered to infants and children with bradycardia and poor perfusion that is unresponsive to ventilation and oxygenation. It is reasonable to administer atropine for bradycardia caused by increased vagal tone or cholinergic drug toxicity. There is insufficient evidence to support or refute the routine use of atropine for pediatric cardiac arrest. | 0 | 3 | Three articles were identified: 2 showed an association between epinephrine use and worse outcome, and 1 showed no difference, although epinephrine use was not the objective for this study. The current evidence is not enough to change the current recommendations and thus should not prompt a review. | No |
Emergency transcutaneous pacing for bradycardia (PLS new) | 2020 EvUp 2020 CoSTR | In selected cases of bradycardia caused by complete heart block or abnormal function of the sinus node, emergency transthoracic pacing may be lifesaving. Pacing is not helpful in children with bradycardia secondary to a postarrest hypoxic/ischemic myocardial insult or respiratory failure. Pacing was not shown to be effective in the treatment of asystole in children. | 0 | 0 | No new studies identified | No |
ECPR for pediatric cardiac arrest (Peds 407) | 2019 CoSTR | We suggest that ECPR may be considered as an intervention for selected infants and children (for example, cardiac populations) with IHCA refractory to conventional CPR in settings in which resuscitation systems allow ECPR to be well performed and implemented (weak recommendation, very low–certainty evidence). There is insufficient evidence in pediatric OHCA to formulate a treatment recommendation for the use of ECPR. | 0 | 15 | Fifteen studies were identified; collectively, their findings did not provide sufficient evidence to change the treatment recommendations from 2019. | No |
Intraosseous versus intravenous route of drug administration (PLS, part of nodal ALS 2046) | 2020 CoSTR | Intraosseous cannulation is an acceptable route of vascular access in infants and children with cardiac arrest. It should be considered early in the care of critically ill children whenever venous access is not readily available. | 0 | 2 | There were 2 nonrandomized, observational studies. One reported worse outcomes with intraosseous access, and the other found no difference. | No |
Sodium bicarbonate administration for children in cardiac arrest (PLS 388) | 2020 EvUp 2010 CoSTR | Routine administration of sodium bicarbonate is not recommended in the management of pediatric cardiac arrest. | 0 | 0 | No new studies were identified. A SysRev and meta-analysis were published, which included 7 observational studies (2 prospective), published between 2006 and 2018. Results support our current recommendations. | No |
TTM* | 2019 CoSTR | The PLS Task Force recommendations from 2020 for the pediatric population remain unchanged in 2021, with minor wording clarification of temperature targets: We suggest that for infants and children who remain comatose after ROSC from OHCA or IHCA, active control of temperature be used to maintain a central temperature ≤37.5° C (weak recommendation, moderate-certainty evidence). There is inconclusive evidence to support or refute the use of induced hypothermia (32° C–34° C) compared with active control of temperature at normothermia (36° C–37.5° C; or an alternative temperature) for children who achieve ROSC but remain comatose after OHCA or IHCA. | 0 | 8 | No new RCTs were identified. There were 8 additional publications; however, 7 were secondary analyses of subgroups of the THAPCA RCT primary trial data for the OHCA, IHCA, or combined cohorts. | No |
A-B-C indicates airway-breaths-compressions; C-A-B, compressions-airway-breaths; CCO-CPR, chest compression–only cardiopulmonary resuscitation; CoSTR, International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations; CPR, cardiopulmonary resuscitation; ECPR, extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation; EvUp, evidence update; IHCA, in-hospital cardiac arrest; OHCA, out-of-hospital cardiac arrest; Peds, pediatrics; PICO, population, intervention, comparator, outcome; PLS, Pediatric Life Support; RCT, randomized controlled trial; ROSC, return of spontaneous circulation; SysRev, systematic review; THAPCA, Therapeutic Hypothermia After Pediatric Cardiac Arrest; and TTM, targeted temperature management.
*
The International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation PLS Task Force issued “Post-Arrest Temperature Management in Children: Statement on Post Cardiac Arrest Temperature Management in Children” in November 2021,139 following the CoSTR “Temperature Management in Adult Cardiac Arrest: Advanced Life Support Systematic Review” by the Advanced Life Support Task Force.59
Neonatal Life Support
Maintaining Normal Temperature Immediately After Birth in Late Preterm and Term Infants (SysRev)
Rationale for Review
A previous SysRev conducted for ILCOR concluded that there was a dose-responsive association between hypothermia on admission to a neonatal unit or postnatal ward and increased risk of mortality and other adverse outcomes.140 A SysRev estimated that hypothermia was common in infants born in hospitals (prevalence range, 32%–85%) and homes (prevalence range, 11%–92%), even in tropical environments.141 A SysRev was initiated from a priority list from the ILCOR Neonatal Life Support (NLS) Task Force (PROSPERO; CRD42021270739). The full text of this review can be found on the ILCOR website.142
PICO, Study Design, and Time Frame
•
Population: Late preterm and term newborn infants (≥34 weeks’ gestation)
•
Intervention: Increased room temperature to ≥23.0° C, thermal mattress, plastic bag or wrap, hat, heating and humidification of gases used for resuscitation, radiant warmer (with or without servo control), early monitoring of temperature, warm bags of fluid, warmed swaddling/clothing, skin-to-skin care with a parent, or any combination of these interventions
•
Comparator: Drying, without any of the above interventions, and comparisons between interventions
•
Outcome:
A. Critical: Survival
B. Important: Rate of normothermia on admission to neonatal unit or postnatal ward; rate of hypothermia and hyperthermia on admission to neonatal unit or postnatal ward; response to resuscitation (eg, need for assisted ventilation, highest Fio2). For this and all subsequent reviews, importance of outcomes was in accord with Strand et al143 or by consensus of the task force for outcomes specific to each review. Additional outcomes are included in the full online CoSTR.142 For the purposes of the review, the definitions in Table 18 were used.144
Term | Body temperature, ° C | |
---|---|---|
Moderate hypothermia | 32.0–35.9 | Measured with a digital, mercury, or contactless thermometer (axillary, rectal, or other defined site) on admission to a postnatal ward or neonatal unit; or if admission temperature not reported, temperature measured between 30 and 60 min of age |
Cold stress | 36–36.4 | |
Hyperthermia | >37.5 |
•
Study design: RCTs and nonrandomized studies (non-RCTs, interrupted time series, controlled before-and-after studies, cohort studies) were eligible for inclusion. Unpublished studies were excluded.
•
Time frame: All years and all languages were included if there was an English abstract. The literature search was conducted to August 2, 2021.
Consensus on Science
The SysRev identified 35 studies (25 RCTs including 4625 participants145–169 and 10 observational studies170–179 including >3342 participants [number not reported in 1 study]). All RCTs had eligibility criteria that excluded some or all infants who were at high risk of needing resuscitation or who received resuscitation. The studies were conducted in high-, middle-, and low-resource countries, but few interventions were studied in all settings. None of the studies included out-of-hospital births. Temperature outcomes were reported in a wide variety of ways, constraining the meta-analysis. There were insufficient data to conduct any of the prespecified subgroup analyses.
Comparison 1: Increased Room Temperature Compared With No Increased Room Temperature for Late Preterm and Term Newborn Infants
The SysRev identified 1 cluster RCT including 825 late preterm and term newborn infants for this comparison.152 All were born by caesarean section, so the study pertains specifically to operating room temperatures, and only temperatures of 20ºC and 23ºC were compared. Data relating to the key critical and important outcomes for this comparison are summarized in Table 19. Evidence for additional outcomes evaluated is included in the full online CoSTR.142
Outcomes (importance) | Participants (studies), n | Certainty of the evidence (GRADE) | RR (95% CI) | Anticipated absolute effects, n | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Risk with room temperature 20° C | RD with room temperature 23° C | ||||
Normothermia on admission (important) | 825 (1 RCT) Duryea et al,152 2016 | Very low | 1.26 (1.11–1.42) | 449/1000 | 130 more infants/1000 (55 more–209 more) were normothermic when 23° C was used |
Temperature on admission (important) | 825 (1 RCT) Duryea et al,152 2016 | Very low | Not applicable | Mean temperature 36.4° C | MD, 0.3° C higher (0.23° C higher–0.37° C higher) when 23° C was used |
Moderate hypothermia (<36° C) (important) | 825 (1 RCT) Duryea et al,152 2016 | Very low | 0.26 (0.16–0.42) | 189/1000 | 140 fewer infants/1000 (158 fewer–109 fewer) were moderately hypothermic when 23° C was used |
Hyperthermia (>37.5° C) (important) | 825 (1 RCT) Duryea et al,152 2016 | Very low | 4.13 (0.88–19.32) | 5/1000 | 15 more infants/1000 (1 fewer–87 more) were hyperthermic when 23° C was used |
GRADE indicates Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation; MD, mean difference; RCT, randomized controlled trial; RD, risk difference; and RR, risk ratio.
Comparison 2. Skin-to-Skin Care With a Parent Versus No Skin-to-Skin Care for Late Preterm and Term Infants
The SysRev found 10 RCTs including 1668 late preterm and term newborn infants for this comparison.148,150,154–157,160,163,164,166
Data relating to key critical and important outcomes are shown in Table 20. Evidence for additional outcomes evaluated is included in the full online CoSTR.142
Outcomes (importance) | Participants (studies), n | Certainty of the evidence (GRADE) | RR (95% CI) | Anticipated absolute effects, n | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Risk with no skin-to-skin care | RD with skin-to-skin care | ||||
Survival to hospital discharge (critical) | 203 (1 RCT) Ramani et al,163 2018 | Very low | Insufficient events to determine the rate | ||
Normothermia on admission (important) | 551 (3 RCTs) Ramani et al,163 2018 Safari et al,164 2018 Srivastava et al,166 2014 | Very low | 1.39 (0.91–2.12) | 614/1000 | 239 more infants/1000 (55 fewer–688 more) were normothermic when skin-to-skin care was used |
Temperature on admission (important) | 1048 (8 RCTs) Carfoot et al,148 2005 Christensson et al,150 1992 Huang et al,154 2019 KoÇ and Kaya,156 2017 Kollmann et al,157 2017 Ramani et al,163 2018 Safari et al,164 2018 Srivastava et al,166 2014 | Very low | Not applicable | Mean temperature, 36.5° C | MD, 0.32° C higher (0.1° C higher–0.54° C higher) when skin-to-skin care was used |
Hypoglycemia (important) | 100 (1 RCT) KoÇ and Kaya,156 2017 | Very low | 0.16 (0.05–0.53) | 326/1000 | 273 fewer infants/1000 (309 fewer–153 fewer) were hypoglycemic when skin-to-skin care was used |
Admission to NICU (important) | 512 (3 RCTs) Kollmann et al,157 2017 Marín Gabriel et al,160 2010 Ramani et al,163 2018 | Very low | 0.34 (0.14–0.83) | 70/1000 | 46 fewer infants/1000 (60 fewer–12 fewer) were admitted to the NICU when skin-to-skin care was used |
GRADE indicates Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation; MD, mean difference; NICU, neonatal intensive care unit; RCT, randomized controlled trial; RD, risk difference; and RR, risk ratio.
Comparison 3. Plastic Bag or Wrap Compared With No Plastic Bag or Wrap for Late Preterm and Term Newborn Infants
The SysRev found 4 RCTs including 730 late preterm and term newborn infants for this comparison.147,155,159,165 Data relating to key critical and important outcomes are shown in Table 21. Evidence for additional outcomes evaluated is included in the full online CoSTR.142 Of note, this comparison included studies in which infants had been dried or not dried before the use of the plastic bag or wrap.
Outcomes (importance) | Participants (studies), n | Certainty of the evidence (GRADE) | RR (95% CI) | Anticipated absolute effects, n | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Risk with standard care | RD with plastic bag or wrap plus standard care | ||||
Survival to hospital discharge (critical) | 305 (2 RCTs) Leadford et al,159 2013 Shabeer et al,165 2018 | Very low | 0.95 (0.60–1.51) | 981/1000 | 49 fewer infants/1000 (392 fewer–500 more) died when a plastic bag or wrap was used |
Normothermia on admission (important) | 305 (2 RCTs) Leadford et al,159 2013 Shabeer et al,165 2018 | Very low | 1.50 (1.20–1.89) | 406/1000 | 203 more infants/1000 (81 more–3629 more) were normothermic when a plastic bag or wrap was used |
Temperature on admission (important) | 425 (3 RCTs) Cardona Torres et al,147 2012 Leadford et al,159 2013 Shabeer et al,165 2018 | Very low | Not applicable | Mean temperature, 36.3° C | MD, 0.29° C higher (0.2° C higher–0.37° C higher) when a plastic bag or wrap was used |
GRADE indicates Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation; MD; mean difference; RCT, randomized controlled trial; RD, risk difference; and RR, risk ratio.
Comparison 4. Plastic Bag or Wrap Combined With Skin-To-Skin Care Compared With Skin-To-Skin Care Alone for Late Preterm and Term Newborn Infants
The SysRev found 2 RCTs including 698 late preterm and term newborn infants for this comparison.146,168 Data relating to key critical and important outcomes are shown in Table 22. Evidence for additional outcomes evaluated is included in the full online CoSTR.142 This comparison included studies in which infants had been dried or not dried before the use of the plastic bag or wrap.
Outcomes (importance) | Participants (studies), n | Certainty of the evidence (GRADE) | RR (95% CI) | Anticipated absolute effects, n | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Risk with skin-to-skin care alone | RD with plastic bag or wrap plus skin-to-skin care | ||||
Survival to hospital discharge (critical) | 271 (1 RCT) Belsches et al,146 2013 | Low | All infants in both groups survived | ||
Normothermia on admission (important) | 692 (2 RCTs) Belsches et al,146 2013 Travers et al,168 2021 | Low | 1.39 (1.08–1.79) | 221/1000 | 86 more infants/1000 more (18 more–174 more/1000) were normothermic when a plastic bag or wrap was added |
Temperature on admission (important) | 692 (2 RCTs) Belsches et al,146 2013 Travers et al,168 2021 | Low | Not applicable | Mean body temperature, 36.0° C | MD, 0.2° C higher (0.1° C higher–0.3° C higher) when a plastic bag or wrap was added |
Admission to NICU or special care unit (important) | 275 (1 RCT) Belsches et al,146 2013 | Low | 0.26 (0.03–2.26) | 29/1000 | 21 fewer infants/1000 (28 fewer–36 more/1000) were admitted to an NICU or special care unit when a plastic bag or wrap was added |
Hyperthermia (>37.5° C) (important) | 692 (2 RCTs) Belsches et al,146 2013 Travers et al,168 2021 | Very low | 1.02 (0.08–12.85) | 3/1000 | 0 more infants/1000 (3 fewer–34 more/1000) were hyperthermic when a plastic bag or wrap was added |
GRADE indicates Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation; MD, mean difference; NICU, neonatal intensive care unit; RCT, randomized controlled trial; RD, risk difference; and RR, risk ratio.
For all other comparisons, no evidence-to-decision tables were developed, either because only single studies providing very low–certainty evidence were available or because no studies were found. Additional details on these comparisons are included in the online CoSTR.142
Treatment Recommendations
In late preterm and term newborn infants (≥34 weeks’ gestation), we suggest the use of room temperatures of 23º C compared with 20º C at birth in order to maintain normal temperature (weak recommendation, very low–certainty evidence).
In late preterm and term newborn infants (≥34 weeks’ gestation) at low risk of needing resuscitation, we suggest the use of skin-to-skin care with a parent immediately after birth rather than no skin-to-skin care to maintain normal temperature (weak recommendation, very low–certainty evidence).
In some situations in which skin-to-skin care is not possible, it is reasonable to consider the use of a plastic bag or wrap, among other measures, to maintain normal temperature (weak recommendation, very low–certainty evidence).
In late preterm and term newborn infants (≥34 weeks’ gestation), for routine use of a plastic bag or wrap in addition to skin-to-skin care immediately after birth compared with skin-to-skin care alone, the balance of desirable and undesirable effects was uncertain. Furthermore, the values, preferences, and cost implications of the routine use of a plastic bag or wrap in addition to skin-to-skin care are not known; therefore, no treatment recommendation can be formulated.
Justification and Evidence-to-Decision Framework Highlights
The complete evidence-to-decision tables are provided in Supplemental Appendix A.
In making these recommendations, the NLS Task Force considered that the review found evidence to support each of 3 interventions without evidence of adverse effects. Each of these interventions was thought likely to be low in cost and feasible in many settings.
In many facilities, immediate newborn infant care (including resuscitation if needed) takes place in the delivery or operating room, and it may not be practicable to alter room temperatures for very preterm births and not others. When a designated resuscitation room with separate temperature control is used, more individualized ambient temperature control may be feasible. Higher (>23° C) ambient temperatures have not been studied for late preterm and term infants. The adverse outcomes of maternal or neonatal hyperthermia could increase at higher ambient temperatures. Mortality may be increased among newborn infants with hyperthermia,180 and hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy may be exacerbated by hyperthermia.181
For skin-to-skin care, there is insufficient evidence to make a recommendation for newborn infants at high risk of needing resuscitation because of the inclusion criteria of available studies. There is a much larger evidence base supporting the use of skin-to-skin care in preterm and term infants for a variety of maternal and neonatal outcomes.182,183 Studies report some barriers to use, but overall, skin-to-skin care is judged to be acceptable by both parents and caregivers.184–186 Skin-to-skin care is likely to be cost-effective, acceptable, and feasible in high-, middle-, and low-income countries.
For routine use of a plastic bag or wrap for late preterm and term newborn infants (≥34 weeks’ gestation), the balance of desirable and undesirable effects was considered uncertain because of the potential for unmeasured undesirable effects. These could include that a plastic bag or wrap might be seen as an alternative or impediment to skin-to-skin care. When they are used in combination with warming devices, there could be risk of hyperthermia. Costs to clinical services could be high if they were used for a high proportion of late preterm and term infants. The environmental impact was also considered. Cultural values and maternal preferences in relation to this specific intervention are not known. Although the NLS Task Force agreed that skin-to-skin care was preferred, a plastic bag or wrap may be reasonable when skin-to-skin care is not possible, especially for late preterm and low-birth-weight newborn infants, for births in which ambient temperatures are low and cannot be increased, when alternative equipment (eg, radiant warmer, incubator, thermal mattress) is not available, or with combinations of these circumstances.
The use of skin-to-skin care is likely to improve equity because of the low cost and feasibility for low- or middle-income countries. Room temperatures may or may not be easily adjustable in various settings. When a room temperature of 23° C cannot be achieved, the importance of skin-to-skin care may be greater.
The overall balance of risks and benefits for the use of a plastic bag or wrap combined with skin-to-skin care was considered uncertain because there was concern that plastic bags or wraps might impair the acceptability or safety of skin-to-skin care and thereby cause harm. As with the use of a plastic bag or wrap compared with standard care, costs may be a barrier, particularly in low-income countries, if the intervention was applied to a high proportion of births.
Task Force Knowledge Gaps
Additional gaps are included in the full online CoSTR.
•
The balance of risks and benefits for each evidence-based intervention when combined with other interventions
•
The best methods of maintaining normothermia in infants who received or were at high risk of receiving resuscitation
•
The effectiveness of interventions for which no evidence was available or for which evidence was insufficient to make treatment recommendations, including the following:
A. Use of a thermal mattress, which may assume greater importance if a parent is unable to provide skin-to-skin care
B. Caps made of various materials
C. Use of heated, humidified gases for assisted ventilation
D. Early monitoring of temperature versus no early monitoring of temperature
E. The role of low- or moderately low–cost interventions such as prewarmed bags of intravenous fluid placed around the newborn infant or prewarmed swaddling and clothing
F. The effect of maternal hypothermia or hyperthermia on newborn infants’ temperatures
G. Standardizing the timing and method of recording temperature for all newborn infants, which would enhance the potential both for benchmarking and for meta-analysis of studies in future reviews.
Suctioning Clear Amniotic Fluid at Birth (SysRev)
Rationale for Review
To support air breathing at birth, oropharyngeal or nasopharyngeal suctioning has been a widespread practice for newborn infants. The 2010 CoSTR187 and many subsequent guidelines have recommended selective use of upper airway suctioning, with use only if the airway appears obstructed or PPV is required, and there has been increasing concern that there may be adverse effects of routine upper airway suctioning. A ScopRev (NLS 596) found sufficient evidence to justify a SysRev.188 A SysRev was initiated from a priority list from the ILCOR NLS Task Force (PROSPERO; CRD42021286258). The full text of this review can be found on the ILCOR website.189
PICO, Study Design, and Time Frame
•
Population: Newborn infants who are born through clear (not meconium-stained) amniotic fluid
•
Intervention: Initial suctioning of the mouth and nose
•
Comparator: No initial suctioning
•
Outcome:
A. Critical: Advanced resuscitation and stabilization interventions (intubation, chest compressions, epinephrine) in the delivery room
B. Important: Receipt of assisted ventilation; receipt and duration of oxygen supplementation; adverse effects of intervention (eg, apnea, bradycardia, injury, infection, low Apgar scores, dysrhythmia); unanticipated admission to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU)143
•
Study design: RCTs and nonrandomized studies (non-RCTs, interrupted time series, controlled before-and-after studies, and cohort studies) were eligible for inclusion. Unpublished studies, case series, and animal studies were excluded.
•
Time frame: All years and all languages were included if an English abstract was available. The literature search was performed on September 21, 2021.
Consensus on Science
The SysRev identified 11 studies (9 RCTs including 1138 participants190–198 and 2 observational studies199,200) for inclusion. The studies enrolled predominantly healthy, low-risk term newborn infants. For 2 of the RCTs193,194 enrolling 280 participants, the task force had concerns about the reliability of the oxygen saturation and heart rate data. Therefore, results of these studies have been excluded from the meta-analysis. In sensitivity analysis, exclusion of these studies did not change the overall outcome.
Data relating to the key critical and important outcomes for this comparison are summarized in Table 23. Evidence for additional outcomes that were evaluated is included in the full online CoSTR.189
Outcomes (importance) | Participants (studies), n | Certainty of the evidence (GRADE) | RR (95% CI) | Anticipated absolute effects, n | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Risk with no suctioning | RD with suctioning | ||||
Assisted ventilation (important) | 742 (3 RCTs) Bancalari et al,190 2019 Kelleher et al,195 2013 Modarres Nejad et al,196 2014 | Very low | 0.72 (0.40–1.31) | 64/1000 | 18 fewer/1000 (39 fewer–20 more) |
Advanced resuscitation and stabilization interventions (important) | 742 (3 RCTs) Bancalari et al,190 2019 Kelleher et al,195 2013 Modarres Nejad et al,196 2014 | Very low | 0.72 (0.40–1.31) | 64/1000 | 18 fewer/1000 (39 fewer–20 more) |
Oxygen saturations at 5 min (important) | 280 (3 RCTs) Bancalari et al,190 2019 Modarres Nejad et al,196 2014 Takahashi,197 2009 | Very low | Not applicable | Mean oxygen saturation, 84% | MD, 0.26% lower (1.77% lower–1.26% higher) |
HR at 5 min (important) | 84 (1 RCT) Bancalari et al,190 2019 | Very low | Not applicable | Mean HR, 162 bpm without suctioning | MD, 1.00 bpm lower (7.96 bpm lower–5.96 bpm higher) |
GRADE indicates Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation; HR, heart rate; MD, mean difference; RCT, randomized controlled trial; RD, risk difference; and RR, risk ratio.
For all predefined subgroup analyses, insufficient data were available.
Treatment Recommendations
We suggest that suctioning of clear amniotic fluid from the nose and mouth should not be used as a routine step for newborn infants at birth (weak recommendation, very low–certainty evidence).
Airway positioning and suctioning should be considered if airway obstruction is suspected (good practice statement).
Justification and Evidence-to-Decision Framework Highlights
The complete evidence-to-decision table is provided in Supplemental Appendix A.
The NLS Task Force found no justification to routinely use an intervention such as oral and nasal suctioning in the absence of demonstrated benefit. The participants in the included studies were predominantly healthy, term newborn infants, and no benefit was found. There could also be potential for unmeasured harm if routine suctioning caused delay in resuscitation for those who require it.
This SysRev recommendation does not apply to situations when there are concerns about airway obstruction.
Task Force Knowledge Gaps
•
The role of suctioning of clear amniotic fluid at birth for newborn infants who are at high risk of needing respiratory support or more advanced resuscitation
•
The role of suctioning of clear amniotic fluid at birth for preterm newborn infants
•
Adherence to guidelines in relation to suctioning of the upper airway
Tactile Stimulation for Resuscitation Immediately After Birth (SysRev)
Rationale for Review
Tactile stimulation has been included in the initial steps of stabilization of the newborn infant in the treatment recommendations from ILCOR in 1999, 2006, 2010, 2015, and 2020140,187,188,201,202 largely on the basis of expert opinion. Because the effectiveness of tactile stimulation to facilitate breathing at birth has never been systematically evaluated by ILCOR, this PICO question was prioritized by the NLS Task Force for SysRev (PROSPERO; CRD42021227768).203 The full text of this CoSTR can be found on the ILCOR website.204
PICO, Study Design, and Time Frame
•
Population: Term or preterm newborn infants immediately after birth with absent, intermittent, or shallow respirations
•
Intervention: Any tactile stimulation performed within 60 seconds after birth and defined as 1 or more of the following: rubbing the chest/sternum, rubbing the back, rubbing the soles of the feet, flicking the soles of the feet, or a combination of these methods. This intervention should be done in addition to routine handling with measures to maintain temperature.
•
Comparator: Routine handling with measures to maintain temperature, defined as care taken soon after birth, including positioning, drying, and additional thermal care
•
Outcome:
A. Critical: Survival as reported by authors; neurodevelopmental outcomes
B. Important: Establishment of spontaneous breathing without PPV (yes or no); time to the first spontaneous breath or crying from birth; time to a heart rate of ≥100 bpm from birth; intraventricular hemorrhage (only in preterm infants with <34 weeks’ gestation); oxygen or respiratory support at admission to a neonatal special care unit or NICU; admission to a neonatal special care unit or NICU for those not admitted by protocol on the basis of gestational age or birth weight143
C. Potential subgroups were defined a priori: gestational age (<34, 34–36 6/7, and ≥37 weeks’ gestation), cord management (early cord clamping, delayed cord clamping, and cord milking), clinical settings (high and low resource), and method of stimulation (type, number, duration of stimuli).
•
Study design: RCTs and nonrandomized studies (non-RCTs, interrupted time series, controlled before-and-after studies, and cohort studies) were eligible for inclusion. Unpublished studies (conference abstracts, trial protocols) and animal studies were excluded.
•
Time frame: All years and all languages were included if there was an English abstract. The literature search was first done on December 6, 2020, with the final update on September 17, 2021.
Consensus on Science
The SysRev identified 2 observational studies.205,206 The study by Baik-Schneditz et al205 was not eligible for data analysis because of its critical risk of bias (mainly because of confounding by indication). Therefore, only the study by Dekker et al206 with 245 preterm newborn infants was analyzed (Table 24).
Outcomes (importance) | Participants (studies), n | Certainty of the evidence (GRADE) | RR (95% CI) | Anticipated absolute effects, n | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Risk with routine handling only | RD with tactile stimulation in addition to routine handling | ||||
Tracheal intubation in delivery room (important) | 245 (1 observational study)Dekker et al,206 2018 | Very low | 0.41 (0.20–0.85) | 177/1000 | 105 fewer/1000 infants (142 fewer–27 fewer) were intubated when tactile stimulation was used |
GRADE indicates Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation; RD, risk difference; and RR, risk ratio.
No data were reported on other prespecified outcomes or by subgroups.
Treatment Recommendations
We suggest that it is reasonable to apply tactile stimulation in addition to routine handling with measures to maintain temperature in newborn infants with absent, intermittent, or shallow respirations during resuscitation immediately after birth (weak recommendation, very low–certainty evidence).
Tactile stimulation should not delay the initiation of PPV for newborn infants who continue to have absent, intermittent, or shallow respirations after birth (good practice statement).
Justification and Evidence-to-Decision Framework Highlights
The complete evidence-to-decision table is provided in Supplemental Appendix A.
The NLS Task Force based the treatment recommendation on several inferences. The very limited available data suggest a possible benefit to tactile stimulation in decreasing the need for tracheal intubation in preterm infants, but the certainty of evidence is very low. The results of the single study identified should be analyzed with caution because of indirectness (all 245 infants were put on CPAP before tactile stimulation, in contrast to the common practice of tactile stimulation before CPAP or PPV), possible selection bias (among 673 infants who were video-recorded immediately after birth, 245 [36%] were included in the study), and confounding (the clinical indication of tactile stimulation was retrospectively assessed, and it could not be determined in 34% of the 585 tactile stimulation episodes). Additional observational studies showed that, in general, infants who received tactile stimulation responded with crying, grimacing, and body movements, although the methods of stimulation were variable and the outcomes analyzed were not exactly the same among the studies.207–210 These studies could not be included in the SysRev because of the lack of control groups who did not receive tactile stimulation.
A single-center RCT compared single with repetitive tactile stimulation in newborn preterm infants immediately after birth. Patients in the repetitive stimulation group had higher oxygen saturation levels and lower oxygen requirements at the start of transport to the NICU. This study could not be included in the SysRev because of the lack of a control group who did not receive tactile stimulation. A single-center RCT compared back rubbing to foot flicking to provide tactile stimulation in preterm and term infants with birth weight >1500 g who did not cry at birth. There was no difference between the 2 techniques in achieving effective crying to prevent the need for PPV.211 This study could not be included in the SysRev because of the lack of a control group who did not receive tactile stimulation.
In studies that analyze a bundle of procedures to stimulate respiratory transition at birth in low-resource settings, tactile stimulation, together with upper airway suction, triggered the initiation of spontaneous respirations.212,213 These studies could not be included in the SysRev because of the inability to isolate the effects of tactile stimulation and the lack of a control group.
Despite the possible benefits outlined above, there are some concerns related to possible adverse effects of tactile stimulation in delaying the initiation of ventilation beyond 60 seconds after birth, which may then compromise the efficacy of the overall resuscitation.209,211,214 In addition, there is a report of soft tissue trauma after tactile stimulation.215
Task Force Knowledge Gaps
The complete CoSTR provide a full list.204
•
Effect of tactile stimulation on the main outcomes: Breathing without PPV; time to the first spontaneous breath or crying from birth; and time to a heart rate of ≥100 bpm from birth
•
Effect of tactile stimulation on secondary outcomes: Death in the delivery room, hospital death; neurodevelopmental outcomes; intraventricular hemorrhage only in preterm infants; oxygen or respiratory support at admission to a neonatal special unit or NICU; and admission to a neonatal special unit or NICU for those not admitted by protocol
•
Effects of tactile stimulation in different gestational ages and with different cord management strategies
•
Which patients benefit from tactile stimulation (all patients, patients with apnea, those with irregular breathing, or other)
•
Indications for tactile stimulation
•
Efficacy of different methods of tactile stimulation (rubbing, flicking, or other) and locations on the body
•
Optimal duration and number of each stimulus
Delivery Room Heart Rate Monitoring to Improve Outcomes for Newborn Infants (SysRev)
Rationale for Review
Monitoring heart rate in the first minutes after birth was last reviewed by the NLS Task Force in 2015, at which time the focus was on which methods resulted in the most accurate measurement at the earliest time.140 This SysRev focused on critical and important patient outcomes and was initiated from a priority list from the ILCOR NLS Task Force (PROSPERO; CRD42021283438). The full text of this review can be found on the ILCOR website.216
PICO, Study Design, and Time Frame
•
Population: Newborn infants in the delivery room
•
Intervention: Use of ECG, Doppler device, digital stethoscope, photoplethysmography, video plethysmography, dry electrode technology, or any other newer modalities
•
Comparator: (1) Pulse oximeter with or without auscultation; (2) auscultation alone; (3) between-intervention comparison
•
Outcome:
A. Critical: Chest compressions or epinephrine (adrenaline) administration; death before hospital discharge
B. Important: Duration of PPV; tracheal intubation; time from birth to a heart rate of ≥100 bpm as measured by ECG; resuscitation team performance; unanticipated admission to the NICU.143
•
Study design: RCTs and nonrandomized studies (non-RCTs, interrupted time series, controlled before-and-after studies, and cohort studies) were eligible for inclusion. Unpublished studies and case series were excluded.
•
Time frame: All years and all languages were included if there was an English abstract. The literature search was performed on October 29, 2021.
Consensus on Science
Comparison 1: ECG Versus Auscultation Plus Pulse Oximeter During Resuscitation of Newborn Infants
The SysRev identified 2 RCTs217,218 involving 91 newborn infants and 1 cohort study219 involving 632 newborn infants.
Data relating to the key critical and important outcomes for this comparison are summarized in Table 25. Evidence for additional outcomes evaluated is included in the full online CoSTR.216
Outcomes (importance) | Participants (studies), n | Certainty of the evidence (GRADE) | RR (95% CI) | Anticipated absolute effects, n | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Risk with auscultation plus pulse oximeter | RD with use of ECG plus auscultation plus pulse oximeter | ||||
Duration of PPV (important) | 51 (1 RCT) Abbey et al,217 2021 | Very low | Not applicable | Mean duration of PPV, 196 s | MD, 91 s shorter (78 s shorter–36 s longer) with addition of ECG |
Tracheal intubation (important) | 91 (2 RCTs) Abbey et al,217 2021 Katheria et al,218 2017 | Low | 1.34 (0.69–2.59) | 244/1000 | 81 more infants/1000 were intubated in the DR (74 fewer–384 more) with the addition of ECG |
Tracheal intubation (important) | 632 (1 observational study) Shah et al,219 2019 | Low | 0.75 (0.62–0.90) | 475/1000 | 119 fewer infants/1000 were intubated in the DR (181 fewer–48 fewer) with the addition of ECG |
Chest compressions (important) | 632 (1 observational study) Shah et al,219 2019 | Low | 2.14 (0.98–4.70) | 30/1000 | 35 more infants/1000 received chest compressions (1 fewer–113 more) with the addition of ECG |
Epinephrine (adrenaline) (critical) | 632 (1 observational study) Shah et al,219 2019 | Low | 3.56 (0.42–30.3) | 4/1000 | 10 more infants/1000 received epinephrine (2 fewer–111 more) with the addition of ECG |
Death before discharge (critical) | 51 (1 RCT) Abbey et al,217 2021 | Very low | 0.96 (0.15–6.31) | 77/1000 | 3 fewer infants/1000 died (74 fewer–462 more) with the addition of ECG |
Death before discharge (critical) | 632 (1 observational study) Shah et al,219 2019 | Low | 0.96 (0.57–1.61) | 87/1000 | 3 fewer infants/1000 died (38 fewer–53 more) with the addition of ECG |
DR indicates delivery room; GRADE, Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation; MD, mean difference; PPV, positive-pressure ventilation; RCT, randomized controlled trial; RD, risk difference; and RR, risk ratio.
No studies were found that provided outcomes relevant to this SysRev for other modalities versus pulse oximetry or auscultation (Comparison 2) or for between-intervention comparisons (Comparison 3).
Treatment Recommendations
When resources permit, we suggest that the use of ECG for heart rate assessment of a newborn infant requiring resuscitation in the delivery room is reasonable (weak recommendation, low-certainty evidence).
When ECG is not available, auscultation with pulse oximetry is a reasonable alternative for heart rate assessment, but the limitations of these modalities should be kept in mind (weak recommendation, low-certainty evidence).
There is insufficient evidence to make a treatment recommendation for the use of a digital stethoscope, audible or visible Doppler ultrasound, dry electrode technology, reflectance-mode green light photoplethysmography, or transcutaneous electromyography of the diaphragm for heart rate assessment of a newborn in the delivery room.
Auscultation with or without pulse oximetry should be used to confirm the heart rate when ECG is unavailable or not functioning or when pulseless electric activity is suspected (good practice statement).
Justification and Evidence-to-Decision Framework Highlights
The evidence-to-decision table is provided in Supplemental Appendix A.
The treatment recommendations were informed by low-certainty evidence that, for most outcomes, did not demonstrate improvement or suggestion of harm for any critical or important outcome. The only exception was a lower proportion of infants intubated in the delivery room in an observational study when electrocardiographic monitoring was used,219 a result that was not confirmed in the meta-analysis of 2 RCTs.217,218 The potential advantages of rapid signal acquisition and continuous, accurate heart rate monitoring need to be weighed against the potential costs of equipment and training.
Task Force Knowledge Gaps
•
Higher-certainty evidence for whether ECG or other modalities for heart rate assessment improve critical and important neonatal outcomes
•
Impact of ECG or other modalities for heart rate measurement on resuscitation team performance
•
Impact of ECG and other modalities for heart rate assessment on equity
•
Cost-effectiveness of different modalities for heart rate assessment in the delivery room
•
Whether the utility of various modalities varies by subgroups, including vigorous versus nonvigorous newborn infants, those who do or do not require tracheal intubation or more advanced resuscitation, by gestational age and weight, by method of umbilical cord management, and for pulseless electric activity
CPAP Versus No CPAP for Term Respiratory Distress in the Delivery Room (SysRev)
Rationale for Review
CPAP has been included in the neonatal resuscitation algorithm to help infants with persistently labored breathing or cyanosis after the initial steps of resuscitation. For spontaneously breathing preterm newborn infants with respiratory distress requiring respiratory support in the delivery room, ILCOR has suggested initial use of CPAP rather than tracheal intubation and intermittent PPV.188 Although providing CPAP in the delivery room for late preterm and term infants has become increasingly frequent, this practice has not been systematically evaluated by ILCOR. Therefore, this PICO was prioritized by the NLS Task Force (PROSPERO; CRD42021225812).219
The full text of this CoSTR can be found on the ILCOR website.220
PICO, Study Design, and Time Frame
•
Population: In spontaneously breathing newborn infants with ≥34 weeks’ gestation with respiratory distress or low oxygen saturations during transition after birth
•
Intervention: CPAP at different levels with or without supplemental oxygen
•
Comparator: No CPAP with or without supplemental oxygen
•
Outcome:
A. Critical: Chest compressions in the delivery room; death at hospital discharge; moderate to severe neurodevelopmental impairment (>18 months)
B. Important: Admissions to the NICU or higher level of care; receipt of any positive-pressure support in the NICU; receipt of tracheal intubation in the delivery room; use and duration of respiratory support in NICU; air-leak syndromes, including pneumothorax and pneumomediastinum; length of hospital stay143
•
Study design: RCTs and nonrandomized studies (non-RCTs, interrupted time series, controlled before-and-after studies, cohort studies, and simulation studies) were eligible for inclusion. Unpublished studies (eg, conference abstracts, trial protocols) and animal studies were excluded.
•
Time frame: All years and all languages were included if an English abstract was available. The literature search was first performed on November 30, 2020, and updated on October 11, 2021.
Consensus on Science
The SysRev identified 2 RCTs221,222 involving 323 newborn infants and 2 observational studies, 1 of which was divided into 2 publications,223–225 involving 8476 infants. Relevant data from the author through electronic communications have been collated into 1 study for the purpose of this meta-analysis.223,224 Meta-analysis of RCT evidence is shown in Table 26. No evidence was identified for tracheal intubation, need for chest compressions in the delivery room, and neurodevelopmental impairment.
Outcomes (importance) | Participants (studies), n | Certainty of the evidence (GRADE) | RR (95% CI) | Anticipated absolute effects, n | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Risk with no CPAP provided for respiratory distress in the DR | RD with CPAP provided for respiratory distress in the DR | ||||
NICU admissions (important) | 323 (2 RCTs) Celebi et al,221 2016 Osman et al,222 2019 | Very low | 0.28 (0.11–0.67) | 129/1000 | 94 fewer/1000 late preterm and term newborn infants (115 fewer–44 fewer) were admitted to the NICU when CPAP was used |
Air-leak syndromes (important) | 8476 (3 observational studies) Hishikawa et al,224 2015 Hishikawa et al,223 2016 Smithhart et al,225 2019 | Very low | 4.92 (4.13–5.87) | 34/1000 | 133 more/1000 late preterm and term newborn infants (106 more–166 more) developed air-leak syndrome when CPAP was used |
NICU respiratory support (important) | 323 (2 RCTs) Celebi et al,221 2016 Osman et al,222 2019 | Very low | 0.18 (0.06–0.6) | 97/1000 | 79 fewer/1000 late preterm and term newborn infants (91 fewer–39 fewer) needed NICU respiratory support when CPAP was used |
Death before discharge from hospital (critical) | 323 (2 RCTs) Celebi et al,221 2016 Osman et al,222 2019 | Very low | 0.30 (0.01–6.99) | 6/1000 | 5 fewer/1000 late preterm and term newborn infants (6 fewer–39 more) died before discharge from the hospital when CPAP was used |
CPAP indicates continuous positive airway pressure; DR, delivery room; GRADE, Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation; NICU, neonatal intensive care unit; RCT, randomized controlled trial; RD, risk difference; and RR, risk ratio.
Treatment Recommendations
For spontaneously breathing late preterm and term newborn infants in the delivery room with respiratory distress, there is insufficient evidence to suggest for or against routine use of CPAP compared with no CPAP.
Justification and Evidence-to-Decision Framework Highlights
The evidence-to-decision table is provided in Supplemental Appendix A.
In making this recommendation, the NLS Task Force acknowledges that the use of CPAP in the delivery room has been recommended for infants with persistent signs of respiratory distress, labored breathing, or cyanosis after the initial steps of resuscitation. This was extrapolated mainly from evidence in preterm patients. The benefits and risks in late preterm and term newborn infants had not been systematically reviewed before this review. The 2 RCTs included only 323 subjects, all delivered by cesarean section.221,222 One RCT enrolled 259 newborns and used prophylactic CPAP.221 Within the observational studies, a positive association between the use of CPAP and the presence of air-leak syndromes was identified (1 nested cohort study included only newborn infants admitted to the NICU). Therefore, in concluding that no recommendation could be made, the task force integrated the values placed on avoidance of potential harm, as noted by the positive association between CPAP use and air-leak syndromes, and potential benefit, as noted by the reduction in NICU admission among infants born by cesarean section.
Task Force Knowledge Gaps
•
Large multicenter RCTs evaluating the effect of delivery room CPAP for late preterm and term newborns with respiratory distress
•
The effect of CPAP in the delivery room for late preterm and term infants delivered vaginally
•
The impact of labor on outcomes when CPAP is used for respiratory distress in the delivery room
•
The effect of CPAP among different populations: late preterm versus term and postterm newborn infants
•
The effect of CPAP after any previous positive-pressure support (PPV or sustained inflation)
•
Whether effects of CPAP differ with and without the use of supplemental oxygen
•
The effect of the modes of support: interfaces (face mask versus nasal prongs, cannula versus alternative airway) and devices (T piece versus flow-inflating bag); and level of CPAP support: high CPAP (>6 cm H2O) versus low CPAP (4–6 cm H2O).
SGAs for Neonatal Resuscitation (SysRev)
Rationale for Review
Given the importance of effective PPV for resuscitation of newborn infants and the limitations of using either a face mask or endotracheal tube, the NLS Task Force prioritized evaluation of SGAs for PPV. In 2015, the NLS Task Force conducted a SysRev focused on using an SGA compared with endotracheal intubation as the secondary device for PPV if initial ventilation with a face mask failed. For this review, the task force aimed to compare the use of an SGA with a face mask as the initial device for administering PPV during resuscitation immediately after birth and to determine whether the use of an SGA would increase the probability of improving with initial PPV. Additional randomized trials comparing an SGA with a face mask as the initial device for PPV have been published since the previous review. Thus, a SysRev was undertaken (PROSPERO; CRD42021230722).225a
The full text of this CoSTR can be found on the ILCOR website.226
PICO, Study Design, and Time Frame
•
Population: Newborn infants ≥34 0/7 weeks’ gestation receiving intermittent PPV during resuscitation immediately after birth
•
Intervention: SGA
•
Comparator: Face mask
•
Outcome:
A. Critical: Chest compressions or epinephrine (adrenaline) administration during initial resuscitation; survival to hospital discharge; neurodevelopmental impairment at ≥18 months of age (abnormal motor, sensory, or cognitive function or low educational achievement at ≥18 months of age with the use of an appropriate, standardized test or examination)
B. Important: Failure to improve with the device; tracheal intubation during initial resuscitation; time to a heart rate >100 bpm during initial resuscitation; duration of PPV during initial resuscitation; time to cessation of PPV; soft tissue injury (as defined by authors); admission to the NICU; air leak during the initial hospital stay (presence of pneumothorax, pneumomediastinum, pulmonary interstitial emphysema, or pneumopericardium).143Potential subgroups (late preterm versus term and cuffless versus cuffed SGA) were defined a priori.
•
Study design: RCTs, quasi-RCTs, and nonrandomized studies (non-RCTs, interrupted time series, controlled before-and-after studies, cohort studies) were eligible for inclusion. Quasi-RCTs were included with RCTs in meta-analyses. Unpublished studies (eg, conference abstracts, trial protocols) were excluded. Outcomes from observational studies were assessed if there were <2 included RCTs/quasi-RCTs or if the certainty of evidence from RCTs/quasi-RCTs was scored very low.
•
Time frame: All years and all languages were included if there was an English abstract. The literature search was updated to December 9, 2021.
Consensus on Science
The SysRev identified 5 RCTs227–231 and 1 quasi-RCT232 involving a total of 1857 newborn infants and 2 retrospective cohort studies233,234 involving 218 newborn infants. An additional study235 reported secondary outcomes from a subset of newborn infants enrolled in an included RCT.228 Meta-analysis results are shown in Table 27. Additional outcomes are given in the full CoSTR.226
Outcomes (importance) | Participants (studies), n | Certainty of the evidence (GRADE) | RR (95% CI) | Anticipated absolute effects, n | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Risk with face mask | RD with SGA | ||||
Failure to improve with device (important) | 1823 (6 RCTs) Feroze et al,227 2008 Pejovic et al,228 2020 Pejovic et al,229 2018 Singh,230 2005 Trevisanuto et al,231 2015 Zhu et al,232 2011 | Moderate | 0.24 (0.17–0.36) | 138/1000 | 105 fewer/1000 infants (114 fewer–88 fewer) had failure to improve when an SGA was used |
Endotracheal intubation during resuscitation (important) | 1715 (4 RCTs) Pejovic et al,228 2020 Singh,230 2005 Trevisanuto et al,231 2015 Zhu et al,232 2011 | Low | 0.34 (0.20–0.56) | 62/1000 | 41 fewer/1000 infants (49 fewer–27 fewer) had endotracheal intubation during resuscitation when an SGA was used |
Chest compressions during resuscitation (critical) | 1346 (3 RCTs) Pejovic et al,228 2020 Singh,230 2005 Trevisanuto et al,231 2015 | Low | 0.97 (0.56–1.65) | 39/1000 | 1 fewer/1000 infants (17 fewer–26 more) had chest compressions during resuscitation when an SGA was used |
Epinephrine (adrenaline) administration during resuscitation (critical) | 192 (2 RCTs) Singh,230 2005 Trevisanuto et al,231 2015 | Low | 0.67 (0.11–3.87) | 31/1000 | 10 fewer/1000 infants (28 fewer–90 more) had epinephrine (adrenaline) administration during resuscitation when an SGA was used |
Time to heart rate >100 bpm (important) | 46 (1 RCT) Pejovic et al,235 2021 | Low | Mean time, 78 s | MD, 66 s lower (31 s lower–100 s lower) when an SGA was used | |
Duration of PPV (important) | 610 (4 RCTs) Pejovic et al,229 2018 Singh,230 2005 Trevisanuto et al,231 2015 Zhu et al,232 2011 | Low | Not applicable | Mean time, 62 s | MD, 18 s lower (24 s lower–36 s lower) when an SGA was used |
Admission to NICU (important) | 1314 (4 RCTs) Pejovic et al,228 2020 Pejovic et al,229 2018 Singh,230 2005 Trevisanuto et al,231 2015 | Very low | 0.97 (0.94–1.00) | 847/1000 | 25 fewer/1000 infants (51 fewer–0 fewer) when an SGA was used |
Air leak (important) | 192 (2 RCTs) Singh,230 2005 Trevisanuto et al,231 2015 | Very low | Not estimable (no events) | 0/1000 | 0 fewer/1000 infants (30 fewer–30 more) when an SGA was used |
Soft tissue injury (important) | 1724 (4 RCTs) Pejovic et al,228 2020 Singh,230 2005 Trevisanuto et al,231 2015 Zhu et al,232 2011 | Low | 1.05 (0.15–7.46) | 2/1000 | 0 fewer/1000 infants (2 fewer–15 more) when an SGA was used |
Survival to hospital discharge (critical) | 50 (1 RCT) Singh,230 2005 | Low | 1.00 (0.93–1.08) | 1000/1000 | 0 fewer/1000 infants (40 fewer–20 more) when an SGA was used |
GRADE indicates Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation; MD, mean difference; NICU, neonatal intensive care unit; PPV, positive-pressure ventilation; RCT, randomized controlled trial; RD, risk difference; RR, risk ratio; and SGA, supraglottic airway.
Subgroup Analyses
No data were reported to perform prespecified subgroup analyses by gestational age (term versus late preterm). For the planned subgroup analysis based on device design (i-Gel versus other device), failure to improve with the device was the only outcome with sufficient data to analyze, and there was no evidence of an interaction (P = 0.29, I2=10%).
Treatment Recommendations
Where resources and training permit, we suggest that an SGA may be used in place of a face mask for newborn infants of ≥34 0/7 weeks’ gestation receiving intermittent PPV during resuscitation immediately after birth (weak recommendation, low-certainty evidence).
Justification and Evidence-to-Decision Framework Highlights
The evidence-to-decision table is provided in Supplemental Appendix A.
In making these recommendations, the NLS Task Force acknowledged several issues. SGAs compared with face masks may be more effective in achieving successful resuscitation of late preterm and term newborn infants who receive PPV immediately after birth. Although failure to improve with device was variously defined by authors and often included crossover to the alternative device, there was a strong inverse association between the use of an SGA and risk of tracheal intubation. This may reflect a greater likelihood of achieving effective ventilation with the use of an SGA. Nevertheless, given that the interventions were not blinded and that the ability to intubate in the largest trial was dependent on physician availability, there are risks of differential cointerventions and other biases. Furthermore, optimal information size was not achieved for any of the critical or important prespecified outcomes except duration of PPV. Consequently, further trials are needed before stronger recommendations can be made about the use of SGAs as the initial device for PPV.
Balancing factors in the task force recommendation include the training required for SGA insertion and the safety of the SGA compared with face mask ventilation. Although the training provided was incompletely documented in several studies227,230,232 and no study compared the effectiveness of different training programs, the success rate for insertion was high despite apparently short-duration training with a manikin. In the largest trial,228 participating midwives received brief didactic training for insertion of a cuffless supraglottic device as part of a Helping Babies Breathe (HBB) course and were required to demonstrate 3 successful insertions in a manikin before participating in the study. Only 2 RCTs230,231 indicated that successful insertion in a newborn infant was a prerequisite to study participation. Although the individual studies had limited power to establish the safety of the SGA, the task force was encouraged by the relatively large number of newborn infants reported across all studies and the small number of adverse events.
Costs and cost-effectiveness have not been studied. In 4 of the included studies,228,229,231,232 the authors indicated that the device was provided as part of the study. The availability of resources and economic considerations will influence decisions about the use of an SGA or face mask. Given the large number of infants worldwide who receive PPV after birth, it is important to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the SGA as the initial device for PPV.
Task Force Knowledge Gaps
The online CoSTR provides a complete list.226
1.
Training requirements to achieve and maintain competency with SGA insertion, including different types of devices
2.
Effectiveness and safety of SGAs as the initial device for PPV in high-resource settings
3.
Effectiveness and safety of SGAs compared with face masks during chest compressions
4.
Effectiveness and safety of different SGA designs
5.
Effectiveness and safety of SGAs for PPV among newborn infants of <34 weeks’ gestation
Respiratory Function Monitoring During Neonatal Resuscitation at Birth (SysRev)
Rationale for Review
Respiratory function monitors (RFMs) have the potential to improve the outcomes of assisted ventilation during resuscitation of newborn infants by helping resuscitation teams avoid excessive (potentially harmful to the lungs and brain) or insufficient (ineffective) tidal volumes during resuscitation. Inappropriate tidal volumes can be caused by mask leak, airway obstruction, or ventilation pressures that are too high or too low for the mechanical characteristics of the individual infant’s lungs. A SysRev conducted for ILCOR in 2015140 found only 1 small eligible study.236 Because the NLS Task Force was aware that further studies had been published, a SysRev was prioritized (PROSPERO; CRD42021278169). The full text of this review can be found on the ILCOR website.237
PICO, Study Design, and Time Frame
•
Population: Newborn infants receiving respiratory support at birth
•
Intervention: Display of an RFM
•
Comparator: No display of an RFM
•
Outcome:
A. Critical: Death before discharge, severe intraventricular hemorrhage
B. Important: Response to and characteristics of the resuscitation; achieving desired tidal volumes; percentage maximum mask leak; intubation in the delivery room; pneumothorax; bronchopulmonary dysplasia; duration of respiratory support during neonatal intensive care143
•
Study design: RCTs, quasi-RCTs, and nonrandomized studies (non-RCTs, interrupted time series, controlled before-and-after studies, cohort studies) were eligible for inclusion. Unpublished studies were excluded.
•
Time frame: All years and all languages were included if there was an English abstract. The literature search was updated to December 31, 2021.
Consensus on Science
Data relating to the key critical and important outcomes for this comparison are summarized in Table 28. Evidence for additional outcomes evaluated is included in the full online CoSTR.237
Outcomes (importance) | Participants (studies), n | Certainty of the evidence (GRADE) | RR (95% CI) | Anticipated absolute effects, n | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Risk with standard care | RD with use of standard care plus an RFM | ||||
Tracheal intubation in the delivery room (important) | 443 (3 RCTs) Schmölzer et al,236 2012 Van Zanten et al,238 2021 Zeballos Sarrato et al,239 2019 | Very low | 0.90 (0.55–1.48) | 353/1000 | 40 fewer infants/1000 (220 fewer–130 more) were intubated in the DR when an RFM was used |
Achieving desired tidal volumes (important) | 337 (2 RCTs) Schmölzer et al,236 2012 Van Zanten et al,238 2021 | Low | 0.96 (0.69–1.34) | 301/1000 | 10 fewer infants/1000 (110 fewer–80 more) achieved the desired tidal volume in the DR when an RFM was used |
Pneumothorax (important) | 393 (2 RCTs) Van Zanten et al,238 2021 Zeballos Sarrato et al,239 2019 | Low | 0.54 (0.26–1.13) | 94/1000 | 40 fewer infants/1000 (90 fewer–10 more) had a pneumothorax when an RFM was used |
Death before hospital discharge (critical) | 442 (3 RCTs) Schmölzer et al,236 2012 Van Zanten et al,238 2021 Zeballos Sarrato et al,239 2019 | Low | 1.00 (0.66–1.52) | 165/1000 | 0 fewer infants/1000 (70 fewer–70 more) died when an RFM was used |
Severe IVH (critical) | 287 (1 RCT) Van Zanten et al,238 2021 | Low | 0.96 (0.38–2.42 | 60/1000 | 0 fewer infants/1000 (60 fewer–50 more) developed severe IVH when an RFM was used |
IVH (all grades; important) | 393 (2 RCTs) Van Zanten et al,238 2021 Zeballos Sarrato et al,239 2019 | Low | 0.69 (0.49–0.96) | 318/1000 | 100 fewer infants/1000 (180 fewer–10 fewer) developed IVH (all grades) when an RFM was used |
BPD (important) | 393 (2 RCTs) Van Zanten et al,238 2021 Zeballos Sarrato et al,239 2019 | Low | 0.85 (0.7–1.04) | 527/1000 | 80 fewer infants/1000 (180 fewer–20 more) developed BPD when an RFM was used |
BPD indicates bronchopulmonary dysplasia; DR, delivery room; GRADE; Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation; IVH, intraventricular hemorrhage; RCT, randomized controlled trial; RD, risk difference, RFM, respiratory function monitor; and RR, risk ratio.
Treatment Recommendations
There is insufficient evidence to make a recommendation for or against the use of an RFM in newborn infants receiving respiratory support at birth (low-certainty evidence).
Justification and Evidence-to-Decision Framework Highlights
The NLS Task Force concluded that a treatment recommendation could not be made because there was low confidence in effect estimates, and most could not rule out either clinical benefit or harm. Although intraventricular hemorrhage (all grades) was significantly reduced, no effect was demonstrated for severe intraventricular hemorrhage. The finding had low certainty, was one of numerous secondary outcomes for the study that most influenced the pooled difference, and was the only finding of the study that suggested benefit of RFM use.238 Costs of purchasing RFM devices and of training in their use had no information available but would need to be justified by evidence of improvement in outcomes.
Task Force Knowledge Gaps
•
Human factor assessment (eg, the design of RFM displays to ensure that teams can make best use of displayed data during resuscitation without distraction from other critical tasks)
•
Development of low-cost devices for use in low-resource settings
•
Training requirements to achieve and maintain competency in the acquisition and accurate interpretation of data derived from RFM during neonatal resuscitation
•
Cost-effectiveness for the use of RFM (versus no RFM) during neonatal resuscitation
•
Standardized definitions of respiratory function outcomes (eg, what makes up clinically significant mask leak or optimal versus suboptimal tidal ventilation during resuscitation)
Education, Implementation, and Teams
Prearrest Prediction of Survival After IHCA (SysRev)
Rationale for Review
Only 15% to 30% of patients with IHCA will survive to hospital discharge, and some of these patients will survive with unfavorable functional outcome.240 The ability to predict which patients are likely or unlikely to benefit from CPR is important to patients and caregivers. This SysRev aimed to determine whether any prearrest clinical prediction rules can predict the chance of surviving an IHCA, with or without favorable functional outcome.
The review was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42021268005). The full text of this CoSTR is available on the ILCOR website.241
PICO, Study Design, and Time Frame
•
Population: Hospitalized adults and children experiencing an IHCA
•
Intervention: Any prearrest clinical prediction rule
•
Comparator: No clinical prediction rule
•
Outcome:
A. Critical: survival to hospital discharge or to 30 days, survival with favorable neurological outcome
B. Important: ROSC
•
Study design: RCTs and nonrandomized studies (non-RCTs, interrupted time series, controlled before-and-after studies, cohort studies, case series in which n ≥5) were included. Unpublished results (eg, trial protocols), commentaries, editorials, reviews, and conference abstracts were excluded.
•
Time frame: All years and all languages were included if there was an English abstract. The search was updated to January 13, 2022.
Consensus on Science
This review identified 23 studies242–264 investigating 13 different prearrest prediction rules for survival after IHCA. We did not conduct any meta-analyses because the included studies were all based on historical (retrospective) cohort studies and judged to have very serious risk of bias and because the evidence was considered very low certainty for all available scores. Table 29 summarizes the studies for the prearrest morbidity score, and Table 30 summarizes the prognosis after resuscitation score, aiming to predict survival to hospital discharge.
Study | Cutoff | Sensitivity (95% CI) | Specificity (95% CI) | NPV (95% CI) | PPV (95% CI) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ebell et al,248 1997 | PAM >8 | 100 (90.0–100) | 1.8 (0.9–3.1) | 100 (71.5–100) | 5.4 (3.8–7.5) |
O’Keeffe and Ebell,258 1994 | PAM >8 | 100 (86.3–100) | 2.0 (0.6–4.5) | 100 (47.8–100) | 9.1 (6.0–13.2) |
Bowker and Stewart,242 1999 | PAM >6 | 100 (92.5–100) | 12.9 (8.7–18.1) | 100 (87.7–100) | 19.9 (15.0–25.6) |
Ohlsson et al,257 2014 | PAM >7 | 96.6 (88.1–99.6) | 10.9 (7.2–15.7) | 92.6 (75.7–99.1) | 21.5 (16.7–27.0) |
George et al,249 1989 | PAM >8 | 100 (89.7–100) | 22.6 (15.1–31.8) | 100 (85.8–100) | 29.3 (21.2–38.5) |
Cohn et al,244 1993 | PAM >8 | 100 (92.0–100) | 25.0 (12.7–41.2) | 100 (69.2–100) | 59.5 (47.4–70.4) |
NPV indicates negative predictive value; PAM, prearrest morbidity; and PPV, positive predictive value.
Study | Cutoff | Sensitivity (95% CI) | Specificity (95% CI) | NPV (95% CI) | PPV (95% CI) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ebell et al,248 1997 | PAR >8 | 82.9 (66.4–93.4) | 20.1 (17.0–23.5) | 95.4 (90.3–98.3) | 5.5 (3.7–7.8) |
O’Keeffe and Ebell,258 1994 | PAR >5 | 100 (86.3–100) | 22.8 (17.8–28.4) | 100 (93.9–100) | 11.1 (7.3–16.0) |
Bowker and Stewart,242 1999 | PAR >7 | 100 (94.7–100) | 14.3 (9.7–20.0) | 100 (87.7–100) | 28.8 (23.1–35.0) |
Ohlsson et al,257 2014 | PAR >10 | 98.3 (90.8–100) | 10.5 (6.8–15.2) | 96.0 (79.6–99.9) | 21.8 (16.9–27.2) |
NPV indicates negative predictive value; PAR, prognosis after resuscitation; and PPV, positive predictive value.
Other smaller studies report prediction of survival to hospital discharge using the Modified Early Warning Score,263 the National Early Warning Score,252,261 the Clinical Frailty Scale,254 a neuronal network,245 and the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health III score.248 Details for these are available on the CoSTR on the ILCOR website.241
The Good Outcome Following Attempted Resuscitation score, which aims to predict survival with a CPC of 1, has been evaluated in several studies. These results are presented in Table 31. One additional study253 reported a negative predictive value of 87.0 (95% CI, 73.7–95.1) and a sensitivity of 94.1 (95% CI, 87.6–97.8) for the Good Outcome Following Attempted Resuscitation score to predict survival to hospital discharge (details are available on the ILCOR website241).
Study | Cutoff | Sensitivity (95% CI) | Specificity (95% CI) | NPV (95% CI) | PPV (95% CI) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ebell et al,247 2013 | ≥24 | 99.3 (99.0–99.5) | 10.4 (10.1–10.7) | 99.2 (98.9–99.5) | 11.4 (11.1–11.7) |
Piscator et al,259 2018 | ≥24 | 99.3 (96.1–100.) | 9.7 (6.9–13.1) | 97.4 (86.2–99.4) | 28.9 (24.9–33.1) |
Rubins et al,262 2019 | ≥24 | 95.7 (88.0–99.1) | 17.1 (13.2–21.6) | 95.0 (86.1–99.0) | 19.5 (15.5–24.1) |
Cho et al,243 2020 | ≥24 | 99.4 (96.6–100) | 11.4 (9.4–13.8) | 99.0 (94.4–100) | 17.6 (15.2–20.3) |
Thai and Ebell,264 2019 | ≥24 | 99.2 (99.0–99.4) | 8.2 (7.9–8.4) | 98.4 (97.9–98.7) | 16.1 (15.8–16.4) |
Ohlsson et al,256 2016 | ≥24 | 97.8 (88.2–99.9) | 10.3 (6.8–14.9) | 96.2 (80.4–99.9) | 16.9 (12.5–22.0) |
CPC indicates Cerebral Performance Category; NPV, negative predictive value; and PPV, positive predictive value.
Two classification and regression tree models (versions 1 and 2) aimed to predict survival with a CPC of 1, whereas the Good Outcome Following Attempted Resuscitation 2 score and the Prediction of Outcome for In-Hospital Cardiac Arrest score investigated prediction of survival with a CPC of ≤2. These results are presented in Table 32.
Study | Model | Sensitivity (95% CI) | Specificity (95% CI) | NPV (95% CI) | PPV (95% CI) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ebell et al,246 2013 | CART 1 | 96.0 (94.9–96.9) | 24.1 (23.3–24.8) | 97.8 (97.2–98.3) | 14.6 (13.9–15.3) |
Guilbault et al,251 2017 | CART 1 | 95.6 (84.9–99.5) | 28.5 (22.9–34.6) | 97.2 (90.2–99.7) | 19.9 (14.8–25.9) |
Ebell et al,246 2013 | CART 2 | 94.1 (92.9–95.2) | 30.9 (30.1–31.7) | 97.5 (97.0–98.0) | 15.5 (14.8–16.2) |
Guilbault et al,251 2017 | CART 2 | 95.6 (84.9–99.5) | 36.4 (30.3–42.8) | 97.8 (92.2–99.7) | 21.8 (16.3–28.3) |
George et al,250 2020 | GO-FAR 2 | 98.9 (98.6–99.1) | 6.7 (6.4–6.9) | 95.7 (94.9–96.4) | 21.8 (21.4–22.2) |
Piscator et al,260 2019 | PIHCA | 99.4 (96.8–100) | 8.4 (6.0–11.3) | 97.4 (86.5–99.9) | 29.4 (25.7–33.2) |
CART indicates classification and regression tree model; GO-FAR, Good Outcome Following Attempted Resuscitation; NPV, negative predictive value; PIHCA, Prediction of Outcome for In-Hospital Cardiac Arrest; and PPV, positive predictive value.
In summary, none of the scores were able to reliably predict survival on the basis of patient factors before an IHCA, and no studies were found on the clinical implementation of such a score.
Treatment Recommendations
We recommend against using any currently available prearrest prediction rule as a sole reason not to resuscitate an adult with IHCA (strong recommendation, very low–certainty evidence).
We are unable to make a recommendation about using prearrest prediction rules to facilitate do not attempt CPR (DNACPR) discussions with adult patients, pediatric patients, or their substitute decision maker because there are no studies investigating the clinical implementation of such a score for this indication.
We are unable to provide any recommendation for pediatric patients because no studies on children were identified.
Justification and Evidence-to-Decision Framework Highlights
The complete evidence-to-decision table is provided in Supplemental Appendix A.
In making this recommendation, the task force valued a perfect negative predictive value (ie, no chance of classifying a survivor as a nonsurvivor). None of the existing prearrest prediction rules were able to reliably predict no chance of survival to hospital discharge or survival with favorable functional outcome. The task force also noted that most studies predicting survival to hospital discharge (eg, the prearrest morbidity or prognosis after resuscitation score) were based on cohorts before 2000, when survival rates were lower. The prearrest morbidity score and the prognosis after resuscitation scores did not perform consistently across cohorts.
Some studies were based on selected patient cohorts or patients from a single center, raising concerns about generalizability. All studies were based on historical cohorts, and concern for bias and unaccounted-for confounding was high. Because no prospective studies were identified on clinical implementation of a prearrest prediction model to facilitate DNACPR discussions, it is unknown whether the clinical implementation of such a score would influence the rate of DNACPR discussions, rate of DNACPR orders, survival outcomes, or patient perspectives.
All scores predicting survival with favorable neurological outcome included variables such as hypotension, respiratory insufficiency, or sepsis before the arrest that may change during the hospital admission. Thus, there are concerns about the applicability of these models.
The Good Outcome Following Attempted Resuscitation score identifies the chance of survival with good neurological outcome (ie, CPC of 1), although patients and relatives may value survival with a CPC of >1.
Scores that can predict a very low chance of survival with favorable functional outcome may be used to facilitate DNACPR discussions with patients, although the score may not be able to predict no chance of survival or survival with favorable neurological outcome.
Task Force Knowledge Gaps
•
Assessment of clinical decision tools to predict ROSC and long-term outcomes beyond hospital discharge or quality-of-life outcomes
•
Assessment of clinical decision tools for prearrest prediction of IHCA survival for children
•
Assessment of scores predicting survival with favorable neurological outcome that do not include physiological deterioration before cardiac arrest, which may be difficult to apply prospectively
•
Prospective validation studies or randomized trials of in-hospital prearrest clinical prediction rules to be used for DNACPR discussions or making DNACPR orders
•
How the use of clinical decision tools affects resuscitation practices, cost-benefit, or survival outcomes
BLS Training for Likely Rescuers of High-Risk Populations (SysRev)
Rationale for Review
This topic was last reviewed in 2015.265,266 The Education, Implementation, and Teams Task Force prioritized this question because there have been several high-quality studies since the last review, and existing evidence suggests that likely rescuers are unlikely to seek training on their own but are willing to receive training.267–269 The review was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42021233811). The full text of this CoSTR is on the ILCOR website.270
PICO, Study Design, and Time Frame
•
Population: Adults and children at high risk of OHCA
•
Intervention: BLS training of likely rescuers
•
Comparator: No training
•
Outcome:
A. Patient outcome:
– Critical: Favorable neurological outcome at hospital discharge or to 30 days, survival at hospital discharge or to 30 days
– Important: ROSC, rates of bystander CPR (subsequent use of skills), bystander CPR quality during an OHCA (any available CPR metrics), and rates of AED use (subsequent use of skills)
B. Educational outcome:
– Critical: CPR quality and correct AED use at the end of training and within 12 months of training
– Important: CPR and AED knowledge at the end of training and within 12 months after training; confidence and willingness to perform CPR at the end of training and within 12 months after training and CPR training of others
•
Study design: RCTs and nonrandomized studies (non-RCTs, interrupted time series, controlled before-and-after studies, cohort studies) were eligible for inclusion. Unpublished studies (including conference abstracts, trial protocols) were excluded.
•
Time frame: All years and all languages were included if there was an English abstract. The literature search was updated to October 15, 2021.
Consensus on Science
The SysRev performed as part of the 2015 ILCOR review265,266 identified 32 studies relating to BLS training in likely rescuers (eg, family or caregivers) of high-risk OHCA groups.273–304
One study298 from the 2015 review was not relevant for the revised outcomes in this update and was not included in this updated review.
In our updated search, we found 12 new studies published since the 2015 review.305–316
The 12 new studies included likely rescuers of patients with cardiac disease,306–314,316 drug use disorder,305 pulmonary disease,314 or an acute life-threatening event.315 Similar to the 2015 reviewed studies, these new studies used various methods for BLS training, control groups, and assessment of outcomes and were too heterogeneous for a meta-analysis of any outcome to be performed.
Only 2 of the new studies examined the subsequent use of BLS skills and patient outcomes.305,315 Overall, there remain too few witnessed OHCA events and rates of loss to follow-up that are too high for us to be confident in the effect of training.273,278,281,283,286,293,294,299,300,305,315 Most of the old and new studies assessing educational outcomes demonstrated improvements in BLS skills and knowledge immediately after training.274,276,279,280,287,290–292,295,296,302–304,307–310,312–316
In the assessment of long-term outcomes, there was some degradation in some BLS skills compared with immediately after training but an improvement in skills and knowledge compared with baseline.275,307,309,310,312,315 Training immediately increased willingness275,281,285,288–290,297,301,308,310 and confidence274,308–310,312 to provide CPR if needed. Those trained were also likely to share training with other family members and friends when provided with materials (eg, BLS training kits with a manikin).274,275,288,289,307,308,310,311
Treatment Recommendations
We recommend BLS training for likely rescuers of populations at high risk of OHCA (strong recommendation, low- to moderate-certainty evidence).
We recommend that health care professionals encourage and direct likely rescuers of populations at high risk of cardiac arrest to attend BLS training (good practice statement).
Justification and Evidence-to-Decision Framework Highlights
The complete evidence-to-decision table is provided in Supplemental Appendix A.
In making this recommendation, the Education, Implementation, and Teams Task Force placed higher value on the improvements in competency in BLS skills, the improvements in confidence and willingness to perform BLS, the multiplier effect of trained individuals training others, the high proportion of OHCAs that occur in the home and the potential benefits of such patients receiving BLS from a family member or caregiver, the fact that BLS training does not increase anxiety in trainees,267 and that these groups are unlikely to undertake training on their own.267
Given these facts, we considered it important to recommend that health care professionals encourage and direct these groups to attend BLS training although they may not take up training.284 We also placed lesser value on the associated costs and the potential that performance of some skills may not be to guideline standard and may not be retained without refresher CPR training.
Task Force Knowledge Gaps
•
The long-term impact of training on patient outcomes
•
The best methods for training and retraining to achieve high attendance and skill retention
•
Whether health care providers suggesting the need for BLS training, rather than providing training, influences likely rescuers to seek and obtain training
Patient Outcome and Resuscitation Team Members Attending ALS Courses (EvUp/SysRev/Adolopment)
Rationale for Review
Attending an ALS course comes at a cost—both financial and in terms of time—to participants and their institutions. It is therefore important to show whether such participation has a meaningful impact on patient outcomes. In 2020, we recommended the provision of accredited adult ALS training for health care providers (weak recommendation, very low–certainty evidence). The purpose of this SysRev is to update the evidence for adult ALS training and to expand the search to participants of other ALS courses covering patients of all ages.
The review was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42021253673). The full text of this CoSTR is available on the ILCOR website.317
Course types, titles, and acronyms used in this CoSTR are as follows:
•
Adult ALS courses: ALS, Advanced Cardiovascular Life Support (ACLS)
•
Pediatric ALS courses: Pediatric ALS (PALS), European Paediatric ALS (EPALS), European Paediatric Intermediate Life Support (EPILS)
•
Neonatal resuscitation training (NRT): Newborn Resuscitation Programs (NRPs), NLS, Advanced Resuscitation of the Newborn Infant (ARNI)
•
HBB course
•
Advanced Trauma Life Support (ATLS) course
•
European Trauma Course (ETC)
PICO, Study Design, and Time Frame
•
Population: Patients of any age requiring IHCA resuscitation
•
Intervention: Prior participation of ≥1 members of the resuscitation team in an accredited ALS course (eg, ALS, ACLS, PALS, EPALS, EPILS, NRT [including NRP, HBB, NLS, ARNI])
•
Comparator: No such participation
•
Outcome: Critical—ROSC, survival to hospital discharge or to 30 days, survival to 1 year, and survival with favorable neurological outcome; NRT (in addition): stillbirth rate, neonatal and perinatal mortality
•
Study design: RCTs, nonrandomized studies (non-RCTs, interrupted time series, controlled before-and-after studies, cohort studies, and case series in which n≥5), and reviews were included. Unpublished reports (eg, trial protocols), commentary, editorials, studies looking at the impact of individual components of courses (eg, airway, drug therapy, defibrillation), studies relating to BLS and first aid courses, studies on dedicated trauma courses (eg, ATLS, ETC), and studies relating to OHCA were excluded.
•
Time frame: Publications from all years (except for ALS, which included studies after March 2018 because previous studies were included in another published SysRev) and all languages were included if there was an English abstract. The literature search was conducted on October 18, 2021.
Consensus on Science
This review identified 18 studies covering the adult ALS course (n=1),318 NRT courses (n=11),319–329 and the HBB course (n=6).330–335 In addition, 2 review articles were identified: 1 covered NRT336 and the other covered HBB.337 Evidence was of very low certainty (downgraded for risk of bias and inconsistency).
Adult ALS Courses (ALS, ACLS)
The 2020 CoSTR was based on an adolopment of a SysRev.338 This EvUp for that review included the newly identified study.318 This retrospective descriptive study from India assessed the impact on patient outcomes of nursing staff attending an American Heart Association course. The study reported outcomes for ROSC and survival to hospital discharge. The updated results from the previous CoSTR with the data from this study were ROSC (odds ratio, 1.66 [95% CI, 1.24–2.21]) and survival to hospital discharge and to 30 days (odds ratio, 2.48 [95% CI, 1.21–5.09]). This supported the conclusions from the previous ILCOR CoSTR.
Neonatal Resuscitation Training
One SysRev was identified336 covering all NRT approaches. No additional studies were identified through our search. This SysRev satisfied the “A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews-2” criteria for adolopment, as defined by the ILCOR Adolopment Process document.339 Data were extracted and analyzed for hospital-based studies only, and results are presented in Table 33. All included studies were of before-and-after design and from low- to middle-resource settings. Despite clinical and statistical heterogeneity, all analyses showed a consistent treatment effect for this training.
Outcome | Studies, n | Participants, n | RR | 95% CI |
---|---|---|---|---|
All stillbirths | 9213,325,332,340–343* | 1 334 307 | 0.88 | 0.82–0.94 |
Fresh stillbirths | 6213,325,331,332* | 231 455 | 0.71 | 0.54–0.93 |
1-d neonatal mortality | 5213,331,344* | 216 373 | 0.58 | 0.38–0.90 |
7-d neonatal mortality | 5331,341,344–346 | 296 300 | 0.78 | 0.63–0.97 |
28-d mortality | 6323,325,331,332,340,347 | 1 090 594 | 0.89 | 0.65–1.22 |
Perinatal mortality | 4331,340,341† | 1 178 446 | 0.78 | 0.70–0.87 |
NRT indicates neonatal resuscitation training; and RR, relative risk.
*
Data from 1 unpublished study included.
†
Data from 2 unpublished studies included.
Helping Babies Breathe
One SysRev of the HBB course was identified,337 which also met criteria for adolopment. All of the included studies were from low-resource areas. The review found moderate evidence for a decrease in intrapartum-related stillbirth and 1-day neonatal mortality rate after implementation of the HBB training and resuscitation method. One additional study was identified in our search, which concluded that HBB may be effective in a local first-level referral hospital in Mali.333
Treatment Recommendations
We recommend the provision of accredited ALS training (ACLS, ALS) for health care providers who provide ALS care for adults (strong recommendation, very low–certainty evidence).
We recommend the provision of accredited courses in NRT (NRT, NRP) and HBB for health care providers who provide ALS care for newborns and babies (strong recommendation, very low–certainty evidence).
We have made a discordant recommendation (strong recommendation despite very low–certainty evidence) because we have placed a very high value on an uncertain but potentially life-preserving benefit, and the intervention is not associated with prohibitive adverse effects.
Justification and Evidence-to-Decision Framework Highlights
The complete evidence-to-decision table is provided in Supplemental Appendix A.
In making this recommendation, the Education, Implementation, and Teams Task Force recognizes that the evidence in support of this recommendation comes from studies providing very low–certainty evidence on a range of courses run in different resource settings around the world over a long period. Despite this, the studies show a consistent treatment effect for this training with potential for many lives saved. Although no evidence for pediatric training courses was identified, it is unlikely that the effect would differ from that seen with adult and neonatal courses. The provision of NRT and HBB training is feasible in low- and middle-resource settings.
Task Force Knowledge Gaps
•
The trainee characteristics and training/recertification frequency required to sustain the existing effect on patient outcomes
•
The impact of other ALS courses (eg, pediatric) on patient outcomes
•
The impact of blended-learning approaches on patient outcomes
•
The impact on resuscitation training of modifications necessitated by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic
Blended Learning for Life Support Education (SysRev)
Rationale for Review
Blended learning is an educational approach that combines face-to-face and online approaches.348 Recently, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the feasibility of face-to-face interactions and teaching has been profound, making the use of technology to facilitate learning a necessity rather than an option.349–352 The 2020 CoSTR strongly recommended “providing the option of eLearning as part of a blended-learning approach to reduce face-to-face training time in ALS courses (very low– to low-certainty evidence).”353 This SysRev is designed to evaluate the impact of blended learning on all accredited life support courses. The study was registered with PROSPERO on August 20, 2021 (CRD42021274392).354 The full text of the CoSTR is available on the ILCOR website.355
PICO, Study Design, and Time Frame
•
Population: Participants undertaking an accredited life support course (eg, BLS, ALS courses, ATLS)
•
Intervention: Blended-learning approach
•
Comparator: Non–blended-learning approach (online or face-to-face only)
•
Outcome: Critical—knowledge acquisition (end of course, 6 months, 1 year), skills acquisition (end of course, 6 months, 1 year), participant satisfaction (end of course), patient survival, and implementation outcomes (cost, time needed)
•
Study design: RCTs, nonrandomized studies (non-RCTs, interrupted time series, controlled before-and-after studies, cohort studies, and case series in which n ≥5), and manikin studies were included. Unpublished reports (eg, trial protocols), commentary, editorial, and reviews were excluded.
•
Time frame: Publications from all years from 2000 onward and all languages were included if there was an English abstract. The literature search was conducted on August 6, 2021.
Consensus on Science
Most studies used face-to-face only as the control group, with only 2 BLS studies having online learning only as a control group.356,357
There was a mix of interventions in the BLS group, with some adding online content to standardized face-to-face courses276,356,357,359,360 and some substituting didactic content with online content, leaving an amended face-to-face element.361–367 In the ALS group, all except 1 study368 evaluated online learning as a substitute for didactic elements. The ATLS study evaluated online learning as a substitute for didactic elements.369
Basic Life Support
A total of 14 studies were included, addressing both BLS knowledge and BLS skills after the intervention.276,356,357,359–367,370,371 Results were mixed, with some studies finding a benefit with blended learning and some studies finding no difference. Only 1 study found a statistically significant benefit for knowledge363 and for skills364 with a face-to-face approach only. For BLS knowledge and skills retention, there was no significant difference up to 12 months after intervention.
For the outcome of attitudes, there was evidence of positive attitudes for all forms of training.357,359,366,367
For the outcome of costs, the single cost analysis study found a notable financial benefit for teaching BLS through a blended-learning approach.370
Adult ALS
The review included 8 studies.368,372–378 For the outcome of ALS knowledge (after the intervention), 2 studies found significantly higher scores in the blended-learning group,372,378 whereas the remainder of the studies found no significant difference between the groups.368,373,377 There was no significant difference between groups for 1 study at 7 months.373
For the outcome of ALS skills (after the intervention), 1 pilot study377 found significantly higher scores in the control group; however, a subsequent study of the revised version of the same course found significantly higher scores in the blended-learning group.378 The remainder of the studies found no significant difference between the groups.368,372,373,375
Advanced Trauma Life Support
One study found that a blended-learning approach involving the substitution of didactic elements with online learning for the American College of Surgeons’ ATLS course was better than the face-to-face approach, but only in terms of knowledge outcomes.369 Overall pass rates were better, but there was no specific description of the breakdown of skills performance as opposed to knowledge outcomes in determining the final result, so a conclusion about skills training cannot be made.
Treatment Recommendations
We recommend a blended-learning as opposed to nonblended approach for life support training when resources and accessibility permit its implementation (strong recommendation, very low–certainty evidence).
Justification and Evidence-to-Decision Framework Highlights
The complete evidence-to-decision table is provided in Supplemental Appendix A.
In making this recommendation, the Education, Implementation, and Teams Task Force considered that a blended-learning approach is grounded in a strong framework from educational theory and has been shown to result in similar or better educational outcomes for participants of life support training. A blended-learning approach enables ongoing training in life support skills for those in remote locations and lower-resource settings and in times of pandemic but may not be feasible in areas where access to online learning is limited or unavailable. Blended learning enables consistent messaging about content, which can be particularly beneficial for precourse preparation, and it reduces participant and stakeholder costs.
The task force agreed that non–blended-learning approaches (ie, face-to-face only or online only) are an acceptable alternative when resources or accessibility does not permit the implementation of a blended-learning approach. Most of the studies used face-to-face only as the control group, with very limited evidence for online only as the control group. Blended-learning approaches decrease the duration of face-to-face training required, although time is still needed to complete the online component.
Task Force Knowledge Gaps
•
The elements of instructional delivery that are associated with better educational outcomes
•
Whether certain levels of blended learning (ie, how much, what exactly, when used) are more beneficial than others
•
Whether there is a difference in outcomes between approaches when online learning is added to established face-to-face content or when it substitutes for elements of the face-to-face contact
•
Whether blended-learning life support education leads to better patient outcomes
•
Whether certain subgroups of participants (eg, first time versus recertification) have better educational outcomes from a blended-learning approach
•
How blended learning compares with online-only learning
Faculty Development Approaches for Life Support Courses (ScopRev)
Rationale for Review
A cornerstone to improve survival after cardiac arrest is continuous education in resuscitation delivery for laypeople and health care professionals. To do so, regional resuscitation councils have implemented resuscitation courses and training programs for their instructors within their faculty development programs to teach standardized resuscitation for their accredited courses. This ScopRev was conducted to identify the types of available evidence on the topic of faculty development programs for life support courses.379 The full text of this ScopRev is available on the ILCOR website.380
PICO, Study Design, and Time Frame
•
Population: Instructors of accredited life support courses, including BLS, PBLS, ALS, PALS, and NRP
•
Intervention: Any faculty development approach to improve instructional competence in accredited life support courses
•
Comparator: No such approach or any other faculty development approach
•
Outcome:
Clinical outcomes of patients resuscitated by students of the instructors: Critical—favorable neurological outcome, survival to discharge, short-term survival, ROSC, sustained ROSC, and survival to admission
Educational outcomes:
– Critical: skill performance of students of the instructors in actual resuscitation.
– Important: knowledge, instructional skills, and attitudes of instructors at the end of instructor training course; knowledge, instructional skills, and attitudes of instructors some period of time after the end of the instructor training course; confidence of instructors to teach students at the end of the instructor training course and some period of time after course completion; and knowledge, skill performance, attitudes, willingness, and confidence of the instructors’ students immediately after the provider course or some period of time after course completion
•
Study design: RCTs and nonrandomized studies (non-RCTs, interrupted time series, controlled before-and-after studies, cohort studies, case-control studies), unpublished studies (eg, conference abstracts, trial protocols), letters, editorials, comments, case series, and case reports were eligible for inclusion. Interventions with nonaccredited life support courses or life support training included as part of a curriculum in other medical educational courses were excluded.
•
Time frame: All years and all languages were included if there was an English abstract. The literature search was updated to December 31, 2021.
Summary of Evidence
Twenty studies,381–400 including 5 conference abstracts,384,390,394,395,400 1 short communication,398 and 14 full-length articles,381–383,385–389,391–393,396,397,399 were included. Interventions were grouped into 4 categories, and studies are summarized in Table 34.
Category | Intervention | Results |
---|---|---|
Instructor qualification/training | ||
Internet-based AHA CIC387 | Comparing internet-based AHA CIC with traditional classroom-based AHA CIC | There was no difference in pretest and posttest practical scores. Candidates in the online group had significantly higher adjusted posttest scores. |
Train-the-trainer courses384,388,391,395,396 | Instructor course with train-the-trainer model, sending the “trained trainers” to deliver further resuscitation training | Train-the-trainer programs may be effective in improving resuscitation knowledge and skills and are important for developing local expertise. |
System-wide instructor training program393 | Retrospective analysis of 24 pediatric and neonatal CPR instructor courses certified by the Spanish Paediatric and Neonatal Resuscitation Group, held between 1999 and 2019 | A specific pediatric and neonatal CPR instructor course is an adequate method for sustainable training of health professionals to teach pediatric resuscitation. |
Modified instructor course with lectures, instruction practice, and self-developed resuscitation scenarios399 | New instructor course compared with conventional training | There was improved confidence in teaching neonatal CPR when participating in the new course. |
Web-based questionnaire survey for instructors392 | Web-based survey with a 29-item Competence Importance Performance scale | Several important factors for the competence of instructors were identified. |
Assessment tools | ||
Assessment for chest compression with real-time compression feedback381 | Real-time compression feedback | There were improved chest compression performance skills with real-time feedback without comparable improvement in chest compression assessment skills in video review. |
Assessment for chest compression with self-learning400 | Recorded chest compressions by motion-capture camera | There was improved ability of novice instructors to assess chest compressions after self-training, but it does not equal that of experienced instructors. |
Delivery of BLS training using fully-body sensor-equipped manikins394 | Use of sensor-equipped manikins for accredited instructors asked to deliver BLS training | Instructors felt that the manikins were useful and felt confident when delivering the course, and that may be beneficial to a trainer’s perception. |
Teaching skills enhancement | ||
Different feedback method383 | Learning conversation structured methods of feedback delivery in BLS training, compared with the sandwich technique (that is, positive feedback—negative feedback—positive feedback) | Using learning conversation structured methods by instructors was preferred over using the sandwich technique by instructors, and may give instructors more confidence. |
Using standardized script by novice instructors to facilitate team debriefing386 | Use of scripted debriefing by novice instructors or simulator physical realism affects knowledge and performance in simulated cardiopulmonary arrests. | Use of a standardized script to debrief by novice instructors improved students’ knowledge acquisition and team leader behavioral performance during subsequent simulated cardiopulmonary arrests. |
Tape recording and a later critical viewing of a lecture390 | Record the lecture provided by BLS/AED or ALS instructor candidates with a tape, a later video review, and oral self-assessment. | The opinion of all participants was positive when they were asked about comparing their subjective impressions with the objective viewing. |
Additional course for instructors | ||
Educational program to teach ACLS instructors to evaluate team leader performance389 | Educational program to review commonly observed errors and to identify critical errors | Trained instructors identified more critical errors and gave more correct grade assignments. |
ATP397,398 | ATP as additional training, focusing on decision making in equivocal situations | Trained instructors were less prone to incorrectly giving failing scores to candidates.398 Instructors with additional training were significantly more confident at assessing.397 |
Neonatal resuscitation workshop382 | 2-d neonatal resuscitation workshop | There were significant improvements in participants’ perceptions of their teaching ability. |
Clinical teacher-training course/workshop (enhance teaching skills and methods)385 | 2-d BLS and emergency medicine teacher-training program | Students taught by untrained teachers performed better in some domains. Teaching quality was rated significantly better by students of untrained teachers. |
ACLS indicates advanced cardiovascular life support; AED, automated external defibrillator; AHA, American Heart Association; ALS, advanced life support; ATP, assessment training program; BLS, basic life support; CIC, core instructor course; and CPR, cardiopulmonary resuscitation.
Task Force Insights
This ScopRev on faculty development approaches to improve instructional competence in life support courses was summarized in 4 themes: instructor qualification/training, assessment tools, teaching skills enhancement, and additional courses for instructors. Many studies only described implementations of regional instructor programs but did not report outcomes and were excluded. Some organizations used their specific train-the-trainer courses, and it seems that these models may be effective in these specific contexts, but different systems make comparisons nearly impossible.
Instructors’ assessment of chest compressions was not as good as expected; therefore, feedback devices and training programs sharpening their assessment skills were suggested.381,389,397,398,400 Of the articles with additional training programs that were included, 4 of 5 had a positive effect on instructors’ teaching competencies and evaluation ability.382,389,397,398 However, new teaching strategies may not have the expected effects, which emphasizes the need for rigorous evaluation of any changes to training practices.385
Specific debriefing and feedback methods were suggested for instructors teaching life support courses, which may increase instructors’ confidence.383 Most resuscitation training studies analyzed the learning outcomes of course participants but rarely assessed instructors. Future research on faculty development of resuscitation instructors should include assessment of core instructor competencies as an outcome of interest.
We did not identify any recertification program for instructors, although continuous lifelong learning to retain the teaching skills is crucial for instructors. One reason for suboptimal instructor performance might be lack of effective retraining or recertification programs.
Treatment Recommendations
There was no treatment recommendation on faculty development programs for resuscitation course instructors previously. This ScopRev has not identified sufficient evidence to support a new SysRev, and no treatment recommendation was generated.
From this ScopRev and expert opinion from the task force members, faculty development for resuscitation course instructors remains an important element contributing to improved teaching and the learners’ outcomes in accredited life support courses. However, no clear picture of the most appropriate and most effective faculty development programs could be identified from the studies reviewed. Different approaches need to consider the local training environment and resource availability, as well as instructors’ needs, to maximize learning outcomes of such programs. The best ways to maintain and assess instructor competency while concurrently maximizing cost-effectiveness need to be established.
The task force encourages resuscitation councils to implement faculty development programs for their teaching staff of their accredited resuscitation courses.
Task Force Knowledge Gaps
•
The most appropriate life support instructor training strategy
•
The best methods for objective measurement of core competence of instructors
•
Strategies to build up an effective recertification or retraining program for life support course instructors
•
Which feedback method or debriefing strategy is effective and how to teach instructors to use a debriefing method successfully in life support instructor training
•
Whether continuous assessment and feedback to instructors from others such as senior instructors or course directors improve instructor competence and learning outcomes for the course participants
•
The effect on patient outcome of instructor training
Topics Reviewed by EvUps
In Table 35, EvUps are listed with the PICO number, existing treatment recommendation, number of relevant studies identified, key findings, and information about whether a SysRev was deemed worthwhile. Complete EvUps can be found in Supplemental Appendix B.
Topic/PICO | Year(s) last updated | Existing treatment recommendation | RCTs since last review, n | Observational studies since last review, n | Key findings | Sufficient data to warrant SysRev? |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Willingness to provide CPR (EIT 626) | 2020 ScopRev 2010 CoSTR | To increase willingness to perform CPR, laypeople should receive training in CPR. This training should include the recognition of gasping or abnormal breathing as a sign of cardiac arrest when other signs of life are absent. Laypeople should be trained to start resuscitation with chest compressions in adult and pediatric victims. If unwilling or unable to perform ventilation, rescuers should be instructed to continue CCO-CPR. EMS dispatchers should provide CPR instructions to callers who report cardiac arrest. When providing CPR instructions, EMS dispatchers should include recognition of gasping and abnormal breathing. | 0 | 12 (9 are related to the COVID-19 pandemic) | Three observational studies identified factors associated with willingness to perform CPR described earlier. Six studies during the COVID-19 pandemic period found that bystander CPR rate decreased, and 5 studies showed a significant decrease in the rate of using bystander AED or PAD. | No |
Team and leadership training (EIT 631) | 2020 CoSTR | We suggest that specific team and leadership training be included as part of ALS training for health care providers (weak recommendation, very low–certainty evidence). | 1 | 8 | Published new evidence associates teamwork or leader performance with clinical performance, as measured by surrogate patient outcomes (adherence to resuscitation and other clinical practice guidelines, avoidance of errors, time to definitive therapies). No new evidence demonstrates an effect of team training on patient outcomes and survival. | No |
Rapid response systems in adults (EIT 638) | 2020 CoSTR | We suggest that hospitals consider the introduction of a rapid response system (rapid response team/medical emergency team) to reduce the incidence of IHCA and in-hospital mortality (weak recommendation, low-quality evidence). | 0 | 11 | No new randomized studies were found. The findings from 11 nonrandomized studies were mixed, and the majority suffer from high risk of bias. Two studies found no effect of rapid response teams on patient outcome, whereas the other observational studies showed a positive effect, mostly in reduction of cardiac arrest or hospital mortality. | No |
Community initiatives to promote BLS implementation (EIT 641) | 2020 ScopRev 2015 CoSTR | We recommend implementation of resuscitation guidelines within organizations that provide care for patients in cardiac arrest in any setting (strong recommendation, very low–quality evidence). | 0 | 2 | The 2 new observational studies confirm improvements from strategies driven by community initiatives promoting BLS described in the last ScopRev. | No |
Debriefing of resuscitation performance (EIT 645 and NLS 1562) | 2020 EIT CoSTR; NLS ScopRev | EIT 645: We suggest data-driven, performance-focused debriefing of rescuers after IHCA for both adults and children (weak recommendation, very low–certainty evidence). We suggest data-driven, performance-focused debriefing of rescuers after OHCA in both adults and children (weak recommendation, very low–certainty evidence). NLS 1562: There was no previous treatment recommendation on the topic. This ScopRev did not identify sufficient evidence to prompt a SysRev. | 0 | 3 | We did not find substantial new evidence supporting debriefing in adults or children. One observational study found short-term improvements with debriefing in neonates. Several knowledge gaps were found and described in the EvUp (for example, short- and long-term outcomes, debriefing facilitator training, emotional and psychological side effects of debriefing). | No |
Spaced vs massed learning (EIT 1601) | 2020 CoSTR | For learners undertaking resuscitation courses, we suggest that spaced learning (training or retraining distributed over time) may be used instead of massed learning (training provided at 1 single time point; weak recommendation, very low–certainty evidence). | 3 | 5 | The 3 new randomized trials showed a tendency toward spaced learning but no clear picture on long-term outcome. Included nonrandomized studies were highly heterogeneous in outcome measures, type of resuscitation courses, and participants but overall showed a positive effect of spaced learning. | No |
AED indicates automated external defibrillator; ALS, advanced life support; BLS, basic life support; CCO-CPR, chest compression–only cardiopulmonary resuscitation; CoSTR, International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations; COVID-19, coronavirus disease 2019; CPR, cardiopulmonary resuscitation; EIT, Education, Implementation, and Teams; EMS, emergency medical services; EvUp, evidence update; IHCA, in-hospital cardiac arrest; NLS, Neonatal Life Support; OHCA, out-of-hospital cardiac arrest; PAD, public-access defibrillation; PICO, population, intervention, comparator, outcome; RCT, randomized controlled trial; ScopRev, scoping review; and SysRev, systematic review.
First Aid Task Force
The Recovery Position for Maintenance of Adequate Ventilation and the Prevention of Cardiac Arrest (SysRev)
Rationale for Review
This topic was prioritized by the First Aid Task Force after a ScopRev using a reworded PICO study design and time frame question in 2020. The original PICO study design and time frame wording from 2015 sought to compare a lateral, side-lying recovery position with a supine position in adults who are breathing and unresponsive in an out-of-hospital setting. The revised PICO study design and time frame wording now clarify the population of interest as adults and children with a reduced level of responsiveness of nontraumatic origin and who do not require resuscitative interventions. The SysRev was undertaken with involvement of content experts from the First Aid and Basic Life Support Task Forces (PROSPERO 2021; CRD42021248358).401 The full text of this CoSTR can be found online.402
PICO, Study Design, and Time Frame
•
Population: Adults and children in the first aid setting who have a reduced level of responsiveness of nontraumatic origin and do not require resuscitative interventions
•
Intervention: Specific positioning (recovery positioning [ie, various semiprone, lateral recumbent, side-lying, or three-quarters prone positions of the body])
•
Comparator: Supine or other position
•
Outcome:
A. Critical: Survival, incidence of cardiac arrest, delayed detection of apnea and cardiac arrest.
B. Important: Need for airway management, incidence of aspiration, hypoxia, likelihood of cervical spine injury, complications (venous occlusion, arterial insufficiency, arm discomfort/pain, discomfort/pain, aspiration pneumonia)
•
Study design: RCTs and nonrandomized studies (non-RCTs, interrupted time series, controlled before-and-after studies, cohort studies) and case series were included. Reports including a minimum of 5 cases were eligible for inclusion. Animal, healthy volunteer, and cadaver research was excluded. Unpublished studies (eg, conference abstracts, trial protocols) and editorials were excluded, although case reports published in letter form were included. ScopRevs and SysRevs were included for discussion and to ensure that no primary articles were missed, but data were not extracted from these reviews.
•
Time frame: All years and all languages were included if there was an English abstract. The literature search was updated to November 17, 2021.
Consensus on Science
An updated search performed in 2021 identified 3 prospective observational studies enrolling 450 adults and 553 children403–405 and 4 case series with a total of 251 patients (<10% were children).406–409 No comparative studies were identified evaluating critical outcomes, including survival, incidence of cardiac arrest, or delayed detection of apnea and cardiac arrest. Meta-analysis was not possible because of the lack of comparative studies, critical risk of bias, and high degree of heterogeneity.
A 1999 observational study of 205 acutely poisoned patients reported those with suspected aspiration pneumonia and the body position in which they were found.403 Prone and semirecumbent positions were associated with a decreased rate of suspected aspiration pneumonia (P <0.05). No significant difference was found in the incidence of pulmonary infiltrates among left lateral decubitus, right lateral decubitus, and supine body positions.
A 2016 observational study of 553 patients in the pediatric emergency department with loss of consciousness reported the use of the recovery position by caregivers in 145 of 553 patients (26.2%). Use of the recovery position was associated with a decreased admission rate (adjusted odds ratio, 0.28 [95% CI, 0.17–0.48]; P <0.0001).404
A 2020 prospective observational study of 200 people with OHCA and receiving bystander intervention reported that 64 people (32%) were found by emergency medical services in a supine position suitable for providing chest compressions.405 Another 37 patients (18.5%) were found in a recovery position. No significant difference in favorable functional outcome was observed between patients in the recovery position compared with those placed in a position suitable for chest compression.
Of the 4 case series identified, 3 series with a total of 244 patients described the body position of individuals with sudden unexpected death in epilepsy.407–409 All 3 case series reported a prone position in most patients with sudden death in epilepsy. A fourth case series reported 7 cases of OHCA in which the patients were judged by bystanders to be unresponsive but breathing normally and placed into a recovery position. The authors noted that subsequent loss of breathing was not detected and CPR was not started.406
Treatment Recommendations
When providing first aid to a person with a decreased level of responsiveness of nontraumatic origin who does not require immediate resuscitative interventions, we suggest the use of the recovery position (weak recommendation, very low–certainty evidence).
When the recovery position is used, monitoring should continue for signs of airway occlusion, inadequate or agonal breathing, and unresponsiveness (good practice statement).
If body position, including the recovery position, is a factor impairing the first aid provider’s ability to determine the presence or absence of signs of life, the person should be immediately positioned supine and reassessed (good practice statement).
People found in positions associated with aspiration and positional asphyxia such as face down, prone, or in neck and torso flexion positions should be repositioned supine for reassessment (good practice statement).
Technical Remarks
Resuscitative interventions may include opening an airway, rescue breathing, chest compressions, and the application of an AED.
Various recovery positions have been described, and little evidence remains to suggest an optimal position. The recommended recovery position (lateral recumbent positioning with arm nearest the first aid provider at a right angle to the body and elbow bent with palm up and far knee flexed) remains unchanged from the 2015 CoSTR.410,411
Justification and Evidence-to-Decision Framework Highlights
The complete evidence-to-decision table is included in Supplemental Appendix A.
Although the evidence to support a treatment recommendation was limited and of very low certainty, the first aid task force recognizes that the opioid crisis in North America has led to many individuals requiring first aid and use of the recovery position. The task force discussed at length the potential benefits from use of a recovery position versus the risks of harm.
One case series406 described potential missed OHCA in individuals placed into a recovery position. Other evidence was identified that did not meet inclusion criteria for this review in which healthy volunteers used breath holding to simulate apnea. It was suggested that placing individuals in the recovery position may impair the detection of cardiac arrest and that supine positioning with a head tilt–chin lift should be adopted instead.412,413 The first aid task force noted that it remains unknown how well the head tilt–chin lift was performed in the study or if it can be maintained for prolonged periods by first aid providers. Moreover, the observation of the subject may be more complete when the subject is supine, but a patent airway and unobstructed breathing may be easier to obtain in the recovery position. The potential difficulty of training lay providers to be able to accurately identify normal breathing and responsiveness in real-life settings was also considered.
The task forces agreed that in situations when a sole first aid responder is unable to remain with a casualty and monitor their responsiveness and breathing, the use of a recovery position is appropriate. Likewise, a recovery position would be useful in the setting of a sole responder caring for a person who is in a supine position and requires ongoing airway maintenance that will prevent the responder from calling for help or providing other immediate first aid such as administering naloxone for suspected opioid overdose. The potential impact of body habitus on airway patency and ventilation in supine versus recovery positions was discussed. For example, a supine position in an obese person with a diminished level of responsiveness may be associated with greater risk of airway obstruction and inadequate ventilation. The limited included evidence showing an association between use of a recovery position and a decreased admission rate further supports the use of a recovery position in children with a decreased level of responsiveness, although a semirecumbent position or prone position was associated with lower rates of suspected aspiration pneumonia. Last, we acknowledge that positional asphyxia can occur in a person with a diminished level of responsiveness in multiple positions. This may include when the torso is lateral and the neck is flexed or rotated down, when a seated person falls/flexes forward at the waist (face down), and when the face is occluded by soft bedding or material. Case series and an analysis of deaths in patients with epilepsy who were lying in a prone position support the good practice statement to reposition individuals found face down, prone, or in a flexed position to a supine position for reassessment.
On balance, the task forces recommend the use of a recovery position as having the potential to benefit most individuals who have a decreased level of responsiveness in the first aid setting. However, because a person’s condition can deteriorate and possibly progress to cardiac arrest after the person is placed into a recovery position, the task forces introduced 2 new good practice statements, emphasizing the importance of careful monitoring and the need to change the position of the patient if assessment is impaired. This need for continuous or regular monitoring of respiratory status and responsiveness while someone is in the recovery position should be included in education and training courses.
Task Force Knowledge Gaps
•
The role of positioning in the assessment of patient breathing and responsiveness, as well as the ability to monitor a person for deterioration
•
A study in which emergency call takers randomize callers to receive instructions to place individuals with nontraumatic decreased level of responsiveness in either the recovery position or the supine position with assessment of clinical outcomes such as ability to monitor airway, breathing, and responsiveness
•
The best position for assessing and maintaining airway patency relative to individual characteristics such as obesity or a history of obstructive sleep apnea, opioid use disorder, or seizure disorder
•
How to ensure adequacy of the training of first aid and BLS responders in the assessment of breathing and responsiveness so that they can accurately identify normal breathing and responsiveness
Topics Reviewed by EvUps
The topics reviewed by EvUps are summarized in Table 36, with the PICO number, existing treatment recommendation, number of relevant studies identified, key findings, and whether a SysRev was deemed worthwhile. Complete EvUps can be found in Supplemental Appendix B.
Topic/PICO | Year last updated | Existing treatment recommendation | RCTs since last review, n | Observational studies since last review, n | Key findings | Sufficient data to warrant SysRev? |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Oral dilution for caustic substance ingestion (FA 202) | 2010 CoSTR | Administration of a diluent in FA may be considered if a caustic substance has been ingested, if advised to do so by a health care provider (weak recommendation, very low–certainty evidence | 1 | 0 | Animal study of alkali injury of esophagus; irrigation with kefir and distilled water compared with distilled water alone; no difference in histopathological outcomes at 7 d | No |
Recognition of anaphylaxis (FA 503) | 2020 ScopRev; 2010 CoSTR | FA providers should not be expected to recognize the signs and symptoms of anaphylaxis without repeated episodes of training and encounters with victims of anaphylaxis. | 0 | 8 | Survey studies focused on training in the use of epinephrine autoinjectors and recognition of anaphylaxis and reported on improved confidence in recognizing anaphylaxis and administering epinephrine or on reasons for hesitation/nonuse of epinephrine autoinjectors. | No |
Compression wraps for acute closed ankle joint injury (FA 511) | 2020 CoSTR | We suggest either application of a compression bandage or no application of a compression bandage for adults with an acute closed ankle joint injury (weak recommendation, very low–certainty evidence). Because of a lack of identified evidence, we are unable to recommend for or against use of a compression bandage for closed joint injuries besides the ankle. | 0 | 0 | No | |
Open chest wound dressings (FA 525) | 2015 CoSTR | We suggest against the application of an occlusive dressing or device by FA providers to individuals with an open chest wound (weak recommendation, very low–quality evidence). | 0 | 0 | Three animal studies of vented chest seals were identified but excluded. | No |
Bronchodilators for acute asthma exacerbation (FA 534) | 2015 CoSTR | When an individual with asthma is experiencing difficulty breathing, we suggest that trained FA providers assist the individual with administration of a bronchodilator (weak recommendation, very low–quality evidence). | 0 | 0 | One review of SysRevs concluded that among children with asthma exacerbations treated in the emergency department, short-acting β-agonists delivered by metered-dose inhaler decrease hospital admission in younger children and emergency department length of stay in older children. | No |
Optimal duration of cooling of burns with water (FA 770) | 2021 CoSTR | We recommend the immediate active cooling of thermal burns using running water as a FA 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 that are being actively cooled with running water should be monitored for signs and symptoms of excessive body cooling (good practice statement). | 0 | 0 | No | |
Preventive interventions for presyncope (FA 798) | 2019 CoSTR | We recommend the use of any type of physical counterpressure maneuver by individuals with acute symptoms of presyncope attributable to vasovagal or orthostatic causes in the FA setting (strong recommendation, low- and very low–certainty evidence). We suggest that lower body physical counterpressure maneuvers are preferable to upper body and abdominal physical counterpressure maneuvers (weak recommendation, very low–certainty evidence). | 0 | 0 | No | |
Single-stage scoring systems for concussion (FA 799) | 2020 ScopRev 2015 CoSTR | No recommendation. We acknowledge the role that a simple, validated, single-stage concussion scoring system could play in the FA provider’s recognition and referral of victims of suspected head injury. However, review of the available literature shows no evidence on the application of such scoring systems by the FA provider. 2022 good practice statement: It is critically important that concussion is recognized and managed appropriately. In the absence of a validated, simple, single-stage concussion scoring system, the FA assessment for a person with a possible concussion should be based on the typical signs and symptoms of concussion. | 0 | 0 | A good practice statement was added in 2022 as shown. | No |
Cooling techniques for exertional hyperthermia and heatstroke (FA 1545) | 2020 CoSTR | For adults with exertional hyperthermia or exertional heatstroke, we recommend immediate active cooling using whole-body (neck down) water immersion techniques (1° C–26° C [33.8° F–78.8° F]) until a core body temperature of <39° C (102.2° F) is reached (weak recommendation, very low–certainty evidence). We recommend that when water immersion is not available, any other active cooling technique be initiated (weak recommendation, very low–certainty evidence). We recommend immediate cooling using any active or passive technique available that provides the most rapid rate of cooling (weak recommendation, very low–certainty evidence). For adults with nonexertional heatstroke, we cannot make a recommendation for or against any specific cooling technique compared with an alternative cooling technique (no recommendation, very low–certainty evidence). For children with exertional or nonexertional heatstroke, we cannot make a recommendation for or against any specific cooling technique compared with an alternative cooling technique (no recommendation, very low–certainty evidence). | 0 | 2 | Two SysRevs were identified; no change in treatment recommendations. | No |
FA use of supplemental oxygen for acute stroke (FA 1549) | 2020 CoSTR | For adults with suspected acute stroke, we suggest against the routine use of supplemental oxygen in the FA setting compared with no use of supplemental oxygen (weak recommendation, low- to moderate-certainty evidence). | 0 | 0 | No | |
Methods of glucose administration for hypoglycemia in the FA setting (FA 1585) | 2018 CoSTR | We recommend the use of oral glucose (swallowed) for individuals with suspected hypoglycemia who are conscious and able to swallow (strong recommendation, very low–certainty evidence). We suggest against buccal glucose administration compared with oral glucose administration for individuals with suspected hypoglycemia who are conscious and able to swallow (weak recommendation, very low–certainty evidence). If oral glucose (for example, tablet) is not immediately available, we suggest a combined oral+buccal glucose (for example, glucose gel) administration for individuals with suspected hypoglycemia who are conscious and able to swallow (weak recommendation, very low–certainty evidence). We suggest the use of sublingual glucose administration for suspected hypoglycemia for children who may be uncooperative with the oral (swallowed) glucose administration route (weak recommendation, very low–certainty evidence). | 0 | 0 | No | |
Pediatric tourniquet types for life-threatening extremity bleeding (new) | 2020 CoSTR | 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). | 0 | 0 | No |
EvUp indicates evidence update; FA, first aid; PICO, population, intervention, comparator, outcome; RCT, randomized controlled trial; ScopRev, scoping review; and SysRev, systematic review.
Collaborators
Madeline C. Burdick, MD; Susie Cartledge, BN(Hons), PhD; Jennifer A. Dawson, RN, PhD; Moustafa M. Elgohary, MBChB; Hege L. Ersdal, MD, PhD; Emer Finan, MBBCh, MEd; Hilde I. Flaatten; Gustavo E. Flores, MD, NRP; Janene Fuerch, MD; Rakesh Garg, MD; Callum Gately, MBChB; Mark Goh, SL, MBBS; Louis P. Halamek, MD; Anthony J. Handley, MD, FRCP; Tetsuo Hatanaka, MD, PhD; Amber Hoover, MSN, RN; Mohmoud Issa, MD; Samantha Johnson, MA; C. Omar Kamlin, MBBS, DMedSci; Ying-Chih Ko, MD; Amy Kule, MD; Tina A. Leone, MD; Ella MacKenzie, BSc; Finlay Macneil, MB, BS; William Montgomery, MD; Domhnall O’Dochartaigh, MSc, RN; Shinichiro Ohshimo, MD, PhD; Francesco Stefano Palazzo, MBBS, BSc; Christopher Picard, CD, BSN, RN; Bin Huey Quek, MMed (Paeds), MRCP (Paeds); James Raitt, MbChB(Hons); Viraraghavan V. Ramaswamy, MD, DM; Andrea Scapigliati, MD; Birju A. Shah, MD, MPH, MBA; Craig Stewart, BSc, BMBS, MRCPCH; Marya L. Strand, MD, MS; Edgardo Szyld, MD, MSc; Marta Thio, MD, PhD; Alexis A. Topjian, MD, MSCE; Enrique Udaeta, MD; Christian Vaillancourt, MD, MSc; Wolfgang A. Wetsch, MD; Jane Wigginton, MD, MSCS; Nicole K. Yamada, MD, MS; Sarah Yao, HW, MBBS; Drieda Zace, PhD; Carolyn M. Zelop, MD
Acknowledgments
The authors thank the following individuals for their contributions: John E. Billi, MD; Eddy Lang, MDCM, CCFP(EM), CSPQ; Jenny Ring; and Veronica Zamora.
Footnote
Abbreviations and Acronyms
- A-B-C
- airway-breaths-compressions
- ACLS
- Advanced Cardiovascular Life Support
- AED
- automated external defibrillator
- ALS
- advanced life support
- ARNI
- Advanced Resuscitation of the Newborn Infant
- ATLS
- Advanced Trauma Life Support
- BLS
- basic life support
- C-A-B
- compressions-airway-breaths
- CAG
- coronary angiography
- CARES
- Cardiac Arrest Registry to Enhance Survival
- CoSTR
- Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations
- COVID-19
- coronavirus disease 2019
- CPAP
- continuous positive airway pressure
- CPC
- Cerebral Performance Category
- CPR
- cardiopulmonary resuscitation
- DNACPR
- do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation
- EPALS
- European Paediatric Advanced Life Support
- EPILS
- European Paediatric Immediate Life Support
- ETC
- European Trauma Course
- EvUp
- evidence update
- GRADE
- Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation
- HBB
- Helping Babies Breathe
- IHCA
- in-hospital cardiac arrest
- ILCOR
- International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation
- NICU
- neonatal intensive care unit
- NLS
- neonatal life support
- NRP
- Newborn Resuscitation Programs
- NRT
- neonatal resuscitation training
- OHCA
- out-of-hospital cardiac arrest
- PALS
- Pediatric Advanced Life Support
- PCI
- percutaneous coronary intervention
- PEWS
- pediatric early warning system
- PICO
- population, intervention, comparator, and outcome
- PLS
- pediatric life support
- POCUS
- point-of-care ultrasound
- PPV
- positive-pressure ventilation
- PROSPERO
- Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews
- RCT
- randomized controlled trial
- RFM
- respiratory function monitor
- ROSC
- return of spontaneous circulation
- SGA
- supraglottic airway
- ScopRev
- scoping review
- SysRev
- systematic review
- TTM
- targeted temperature management
Supplemental Material
References
1.
Schünemann HJ, Wiercioch W, Brozek J, Etxeandia-Ikobaltzeta I, Mustafa RA, Manja V, Brignardello-Petersen R, Neumann I, Falavigna M, Alhazzani W, et al. GRADE Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks for adoption, adaptation, and de novo development of trustworthy recommendations: GRADE-ADOLOPMENT. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017;81:101–110. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.09.009
2.
International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation. Consensus on Science With Treatment Recommendations (CoSTR) home page. Accessed February 14, 2022. https://www.ilcor.org/home
3.
Ristagno, G, Nishiyama, C, Ikeyama, T, Bray, J, Smyth, M, Kudenchuk, P, Johnson, N, Masterson, S, Nehme, Z, Norii, T, et al. Passive ventilation: BLS 352. Updated January 31, 2022. Accessed February 14, 2022.https://costr.ilcor.org/document/passive-ventilation-bls-352
4.
Saïssy JM, Boussignac G, Cheptel E, Rouvin B, Fontaine D, Bargues L, Levecque JP, Michel A, Brochard L. Efficacy of continuous insufflation of oxygen combined with active cardiac compression-decompression during out-of-hospital cardiorespiratory arrest. Anesthesiology. 2000;92:1523–1530. doi: 10.1097/00000542-200006000-00007
5.
Bertrand C, Hemery F, Carli P, Goldstein P, Espesson C, Rüttimann M, Macher JM, Raffy B, Fuster P, Dolveck F, et al; Boussignac Study Group. Constant flow insufflation of oxygen as the sole mode of ventilation during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Intensive Care Med. 2006;32:843–851. doi: 10.1007/s00134-006-0137-2
6.
Bobrow BJ, Ewy GA, Clark L, Chikani V, Berg RA, Sanders AB, Vadeboncoeur TF, Hilwig RW, Kern KB. Passive oxygen insufflation is superior to bag-valve-mask ventilation for witnessed ventricular fibrillation out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Ann Emerg Med. 2009;54:656–662.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2009.06.011
7.
Fuest K, Dorfhuber F, Lorenz M, von Dincklage F, Mörgeli R, Kuhn KF, Jungwirth B, Kanz KG, Blobner M, Schaller SJ. Comparison of volume-controlled, pressure-controlled, and chest compression-induced ventilation during cardiopulmonary resuscitation with an automated mechanical chest compression device: a randomized clinical pilot study. Resuscitation. 2021;166:85–92. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2021.07.010
8.
Olasveengen, TM, Semeraro, F, Bray, J, Smyth, M, Vaillancourt, C, Kudenchuk, P, Masterson, S, Johnson, N, Norii, T, Nehme, Z, et al. Minimizing pauses: systematic review. 2022. Updated January 24, 2022. Accessed February 14, 2022. https://costr.ilcor.org/document/bls-358-minimizing-pauses
9.
Jost D, Degrange H, Verret C, Hersan O, Banville IL, Chapman FW, Lank P, Petit JL, Fuilla C, Migliani R, et al; DEFI 2005 Work Group. DEFI 2005: a randomized controlled trial of the effect of automated external defibrillator cardiopulmonary resuscitation protocol on outcome from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Circulation. 2010;121:1614–1622. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.109.878389
10.
Beesems SG, Berdowski J, Hulleman M, Blom MT, Tijssen JG, Koster RW. Minimizing pre- and post-shock pauses during the use of an automatic external defibrillator by two different voice prompt protocols: a randomized controlled trial of a bundle of measures. Resuscitation. 2016;106:1–6. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2016.06.009
11.
Nichol G, Leroux B, Wang H, Callaway CW, Sopko G, Weisfeldt M, Stiell I, Morrison LJ, Aufderheide TP, Cheskes S, et al; ROC Investigators. Trial of continuous or interrupted chest compressions during CPR. N Engl J Med. 2015;373:2203–2214. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1509139
12.
Bleijenberg E, Koster RW, de Vries H, Beesems SG. The impact of post-resuscitation feedback for paramedics on the quality of cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Resuscitation. 2017;110:1–5. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2016.08.034
13.
Grunau B, Kawano T, Dick W, Straight R, Connolly H, Schlamp R, Scheuermeyer FX, Fordyce CB, Barbic D, Tallon J, et al. Trends in care processes and survival following prehospital resuscitation improvement initiatives for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in British Columbia, 2006-2016. Resuscitation. 2018;125:118–125. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2018.01.049
14.
Hostler D, Rittenberger JC, Roth R, Callaway CW. Increased chest compression to ventilation ratio improves delivery of CPR. Resuscitation. 2007;74:446–452. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2007.01.022
15.
Lakomek F, Lukas RP, Brinkrolf P, Mennewisch A, Steinsiek N, Gutendorf P, Sudowe H, Heller M, Kwiecien R, Zarbock A, et al. Real-time feedback improves chest compression quality in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a prospective cohort study. PLoS One. 2020;15:e0229431. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0229431
16.
Lyon RM, Clarke S, Milligan D, Clegg GR. Resuscitation feedback and targeted education improves quality of pre-hospital resuscitation in Scotland. Resuscitation. 2012;83:70–75. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2011.07.016
17.
Olasveengen TM, Lund-Kordahl I, Steen PA, Sunde K. Out-of hospital advanced life support with or without a physician: effects on quality of CPR and outcome. Resuscitation. 2009;80:1248–1252. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2009.07.018
18.
Christenson J, Andrusiek D, Everson-Stewart S, Kudenchuk P, Hostler D, Powell J, Callaway CW, Bishop D, Vaillancourt C, Davis D, et al; Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium Investigators. Chest compression fraction determines survival in patients with out-of-hospital ventricular fibrillation. Circulation. 2009;120:1241–1247. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.109.852202
19.
Wik L, Olsen JA, Persse D, Sterz F, Lozano M, Brouwer MA, Westfall M, Souders CM, Travis DT, Herken UR, et al. Why do some studies find that CPR fraction is not a predictor of survival? Resuscitation. 2016;104:59–62. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2016.04.013
20.
Brouwer TF, Walker RG, Chapman FW, Koster RW. Association between chest compression interruptions and clinical outcomes of ventricular fibrillation out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Circulation. 2015;132:1030–1037. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.115.014016
21.
Cheskes S, Schmicker RH, Rea T, Morrison LJ, Grunau B, Drennan IR, Leroux B, Vaillancourt C, Schmidt TA, Koller AC, et al; ROC Investigators. The association between AHA CPR quality guideline compliance and clinical outcomes from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Resuscitation. 2017;116:39–45. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2017.05.003
22.
Vaillancourt C, Everson-Stewart S, Christenson J, Andrusiek D, Powell J, Nichol G, Cheskes S, Aufderheide TP, Berg R, Stiell IG; Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium Investigators. The impact of increased chest compression fraction on return of spontaneous circulation for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients not in ventricular fibrillation. Resuscitation. 2011;82:1501–1507. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2011.07.011
23.
Rea T, Olsufka M, Yin L, Maynard C, Cobb L. The relationship between chest compression fraction and outcome from ventricular fibrillation arrests in prolonged resuscitations. Resuscitation. 2014;85:879–884. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2014.02.026
24.
Vaillancourt C, Petersen A, Meier EN, Christenson J, Menegazzi JJ, Aufderheide TP, Nichol G, Berg R, Callaway CW, Idris AH, et al; Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium Investigators. The impact of increased chest compression fraction on survival for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients with a non-shockable initial rhythm. Resuscitation. 2020;154:93–100. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2020.06.016
25.
Cheskes S, Schmicker RH, Rea T, Powell J, Drennan IR, Kudenchuk P, Vaillancourt C, Conway W, Stiell I, Stub D, et al; Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium Investigators. Chest compression fraction: a time dependent variable of survival in shockable out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Resuscitation. 2015;97:129–135. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2015.07.003
26.
Talikowska M, Tohira H, Inoue M, Bailey P, Brink D, Finn J. Lower chest compression fraction associated with ROSC in OHCA patients with longer downtimes. Resuscitation. 2017;116:60–65. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2017.05.005
27.
Uppiretla AK, Gangalal GM, Rao S, Don Bosco D, Sareef SM, Sampath V. Effects of chest compression fraction on return of spontaneous circulation in patients with cardiac arrest; a brief report. Adv J Emerg Med. 2020;4:e8. doi: 10.22114/ajem.v0i0.147
28.
Cheskes S, Schmicker RH, Christenson J, Salcido DD, Rea T, Powell J, Edelson DP, Sell R, May S, Menegazzi JJ, et al; Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium (ROC) Investigators. Perishock pause: an independent predictor of survival from out-of-hospital shockable cardiac arrest. Circulation. 2011;124:58–66. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.110.010736
29.
Cheskes S, Schmicker RH, Verbeek PR, Salcido DD, Brown SP, Brooks S, Menegazzi JJ, Vaillancourt C, Powell J, May S, et al; Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium (ROC) investigators. The impact of peri-shock pause on survival from out-of-hospital shockable cardiac arrest during the Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium PRIMED trial. Resuscitation. 2014;85:336–342. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2013.10.014
30.
Wik L, Kramer-Johansen J, Myklebust H, Sørebø H, Svensson L, Fellows B, Steen PA. Quality of cardiopulmonary resuscitation during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. JAMA. 2005;293:299–304. doi: 10.1001/jama.293.3.299
31.
Abella BS, Alvarado JP, Myklebust H, Edelson DP, Barry A, O’Hearn N, Vanden Hoek TL, Becker LB. Quality of cardiopulmonary resuscitation during in-hospital cardiac arrest. JAMA. 2005;293:305–310. doi: 10.1001/jama.293.3.305
32.
Valenzuela TD, Kern KB, Clark LL, Berg RA, Berg MD, Berg DD, Hilwig RW, Otto CW, Newburn D, Ewy GA. Interruptions of chest compressions during emergency medical systems resuscitation. Circulation. 2005;112:1259–1265. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.105.537282
33.
Matsuura TR, Bartos JA, Tsangaris A, Shekar KC, Olson MD, Riess ML, Bienengraeber M, Aufderheide TP, Neumar RW, Rees JN, et al. Early effects of prolonged cardiac arrest and ischemic postconditioning during cardiopulmonary resuscitation on cardiac and brain mitochondrial function in pigs. Resuscitation. 2017;116:8–15. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2017.03.033
34.
Segal N, Matsuura T, Caldwell E, Sarraf M, McKnite S, Zviman M, Aufderheide TP, Halperin HR, Lurie KG, Yannopoulos D. Ischemic postconditioning at the initiation of cardiopulmonary resuscitation facilitates functional cardiac and cerebral recovery after prolonged untreated ventricular fibrillation. Resuscitation. 2012;83:1397–1403. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2012.04.005
35.
Smyth, M, Smith, C, Ristagno, G, Bray, J, Chung, S, Dainty, K, Folke, F, Ikeyama, T, Johnsen, N, Kudenchuk, P, et al. Impact of transport on CPR quality: BLS 1509a. 2022. Updated January 31, 2022. Accessed February 14, 2022. https://costr.ilcor.org/document/impact-of-transport-on-cpr-quality-bls-1509a
36.
Havel C, Schreiber W, Riedmuller E, Haugk M, Richling N, Trimmel H, Malzer R, Sterz F, Herkner H. Quality of closed chest compression in ambulance vehicles, flying helicopters and at the scene. Resuscitation. 2007;73:264–270. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2006.09.007
37.
Putzer G, Braun P, Zimmermann A, Pedross F, Strapazzon G, Brugger H, Paal P. LUCAS compared to manual cardiopulmonary resuscitation is more effective during helicopter rescue-a prospective, randomized, cross-over manikin study. Am J Emerg Med. 2013;31:384–389. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2012.07.018
38.
Olasveengen TM, Wik L, Steen PA. Quality of cardiopulmonary resuscitation before and during transport in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Resuscitation. 2008;76:185–190. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2007.07.001
39.
Ødegaard S, Olasveengen T, Steen PA, Kramer-Johansen J. The effect of transport on quality of cardiopulmonary resuscitation in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Resuscitation. 2009;80:843–848. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2009.03.032
40.
Roosa JR, Vadeboncoeur TF, Dommer PB, Panchal AR, Venuti M, Smith G, Silver A, Mullins M, Spaite D, Bobrow BJ. CPR variability during ground ambulance transport of patients in cardiac arrest. Resuscitation. 2013;84:592–595. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2012.07.042
41.
Russi CS, Myers LA, Kolb LJ, Lohse CM, Hess EP, White RD. A comparison of chest compression quality delivered during on-scene and ground transport cardiopulmonary resuscitation. West J Emerg Med. 2016;17:634–639. doi: 10.5811/westjem.2016.6.29949
42.
Cheskes S, Byers A, Zhan C, Verbeek PR, Ko D, Drennan IR, Buick JE, Brooks SC, Lin S, Taher A, et al; Rescu Epistry Investigators. CPR quality during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest transport. Resuscitation. 2017;114:34–39. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2017.02.016
43.
Sunde K, Wik L, Steen PA. Quality of mechanical, manual standard and active compression-decompression CPR on the arrest site and during transport in a manikin model. Resuscitation. 1997;34:235–242. doi: 10.1016/s0300-9572(96)01087-8
44.
Thomassen O, Skaiaa SC, Assmuss J, Østerås Ø, Heltne JK, Wik L, Brattebo G. Mountain rescue cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a comparison between manual and mechanical chest compressions during manikin cardio resuscitation. Emerg Med J. 2017;34:573–577. doi: 10.1136/emermed-2016-206323
45.
Abrams T, Torfason L. Evaluation of the quality of manual, compression-only cardiopulmonary resuscitation in a moving ski patrol toboggan. High Alt Med Biol. 2020;21:52–61. doi: 10.1089/ham.2019.0047
46.
Stone CK, Thomas SH. Can correct closed-chest compressions be performed during prehospital transport? Prehosp Disaster Med. 1995;10:121–123. doi: 10.1017/s1049023x00041856
47.
Grunau B, Kime N, Leroux B, Rea T, Van Belle G, Menegazzi JJ, Kudenchuk PJ, Vaillancourt C, Morrison LJ, Elmer J, et al. Association of intra-arrest transport vs continued on-scene resuscitation with survival to hospital discharge among patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. JAMA. 2020;324:1058–1067. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.14185
48.
Dunne, C, Morgan, P, Bierens, J, Olasveengen, T, Morley, PT, Perkins, GD; International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation BLS Life Support Task Force. CAB or ABC in drowning: systematic review. 2022. Updated January 20, 2022. Accessed February 14, 2022. https://costr.ilcor.org/document/cab-or-abc-in-drowning-bls-856-tf-systematic-review
49.
Lee J, Yang WC, Lee EP, Huang JL, Hsiao HJ, Lin MJ, Wu HP. Clinical survey and predictors of outcomes of pediatric out-of-hospital cardiac arrest admitted to the emergency department. Sci Rep. 2019;9:7032. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-43020-0
50.
de Caen AR, Maconochie IK, Aickin R, Atkins DL, Biarent D, Guerguerian AM, Kleinman ME, Kloeck DA, Meaney PA, Nadkarni VM, et al; on behalf of the Pediatric Basic Life Support and Pediatric Advanced Life Support Chapter Collaborators. Part 6: pediatric basic life support and pediatric advanced life support: 2015 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations. Circ. 2015;132(suppl 1):S177–S203. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000275
51.
Maconochie IK, Aickin R, Hazinski MF, Atkins DL, Bingham R, Couto TB, Guerguerian AM, Nadkarni VM, Ng KC, Nuthall GA, et al; Pediatric Life Support Collaborators. Pediatric life support: 2020 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations. Resuscitation. 2020;156:A120–A155. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2020.09.013
52.
Marsch S, Tschan F, Semmer NK, Zobrist R, Hunziker PR, Hunziker S. ABC versus CAB for cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a prospective, randomized simulator-based trial. Swiss Med Wkly. 2013;143:w13856. doi: 10.4414/smw.2013.13856
53.
Sekiguchi H, Kondo Y, Kukita I. Verification of changes in the time taken to initiate chest compressions according to modified basic life support guidelines. Am J Emerg Med. 2013;31:1248–1250. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2013.02.047
54.
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
55.
Szpilman D, Soares M. In-water resuscitation: is it worthwhile? Resuscitation. 2004;63:25–31. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2004.03.017
56.
Mtaweh H, Kochanek PM, Carcillo JA, Bell MJ, Fink EL. Patterns of multiorgan dysfunction after pediatric drowning. Resuscitation. 2015;90:91–96. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2015.02.005
57.
Donnino MW, Andersen LW, Berg KM, Reynolds JC, Nolan JP, Morley PT, Lang E, Cocchi MN, Xanthos T, Callaway CW, et al; ILCOR ALS Task Force. Temperature management after cardiac arrest: an advisory statement by the Advanced Life Support Task Force of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation and the American Heart Association Emergency Cardiovascular Care Committee and the Council on Cardiopulmonary, Critical Care, Perioperative and Resuscitation [published correction appears in Circulation. 2016;133:e13]. Circulation. 2015;132:2448–2456. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000313
58.
Granfeldt A, Holmberg MJ, Nolan JP, Soar J, Andersen LW; International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR) Advanced Life Support Task Force. Targeted temperature management in adult cardiac arrest: systematic review and meta-analysis. Resuscitation. 2021;167:160–172. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2021.08.040
59.
Soar, J, Nolan, JP, Andersen, LW, Böttiger, BW, Couper, K, Deakin, CD, Drennan, I, Hirsch, KG, Hsu, CH, Nicholson, TC, et al. Temperature management in adult cardiac arrest: advanced life support systematic review. 2021. Updated October 14, 2021. Accessed February 17, 2022. https://costr.ilcor.org/document/systematic-review-temperature-management-in-adult-cardiac-arrest-als
60.
Bernard SA, Gray TW, Buist MD, Jones BM, Silvester W, Gutteridge G, Smith K. Treatment of comatose survivors of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest with induced hypothermia. N Engl J Med. 2002;346:557–563. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa003289
61.
Dankiewicz J, Cronberg T, Lilja G, Jakobsen JC, Levin H, Ullén S, Rylander C, Wise MP, Oddo M, Cariou A, et al; TTM2 Trial Investigators. Hypothermia versus normothermia after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. N Engl J Med. 2021;384:2283–2294. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2100591
62.
Hachimi-Idrissi S, Zizi M, Nguyen DN, Schiettecate J, Ebinger G, Michotte Y, Huyghens L. The evolution of serum astroglial S-100 beta protein in patients with cardiac arrest treated with mild hypothermia. Resuscitation. 2005;64:187–192. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2004.08.008
63.
Hypothermia After Cardiac Arrest Study Group. Mild therapeutic hypothermia to improve the neurologic outcome after cardiac arrest. N Engl J Med. 2002;346:549–556. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa012689
64.
Lascarrou JB, Merdji H, Le Gouge A, Colin G, Grillet G, Girardie P, Coupez E, Dequin PF, Cariou A, Boulain T, et al; CRICS-TRIGGERSEP Group. Targeted temperature management for cardiac arrest with nonshockable rhythm. N Engl J Med. 2019;381:2327–2337. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1906661
65.
Laurent I, Adrie C, Vinsonneau C, Cariou A, Chiche JD, Ohanessian A, Spaulding C, Carli P, Dhainaut JF, Monchi M. High-volume hemofiltration after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a randomized study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005;46:432–437. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2005.04.039
66.
Bernard SA, Smith K, Cameron P, Masci K, Taylor DM, Cooper DJ, Kelly AM, Silvester W; Rapid Infusion of Cold Hartmanns (RICH) Investigators. Induction of therapeutic hypothermia by paramedics after resuscitation from out-of-hospital ventricular fibrillation cardiac arrest: a randomized controlled trial. Circulation. 2010;122:737–742. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.109.906859
67.
Bernard SA, Smith K, Cameron P, Masci K, Taylor DM, Cooper DJ, Kelly AM, Silvester W; Rapid Infusion of Cold Hartmanns Investigators. Induction of prehospital therapeutic hypothermia after resuscitation from nonventricular fibrillation cardiac arrest. Crit Care Med. 2012;40:747–753. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e3182377038
68.
Bernard SA, Smith K, Finn J, Hein C, Grantham H, Bray JE, Deasy C, Stephenson M, Williams TA, Straney LD, et al. Induction of therapeutic hypothermia during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest using a rapid infusion of cold saline: the RINSE trial (Rapid Infusion of Cold Normal Saline). Circulation. 2016;134:797–805. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.116.021989
69.
Castrén M, Nordberg P, Svensson L, Taccone F, Vincent JL, Desruelles D, Eichwede F, Mols P, Schwab T, Vergnion M, et al. Intra-arrest transnasal evaporative cooling: a randomized, prehospital, multicenter study (PRINCE: Pre-ROSC IntraNasal Cooling Effectiveness). Circulation. 2010;122:729–736. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.109.931691
70.
Debaty G, Maignan M, Savary D, Koch FX, Ruckly S, Durand M, Picard J, Escallier C, Chouquer R, Santre C, et al. Impact of intra-arrest therapeutic hypothermia in outcomes of prehospital cardiac arrest: a randomized controlled trial. Intensive Care Med. 2014;40:1832–1842. doi: 10.1007/s00134-014-3519-x
71.
Kämäräinen A, Virkkunen I, Tenhunen J, Yli-Hankala A, Silfvast T. Prehospital therapeutic hypothermia for comatose survivors of cardiac arrest: a randomized controlled trial. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2009;53:900–907. doi: 10.1111/j.1399-6576.2009.02015.x
72.
Kim F, Nichol G, Maynard C, Hallstrom A, Kudenchuk PJ, Rea T, Copass MK, Carlbom D, Deem S, Longstreth WT, et al. Effect of prehospital induction of mild hypothermia on survival and neurological status among adults with cardiac arrest: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2014;311:45–52. doi: 10.1001/jama.2013.282173
73.
Kim F, Olsufka M, Longstreth WT, Maynard C, Carlbom D, Deem S, Kudenchuk P, Copass MK, Cobb LA. Pilot randomized clinical trial of prehospital induction of mild hypothermia in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients with a rapid infusion of 4°C normal saline. Circulation. 2007;115:3064–3070. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.106.655480
74.
Nordberg P, Taccone FS, Truhlar A, Forsberg S, Hollenberg J, Jonsson M, Cuny J, Goldstein P, Vermeersch N, Higuet A, et al. Effect of trans-nasal evaporative intra-arrest cooling on functional neurologic outcome in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: the PRINCESS randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2019;321:1677–1685. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.4149
75.
Scales DC, Cheskes S, Verbeek PR, Pinto R, Austin D, Brooks SC, Dainty KN, Goncharenko K, Mamdani M, Thorpe KE, et al; Strategies for Post-Arrest Care SPARC Network. Prehospital cooling to improve successful targeted temperature management after cardiac arrest: a randomized controlled trial. Resuscitation. 2017;121:187–194. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2017.10.002
76.
Nielsen N, Wetterslev J, Cronberg T, Erlinge D, Gasche Y, Hassager C, Horn J, Hovdenes J, Kjaergaard J, Kuiper M, et al; TTM Trial Investigators. Targeted temperature management at 33°C versus 36°C after cardiac arrest. N Engl J Med. 2013;369:2197–2206. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1310519
77.
Lopez-de-Sa E, Juarez M, Armada E, Sanchez-Salado JC, Sanchez PL, Loma-Osorio P, Sionis A, Monedero MC, Martinez-Selles M, Martin-Benitez JC, et al. A multicentre randomized pilot trial on the effectiveness of different levels of cooling in comatose survivors of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: the FROST-I trial. Intensive Care Med. 2018;44:1807–1815. doi: 10.1007/s00134-018-5256-z
78.
Lopez-de-Sa E, Rey JR, Armada E, Salinas P, Viana-Tejedor A, Espinosa-Garcia S, Martinez-Moreno M, Corral E, Lopez-Sendon J. Hypothermia in comatose survivors from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: pilot trial comparing 2 levels of target temperature. Circulation. 2012;126:2826–2833. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.112.136408
79.
Kirkegaard H, Søreide E, de Haas I, Pettilä V, Taccone FS, Arus U, Storm C, Hassager C, Nielsen JF, Sørensen CA, et al. Targeted temperature management for 48 vs 24 hours and neurologic outcome after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2017;318:341–350. doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.8978
80.
Pittl U, Schratter A, Desch S, Diosteanu R, Lehmann D, Demmin K, Hörig J, Schuler G, Klemm T, Mende M, et al. Invasive versus non-invasive cooling after in- and out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a randomized trial. Clin Res Cardiol. 2013;102:607–614. doi: 10.1007/s00392-013-0572-3
81.
Deye N, Cariou A, Girardie P, Pichon N, Megarbane B, Midez P, Tonnelier JM, Boulain T, Outin H, Delahaye A, et al; Clinical and Economical Impact of Endovascular Cooling in the Management of Cardiac Arrest (ICEREA) Study Group. Endovascular versus external targeted temperature management for patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a randomized, controlled study. Circulation. 2015;132:182–193. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.114.012805
82.
Look X, Li H, Ng M, Lim ETS, Pothiawala S, Tan KBK, Sewa DW, Shahidah N, Pek PP, Ong MEH. Randomized controlled trial of internal and external targeted temperature management methods in post-cardiac arrest patients. Am J Emerg Med. 2018;36:66–72. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2017.07.017
83.
Bray JE, Stub D, Bloom JE, Segan L, Mitra B, Smith K, Finn J, Bernard S. Changing target temperature from 33°C to 36°C in the ICU management of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a before and after study. Resuscitation. 2017;113:39–43. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2017.01.016
84.
Salter R, Bailey M, Bellomo R, Eastwood G, Goodwin A, Nielsen N, Pilcher D, Nichol A, Saxena M, Shehabi Y, et al; Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society Centre for Outcome and Resource Evaluation (ANZICS-CORE). Changes in temperature management of cardiac arrest patients following publication of the target temperature management trial. Crit Care Med. 2018;46:1722–1730. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000003339
85.
Nolan JP, Orzechowska I, Harrison DA, Soar J, Perkins GD, Shankar-Hari M. Changes in temperature management and outcome after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in United Kingdom intensive care units following publication of the targeted temperature management trial. Resuscitation. 2021;162:304–311. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2021.03.027
86.
Kim JG, Ahn C, Shin H, Kim W, Lim TH, Jang BH, Cho Y, Choi KS, Lee J, Na MK. Efficacy of the cooling method for targeted temperature management in post-cardiac arrest patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Resuscitation. 2020;148:14–24. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2019.12.025
87.
Bartlett ES, Valenzuela T, Idris A, Deye N, Glover G, Gillies MA, Taccone FS, Sunde K, Flint AC, Thiele H, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of intravascular temperature management vs. surface cooling in comatose patients resuscitated from cardiac arrest. Resuscitation. 2020;146:82–95. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2019.10.035
88.
Wyckoff MH, Singletary EM, Soar J, Olasveengen TM, Greif R, Liley HG, Zideman D, Bhanji F, Andersen LW, Avis SR, et al. 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 [published correction appears in Circulation. 2022;145:e760]. Circulation. 2022;145:e645–e721. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000001017
89.
Reynolds JC, Nicholson T, O’Neil B, Drennan IR, Issa M, Welsford M, Advanced Life Support Task Force at the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation ILCOR. Diagnostic test accuracy of point-of-care ultrasound during cardiopulmonary resuscitation to indicate the etiology of cardiac arrest: a systematic review. Resuscitation. 2022;172:54–63. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2022.01.006
90.
Reynolds, JC, Nicholson, TC, O’Neil, BJ, Drennan, I, Issa, M, Welsford, M; on behalf of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation Advanced Life Support Task Force. Diagnostic test accuracy of point-of-care ultrasound during cardiopulmonary resuscitation to indicate the etiology of cardiac arrest. Updated February 10, 2022. Accessed March 4, 2022. https://costr.ilcor.org/document/diagnostic-test-accuracy-of-point-of-care-ultrasound-during-cardiopulmonary-resuscitation-to-indicate-the-etiology-of-cardiac-arrest.
91.
van der Wouw PA, Koster RW, Delemarre BJ, de Vos R, Lampe-Schoenmaeckers AJ, Lie KI. Diagnostic accuracy of transesophageal echocardiography during cardiopulmonary resuscitation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1997;30:780–783. doi: 10.1016/s0735-1097(97)00218-0
92.
Chua MT, Chan GW, Kuan WS. Reversible Causes in Cardiovascular Collapse at the Emergency Department Using Ultrasonography (REVIVE-US). Ann Acad Med Singap. 2017;46:310–316.
93.
Hilberath JN, Burrage PS, Shernan SK, Varelmann DJ, Wilusz K, Fox JA, Eltzschig HK, Epstein LM, Nowak-Machen M. Rescue transoesophageal echocardiography for refractory haemodynamic instability during transvenous lead extraction. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2014;15:926–932. doi: 10.1093/ehjci/jeu043
94.
Jung WJ, Cha KC, Kim YW, Kim YS, Roh YI, Kim SJ, Kim HS, Hwang SO. Intra-arrest transoesophageal echocardiographic findings and resuscitation outcomes. Resuscitation. 2020;154:31–37. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2020.06.035
95.
Lien WC, Hsu SH, Chong KM, Sim SS, Wu MC, Chang WT, Fang CC, Ma MH, Chen SC, Chen WJ. US-CAB protocol for ultrasonographic evaluation during cardiopulmonary resuscitation: validation and potential impact. Resuscitation. 2018;127:125–131. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2018.01.051
96.
Lin T, Chen Y, Lu C, Wang M. Use of transoesophageal echocardiography during cardiac arrest in patients undergoing elective non-cardiac surgery. Br J Anaesth. 2006;96:167–170. doi: 10.1093/bja/aei303
97.
Memtsoudis SG, Rosenberger P, Loffler M, Eltzschig HK, Mizuguchi A, Shernan SK, Fox JA. The usefulness of transesophageal echocardiography during intraoperative cardiac arrest in noncardiac surgery. Anesth Analg. 2006;102:1653–1657. doi: 10.1213/01.ane.0000216412.83790.29
98.
Shillcutt SK, Markin NW, Montzingo CR, Brakke TR. Use of rapid “rescue” perioperative echocardiography to improve outcomes after hemodynamic instability in noncardiac surgical patients. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2012;26:362–370. doi: 10.1053/j.jvca.2011.09.029
99.
Tayal VS, Kline JA. Emergency echocardiography to detect pericardial effusion in patients in PEA and near-PEA states. Resuscitation. 2003;59:315–318. doi: 10.1016/s0300-9572(03)00245-4
100.
Varriale P, Maldonado JM. Echocardiographic observations during in hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Crit Care Med. 1997;25:1717–1720. doi: 10.1097/00003246-199710000-00023
101.
Zengin S, Yavuz E, Al B, Cindoruk Ş, Altunbaş G, Gümüşboğa H, Yildirim C. Benefits of cardiac sonography performed by a non-expert sonographer in patients with non-traumatic cardiopulmonary arrest. Resuscitation. 2016;102:105–109. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2016.02.025
102.
Zengin S, Yildirim C, Al B, Genc S, Kilic H, Dogan M. The effectiveness of ultrasound in patients with non-traumatic cardiopulmonary arrest. J Academic Emerg Med. 2012;11:68–72. doi:10.5152/jaem.2012.028
103.
Huis In ‘t Veld MA, Allison MG, Bostick DS, Fisher KR, Goloubeva OG, Witting MD, Winters ME. Ultrasound use during cardiopulmonary resuscitation is associated with delays in chest compressions. Resuscitation. 2017;119:95–98. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2017.07.021
104.
Clattenburg EJ, Wroe P, Brown S, Gardner K, Losonczy L, Singh A, Nagdev A. Point-of-care ultrasound use in patients with cardiac arrest is associated prolonged cardiopulmonary resuscitation pauses: a prospective cohort study. Resuscitation. 2018;122:65–68. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2017.11.056
105.
Clattenburg EJ, Wroe PC, Gardner K, Schultz C, Gelber J, Singh A, Nagdev A. Implementation of the Cardiac Arrest Sonographic Assessment (CASA) protocol for patients with cardiac arrest is associated with shorter CPR pulse checks. Resuscitation. 2018;131:69–73. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2018.07.030
106.
Gaspari R, Harvey J, DiCroce C, Nalbandian A, Hill M, Lindsay R, Nordberg A, Graham P, Kamilaris A, Gleeson T. Echocardiographic pre-pause imaging and identifying the acoustic window during CPR reduces CPR pause time during ACLS: a prospective cohort study. Resusc Plus. 2021;6:100094. doi: 10.1016/j.resplu.2021.100094
107.
Teran F. Resuscitative cardiopulmonary ultrasound and transesophageal echocardiography in the emergency department. Emerg Med Clin North Am. 2019;37:409–430. doi: 10.1016/j.emc.2019.03.003
108.
Andersen LW, Isbye D, Kjærgaard J, Kristensen CM, Darling S, Zwisler ST, Fisker S, Schmidt JC, Kirkegaard H, Grejs AM, et al. Effect of vasopressin and methylprednisolone vs placebo on return of spontaneous circulation in patients with in-hospital cardiac arrest: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2021;326:1586–1594. doi: 10.1001/jama.2021.16628
109.
Holmberg MJ, Granfeldt A, Mentzelopoulos SD, Andersen LW. Vasopressin and glucocorticoids for in-hospital cardiac arrest: a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data. Resuscitation. 2022;171:48–56. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2021.12.030
110.
Nicholson, TC, Couper, K, Drennan, I, Andersen, LW, Garg, R, Granfeldt, A, Hirsch, K, Holmberg, MJ, Hsu, C, Kudenchuk, P, et al. Use of vasopressin and corticosteroids during cardiac arrest. Updated February 13, 2022. Accessed February 17, 2022. https://costr.ilcor.org/document/use-of-vasopressin-and-corticosteroids-during-cardiac-arrest
111.
Mentzelopoulos SD, Malachias S, Chamos C, Konstantopoulos D, Ntaidou T, Papastylianou A, Kolliantzaki I, Theodoridi M, Ischaki H, Makris D, et al. Vasopressin, steroids, and epinephrine and neurologically favorable survival after in-hospital cardiac arrest: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2013;310:270–279. doi: 10.1001/jama.2013.7832
112.
Mentzelopoulos SD, Zakynthinos SG, Tzoufi M, Katsios N, Papastylianou A, Gkisioti S, Stathopoulos A, Kollintza A, Stamataki E, Roussos C. Vasopressin, epinephrine, and corticosteroids for in-hospital cardiac arrest. Arch Intern Med. 2009;169:15–24. doi: 10.1001/archinternmed.2008.509
113.
Callaway CW, Soar J, Aibiki M, Böttiger BW, Brooks SC, Deakin CD, Donnino MW, Drajer S, Kloeck W, Morley PT, et al; Advanced Life Support Chapter Collaborators. Part 4: advanced life support: 2015 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations. Circulation. 2015;132(suppl 1):S84–S145. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000273
114.
Nikolaou NI, Netherton S, Welsford M, Drennan IR, Nation K, Belley-Cote E, Torabi N, Morrison LJ; International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation Advanced Life Support Task Force (ILCOR). A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effect of routine early angiography in patients with return of spontaneous circulation after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Resuscitation. 2021;163:28–48. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2021.03.019
115.
Desch S, Freund A, Akin I, Behnes M, Preusch MR, Zelniker TA, Skurk C, Landmesser U, Graf T, Eitel I, et al; TOMAHAWK Investigators. Angiography after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest without ST-segment elevation. N Engl J Med. 2021;385:2544–2553. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2101909
116.
Lemkes JS, Janssens GN, van der Hoeven NW, Jewbali LSD, Dubois EA, Meuwissen MM, Rijpstra TA, Bosker HA, Blans MJ, Bleeker GB, et al. Coronary angiography after cardiac arrest without ST segment elevation: one-year outcomes of the COACT randomized clinical trial. JAMA Cardiol. 2020;5:1358–1365. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2020.3670
117.
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
118.
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. Updated March 10, 2022. Accessed March 15, 2022. https://costr.ilcor.org/document/early-coronary-angiography-post-rosc-2022
119.
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
120.
Atkins, DL, Acworth, J, Chung, SP, Reis, A, Van de Voorde, P; International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation Pediatric and Basic Life Support Task Forces. Application of automated external defibrillators in infants, children and adolescents in cardiac arrest. January 7, 2022. Updated January 28, 2022. Accessed February 17, 2022. https://costr.ilcor.org/document/inclusion-of-infants-children-and-adolescents-in-public-access-defibrillation-programs
121.
Naim MY, Burke RV, McNally BF, Song L, Griffis HM, Berg RA, Vellano K, Markenson D, Bradley RN, Rossano JW. Association of bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation with overall and neurologically favorable survival after pediatric out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in the United States: a report from the Cardiac Arrest Registry to Enhance Survival Surveillance Registry. JAMA Pediatr. 2017;171:133–141. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2016.3643
122.
Naim MY, Griffis HM, Burke RV, McNally BF, Song L, Berg RA, Nadkarni VM, Vellano K, Markenson D, Bradley RN, et al. Race/ethnicity and neighborhood characteristics are associated with bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation in pediatric out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in the United States: a study from CARES. J Am Heart Assoc. 2019;8:e012637. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.119.012637
123.
Griffis H, Wu L, Naim MY, Bradley R, Tobin J, McNally B, Vellano K, Quan L, Markenson D, Rossano JW; CARES Surveillance Group. Characteristics and outcomes of AED use in pediatric cardiac arrest in public settings: the influence of neighborhood characteristics. Resuscitation. 2020;146:126–131. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2019.09.038
124.
Kiyohara K, Nitta M, Sato Y, Kojimahara N, Yamaguchi N, Iwami T, Kitamura T. Ten-year trends of public-access defibrillation in Japanese school-aged patients having neurologically favorable survival after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Am J Cardiol. 2018;122:890–897. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2018.05.021
125.
Maconochie IK, Aickin R, Hazinski MF, Atkins DL, Bingham R, Couto TB, Guerguerian AM, Nadkarni VM, Ng KC, Nuthall GA, et al; Pediatric Life Support Collaborators. Pediatric life support: 2020 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations. Circulation. 2020;142(suppl 1):S140–S184. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000894
126.
Ong, GYK, Acworth, J, KC, Ng, Chong, SL, Goh, MSL, Yao, SHW; International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation Pediatric Life Support Task Forces. Pediatric early warning systems (PEWS) with or without rapid response teams. February 11, 2022. Updated February 14, 2022. Accessed February 17, 2022. https://costr.ilcor.org/document/pediatric-early-warning-systems-pews
127.
Parshuram CS, Dryden-Palmer K, Farrell C, Gottesman R, Gray M, Hutchison JS, Helfaer M, Hunt EA, Joffe AR, Lacroix J, et al; Canadian Critical Care Trials Group and the EPOCH Investigators. Effect of a pediatric early warning system on all-cause mortality in hospitalized pediatric patients: the EPOCH randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2018;319:1002–1012. doi: 10.1001/jama.2018.0948
128.
Agulnik A, Mora Robles LN, Forbes PW, Soberanis Vasquez DJ, Mack R, Antillon-Klussmann F, Kleinman M, Rodriguez-Galindo C. Improved outcomes after successful implementation of a pediatric early warning system (PEWS) in a resource-limited pediatric oncology hospital. Cancer. 2017;123:2965–2974. doi: 10.1002/cncr.30664
129.
Bonafide CP, Localio AR, Roberts KE, Nadkarni VM, Weirich CM, Keren R. Impact of rapid response system implementation on critical deterioration events in children. JAMA Pediatr. 2014;168:25–33. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2013.3266
130.
Brilli RJ, Gibson R, Luria JW, Wheeler TA, Shaw J, Linam M, Kheir J, McLain P, Lingsch T, Hall-Haering A, et al. Implementation of a medical emergency team in a large pediatric teaching hospital prevents respiratory and cardiopulmonary arrests outside the intensive care unit. Pediatr Crit Care Med. 2007;8:236–246; quiz 247. doi: 10.1097/01.PCC.0000262947.72442.EA
131.
Hanson CC, Randolph GD, Erickson JA, Mayer CM, Bruckel JT, Harris BD, Willis TS. A reduction in cardiac arrests and duration of clinical instability after implementation of a paediatric rapid response system. Postgrad Med J. 2010;86:314–318. doi: 10.1136/qshc.2007.026054
132.
Kotsakis A, Lobos AT, Parshuram C, Gilleland J, Gaiteiro R, Mohseni-Bod H, Singh R, Bohn D; Ontario Pediatric Critical Care Response Team Collaborative. Implementation of a multicenter rapid response system in pediatric academic hospitals is effective. Pediatrics. 2011;128:72–78. doi: 10.1542/peds.2010-0756
133.
McKay H, Mitchell IA, Sinn K, Mugridge H, Lafferty T, Van Leuvan C, Mamootil S, Abdel-Latif ME. Effect of a multifaceted intervention on documentation of vital signs and staff communication regarding deteriorating paediatric patients. J Paediatr Child Health. 2013;49:48–56. doi: 10.1111/jpc.12019
134.
Sefton G, McGrath C, Tume L, Lane S, Lisboa PJ, Carrol ED. What impact did a Paediatric Early Warning System have on emergency admissions to the paediatric intensive care unit? An observational cohort study. Intensive Crit Care Nurs. 2015;31:91–99. doi: 10.1016/j.iccn.2014.01.001
135.
Sharek PJ, Parast LM, Leong K, Coombs J, Earnest K, Sullivan J, Frankel LR, Roth SJ. Effect of a rapid response team on hospital-wide mortality and code rates outside the ICU in a children’s hospital. JAMA. 2007;298:2267–2274. doi: 10.1001/jama.298.19.2267
136.
Tibballs J, Kinney S. Reduction of hospital mortality and of preventable cardiac arrest and death on introduction of a pediatric medical emergency team. Pediatr Crit Care Med. 2009;10:306–312. doi: 10.1097/PCC.0b013e318198b02c
137.
Hunt EA, Zimmer KP, Rinke ML, Shilkofski NA, Matlin C, Garger C, Dickson C, Miller MR. Transition from a traditional code team to a medical emergency team and categorization of cardiopulmonary arrests in a children’s center. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2008;162:117–122. doi: 10.1001/archpediatrics.2007.33
138.
Parshuram CS, Bayliss A, Reimer J, Middaugh K, Blanchard N. Implementing the Bedside Paediatric Early Warning System in a community hospital: a prospective observational study. Paediatr Child Health. 2011;16:e18–e22. doi: 10.1093/pch/16.3.e18
139.
Scholefield, BR, Guerguerian, AM, Tijssen, J, Acworth, J, Aickin, R, Atkins, D, De Caen, A, Couto, TB, Kleinman, M, Kloeck, D, et al; ILCOR Pediatric Life Support Task Force. Post-arrest temperature management in children: statement on post cardiac arrest temperature management in children: ILCOR Pediatric Life Support (PLS) Task Force. November 2021. Accessed February 17, 2022. https://ilcor.org/news/post-arrest-temperature-management-in-children
140.
Perlman JM, Wyllie J, Kattwinkel J, Wyckoff MH, Aziz K, Guinsburg R, Kim HS, Liley HG, Mildenhall L, Simon WM, et al. 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
141.
Lunze K, Bloom DE, Jamison DT, Hamer DH. The global burden of neonatal hypothermia: systematic review of a major challenge for newborn survival. BMC Med. 2013;11:24. doi: 10.1186/1741-7015-11-24
142.
de Almeida, MF, Dawson, JA, Ramaswamy, VV, Trevisanuto, D, Nakwa, FL, Kamlin, COF, Hosono, S, Rabi, Y, Costa-Nobre, DT, Davis, PG, et al. Maintaining normal temperature immediately after birth in late preterm and term infants. Updated February 14, 2022. Accessed March 9, 2022. https://costr.ilcor.org/document/maintaining-normal-temperature-immediately-after-birth-in-late-preterm-and-term-infants-nls-5100
143.
Strand ML, Simon WM, Wyllie J, Wyckoff MH, Weiner G. Consensus outcome rating for international neonatal resuscitation guidelines. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2020;105:328–330. doi: 10.1136/archdischild-2019-316942
144.
Maternal and Newborn Health/Safe Motherhood Unit, Division of Reproductive Health. Thermal Protection of the Newborn: A Practical Guide. World Health Organization; 1997.
145.
Agrawal N, Das K, Patwal P, Pandita N, Gupta A. Wrapping newborn infants in cloth and newspaper after delivery led to higher temperatures on arrival at the neonatal intensive care unit. Acta Paediatr. 2018;107:1335–1338. doi: 10.1111/apa.14211
146.
Belsches TC, Tilly AE, Miller TR, Kambeyanda RH, Leadford A, Manasyan A, Chomba E, Ramani M, Ambalavanan N, Carlo WA. Randomized trial of plastic bags to prevent term neonatal hypothermia in a resource-poor setting. Pediatrics. 2013;132:e656–e661. doi: 10.1542/peds.2013-0172
147.
Cardona Torres LM, Amador Licona N, Garcia Campos ML, Guizar-Mendoza JM. Polyethylene wrap for thermoregulation in the preterm infant: a randomized trial. Indian Pediatr. 2012;49:129–132. doi: 10.1007/s13312-012-0020-x
148.
Carfoot S, Williamson P, Dickson R. A randomised controlled trial in the north of England examining the effects of skin-to-skin care on breast feeding. Midwifery. 2005;21:71–79. doi: 10.1016/j.midw.2004.09.002
149.
Chaput de Saintonge DM, Cross KW, Shathorn MK, Lewis SR, Stothers JK. Hats for the newborn infant. Br Med J. 1979;2:570–571. doi: 10.1136/bmj.2.6190.570
150.
Christensson K, Siles C, Moreno L, Belaustequi A, De La Fuente P, Lagercrantz H, Puyol P, Winberg J. Temperature, metabolic adaptation and crying in healthy full-term newborns cared for skin-to-skin or in a cot. Acta Paediatr. 1992;81:488–493. doi: 10.1111/j.1651-2227.1992.tb12280.x
151.
Crenshaw JT, Adams ED, Gilder RE, DeButy K, Scheffer KL. Effects of skin-to-skin care during cesareans: a quasiexperimental feasibility/pilot study. Breastfeed Med. 2019;14:731–743. doi: 10.1089/bfm.2019.0202
152.
Duryea EL, Nelson DB, Wyckoff MH, Grant EN, Tao W, Sadana N, Chalak LF, McIntire DD, Leveno KJ. The impact of ambient operating room temperature on neonatal and maternal hypothermia and associated morbidities: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;214:505.e1–505.e7. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2016.01.190
153.
Greer PS. Head coverings for newborns under radiant warmers. JOGN Nurs. 1988;17:265–271. doi: 10.1111/j.1552–6909.1988.tb00438.x
154.
Huang X, Chen L, Zhang L. Effects of paternal skin-to-skin contact in newborns and fathers after cesarean delivery. J Perinat Neonatal Nurs. 2019;33:68–73. doi: 10.1097/JPN.0000000000000384
155.
Johanson RB, Spencer SA, Rolfe P, Jones P, Malla DS. Effect of post-delivery care on neonatal body temperature. Acta Paediatr. 1992;81:859–863. doi: 10.1111/j.1651-2227.1992.tb12123.x
156.
KoÇ S, Kaya N. Effect of kangaroo care at birth on physiological parameters of healthy newborns. Turkish J Res Dev Nurs. 2017;19:1–13.
157.
Kollmann M, Aldrian L, Scheuchenegger A, Mautner E, Herzog SA, Urlesberger B, Raggam RB, Lang U, Obermayer-Pietsch B, Klaritsch P. Early skin-to-skin contact after cesarean section: a randomized clinical pilot study. PLoS One. 2017;12:e0168783. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0168783
158.
Lang N, Bromiker R, Arad I. The effect of wool vs. cotton head covering and length of stay with the mother following delivery on infant temperature. Int J Nurs Stud. 2004;41:843–846. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2004.03.010
159.
Leadford AE, Warren JB, Manasyan A, Chomba E, Salas AA, Schelonka R, Carlo WA. Plastic bags for prevention of hypothermia in preterm and low birth weight infants. Pediatrics. 2013;132:e128–e134. doi: 10.1542/peds.2012-2030
160.
Marín Gabriel MA, Llana Martín I, López Escobar A, Fernández Villalba E, Romero Blanco I, Touza Pol P. Randomized controlled trial of early skin-to-skin contact: effects on the mother and the newborn. Acta Paediatr. 2010;99:1630–1634. doi: 10.1111/j.1651-2227.2009.01597.x
161.
Omene JA, Diejomaoh FME, Faal M, Diakparomre MA, Obiaya M. Heat loss in Nigerian newborn infants in the delivery room. Gynecol Obstet. 1979;16:300–302. doi: 10.1002/j.1879–3479.1979.tb00450.x
162.
Raman S, Shahla A. Temperature drop in normal term newborn infants born at the University Hospital, Kuala Lumpur. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 1992;32:117–119. doi: 10.1111/j.1479-828x.1992.tb01921.x
163.
Ramani M, Choe EA, Major M, Newton R, Mwenechanya M, Travers CP, Chomba E, Ambalavanan N, Carlo WA. Kangaroo mother care for the prevention of neonatal hypothermia: a randomised controlled trial in term neonates. Arch Dis Child. 2018;103:492–497. doi: 10.1136/archdischild-2017-313744
164.
Safari K, Saeed AA, Hasan SS, Moghaddam-Banaem L. The effect of mother and newborn early skin-to-skin contact on initiation of breastfeeding, newborn temperature and duration of third stage of labor. Int Breastfeed J. 2018;13:32. doi: 10.1186/s13006-018-0174-9
165.
Shabeer MP, Abiramalatha T, Devakirubai D, Rebekah G, Thomas N. Standard care with plastic bag or portable thermal nest to prevent hypothermia at birth: a three-armed randomized controlled trial. J Perinatol. 2018;38:1324–1330. doi: 10.1038/s41372-018-0169-9
166.
Srivastava S, Gupta A, Bhatnagar A, Dutta S. Effect of very early skin to skin contact on success at breastfeeding and preventing early hypothermia in neonates. Indian J Public Health. 2014;58:22–26. doi: 10.4103/0019-557X.128160
167.
Stirparo S, Farcomeni A, Laudani A, Capogna G. Maintaining neonatal normothermia during WHO recommended skin-to-skin contact in the setting of cesarean section under regional anesthesia. Open J Anesthesiol. 2013;3:186–188. doi: 10.4236/ojanes.2013.33043.
168.
Travers CP, Ramani M, Gentle SJ, Schuyler A, Brown C, Dills MM, Davis CB, Mwenechanya M, Chomba E, Aban I, et al. Early skin-to-skin care with a polyethylene bag for neonatal hypothermia: a randomized clinical trial. J Pediatr. 2021;231:55–60.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2020.12.064
169.
Walsh RS, Payne A, Cossler NJ, Thompson CL, Bhola M. Safety of immediate skin-to-skin contact after vaginal birth in vigorous late preterm neonates: a pilot study. J Neonatal Perinatal Med. 2021;14:95–100. doi: 10.3233/NPM-190311
170.
Agudelo S, Díaz D, Maldonado MJ, Acuña E, Mainero D, Pérez O, Pérez L, Molina C. Effect of skin-to-skin contact at birth on early neonatal hospitalization. Early Hum Dev. 2020;144:105020. doi: 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2020.105020
171.
de Albuquerque RS, Neto CM, Bersusa AAS, Dias VM, da Silva MIM. Newborns’ temperature submitted to radiant heat and to the Top Maternal device at birth. Rev Lat Am Enfermagem. 2016;24:e2741. doi: 10.1590/1518-8345.0305.2741
172.
Schwarzmann Aley-Raz E, Talmon G, Peniakov M, Hasanein J, Felszer-Fisch C, Weiner SA. Reducing neonatal hypothermia in premature infants in an Israeli neonatal intensive care unit. Isr Med Assoc J. 2020;22:542–546.
173.
Andrews C, Whatley C, Smith M, Brayton EC, Simone S, Holmes AV. Quality-improvement effort to reduce hypothermia among high-risk infants on a mother-infant unit. Pediatrics. 2018;141:e20171214. doi: 10.1542/peds.2017-1214
174.
Datta V, Saili A, Goel S, Sooden A, Singh M, Vaid S, Livesley N. Reducing hypothermia in newborns admitted to a neonatal care unit in a large academic hospital in New Delhi, India. BMJ Open Qual. 2017;6:e000183. doi: 10.1136/bmjoq-2017-000183
175.
Hill ST, Shronk LK. The effect of early parent-infant contact on newborn body temperature. JOGN Nurs. 1979;8:287–290. doi: 10.1111/j.1552-6909.1979.tb00963.x
176.
Nissen E, Svensson K, Mbalinda S, Brimdyr K, Waiswa P, Odongkara BM, Hjelmstedt A. A low-cost intervention to promote immediate skin-to-skin contact and improve temperature regulation in Northern Uganda. Afr J Midwifery Womens Health. 2019;13:1–12. doi: 10.12968/ajmw.2018.0037
177.
Patodia J, Mittal J, Sharma V, Verma M, Rathi M, Kumar N, Jain R, Goyal A. Reducing admission hypothermia in newborns at a tertiary care NICU of northern India: a quality improvement study. J Neonatal Perinatal Med. 2021;14:277–286. doi: 10.3233/NPM-190385
178.
Shaw SC, Devgan A, Anila S, Anushree N, Debnath H. Use of plan-do-study-act cycles to decrease incidence of neonatal hypothermia in the labor room. Med J Armed Forces India. 2018;74:126–132. doi: 10.1016/j.mjafi.2017.05.005
179.
Sprecher A, Malin K, Finley D, Lembke P, Keller S, Grippe A, Hornung G, Antos N, Uhing M. Quality improvement approach to reducing admission hypothermia among preterm and term infants. Hosp Pediatr. 2021;11:270–276. doi: 10.1542/hpeds.2020-003269
180.
Cavallin F, Bonasia T, Yimer DA, Manenti F, Putoto G, Trevisanuto D. Risk factors for mortality among neonates admitted to a special care unit in a low-resource setting. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2020;20:722. doi: 10.1186/s12884-020-03429-2
181.
Kasdorf E, Perlman JM. Strategies to prevent reperfusion injury to the brain following intrapartum hypoxia-ischemia. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med. 2013;18:379–384. doi: 10.1016/j.siny.2013.08.004
182.
Conde-Agudelo A, Díaz-Rossello JL. Kangaroo mother care to reduce morbidity and mortality in low birthweight infants. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;2016:Cd002771. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002771.pub4
183.
Moore ER, Bergman N, Anderson GC, Medley N. Early skin-to-skin contact for mothers and their healthy newborn infants. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;11:CD003519. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003519.pub4
184.
Gill VR, Liley HG, Erdei C, Sen S, Davidge R, Wright AL, Bora S. Improving the uptake of kangaroo mother care in neonatal units: a narrative review and conceptual framework. Acta Paediatr. 2021;110:1407–1416. doi: 10.1111/apa.15705
185.
Gupta N, Deierl A, Hills E, Banerjee J. Systematic review confirmed the benefits of early skin-to-skin contact but highlighted lack of studies on very and extremely preterm infants. Acta Paediatr. 2021;110:2310–2315. doi: 10.1111/apa.15913
186.
Ionio C, Ciuffo G, Landoni M. Parent-infant skin-to-skin contact and stress regulation: a systematic review of the literature. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18:4695. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18094695
187.
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. 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
188.
Wyckoff MH, Wyllie J, Aziz K, de Almeida MF, Fabres J, Fawke J, Guinsburg R, Hosono S, Isayama T, Kapadia VS, et al; Neonatal Life Support Collaborators. Neonatal life support: 2020 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations. Circulation. 2020;142(suppl 1):S185–S221. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000895
189.
Fawke, J, Wyllie, JP, Udeata, E, Rüdiger, M, Ersdal, H, Rabi, Y, Costa-Nobre, DT, de Almeida, MF, Davis, PG, El-Naggar, W, et al. Suctioning clear amniotic fluid at birth. Updated February 7, 2022. Accessed March 9, 2022. https://costr.ilcor.org/document/suctioning-clear-amniotic-fluid-at-birth-nls-5120-previous-596
190.
Bancalari A, Díaz V, Araneda H. Effects of pharyngeal suction on the arterial oxygen saturation and heart rate in healthy newborns delivered by elective cesarean section. J Neonatal Perinatal Med. 2019;12:271–276. doi: 10.3233/NPM-180137
191.
Carrasco M, Martell M, Estol PC. Oronasopharyngeal suction at birth: effects on arterial oxygen saturation. J Pediatr. 1997;130:832–834. doi: 10.1016/s0022-3476(97)80031-5
192.
Estol PC, Piriz H, Basalo S, Simini F, Grela C. Oro-naso-pharyngeal suction at birth: effects on respiratory adaptation of normal term vaginally born infants. J Perinat Med. 1992;20:297–305. doi: 10.1515/jpme.1992.20.4.297
193.
Gungor S, Kurt E, Teksoz E, Goktolga U, Ceyhan T, Baser I. Oronasopharyngeal suction versus no suction in normal and term infants delivered by elective cesarean section: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2006;61:9–14. doi: 10.1159/000087604
194.
Gungor S, Teksoz E, Ceyhan T, Kurt E, Goktolga U, Baser I. Oronasopharyngeal suction versus no suction in normal, term and vaginally born infants: a prospective randomised controlled trial. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2005;45:453–456. doi: 10.1111/j.1479-828X.2005.00452.x
195.
Kelleher J, Bhat R, Salas AA, Addis D, Mills EC, Mallick H, Tripathi A, Pruitt EP, Roane C, McNair T, et al. Oronasopharyngeal suction versus wiping of the mouth and nose at birth: a randomised equivalency trial. Lancet. 2013;382:326–330. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60775-8
196.
Modarres Nejad V, Hosseini R, Sarrafi Nejad A, Shafiee G. Effect of oronasopharyngeal suction on arterial oxygen saturation in normal, term infants delivered vaginally: a prospective randomised controlled trial. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2014;34:400–402. doi: 10.3109/01443615.2014.897312
197.
Takahashi IY. Oronasopharyngeal suction versus no suction at birth in healthy term newborn infants: effects on oxygen saturation and heart rate. J Japan Acad Midwifery. 2009;23:261–270
198.
Waltman PA, Brewer JM, Rogers BP, May WL. Building evidence for practice: a pilot study of newborn bulb suctioning at birth. J Midwifery Womens Health. 2004;49:32–38. doi: 10.1016/j.jmwh.2003.10.003
199.
Konstantelos D, Ifflaender S, Dinger J, Rüdiger M. Suctioning habits in the delivery room and the influence on postnatal adaptation: a video analysis. J Perinat Med. 2015;43:777–782. doi: 10.1515/jpm-2014-0188
200.
Pocivalnik M, Urlesberger B, Ziehenberger E, Binder C, Schwaberger B, Schmölzer GM, Avian A, Pichler G. Oropharyngeal suctioning in neonates immediately after delivery: influence on cerebral and peripheral tissue oxygenation. Early Hum Dev. 2015;91:153–157. doi: 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2015.01.005
201.
International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation. 2005 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science with Treatment Recommendations: part 7: neonatal resuscitation. Circ. 2005;112(22 suppl):III-91–III-99. doi: 0.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.105.166477
202.
Kattwinkel J, Niermeyer S, Nadkarni V, Tibballs J, Phillips B, Zideman D, Van Reempts P, Osmond M. ILCOR advisory statement: resuscitation of the newly born infant: an advisory statement from the Pediatric Working Group of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation. Circulation. 1999;99:1927–1938. doi: 10.1161/01.cir.99.14.1927
203.
Guinsburg R, de Almeida MFB, Finan E, Perlman JM, Wyllie J, Liley HG, Wyckoff MH, Isayama T. Tactile stimulation in newborn infants with inadequate respiration at birth: a systematic review. Pediatrics. 2022;149:e2021055067. doi: 10.1542/peds.2021-055067
204.
de Almeida, MF, Guinsburg, R, Isayama, T, Finan, E, El-Naggar, W, Fabres, JG, Fawke, J, Foglia, EE, Kapadia, VS, Kawakami, MD, et al. Tactile stimulation for resuscitation immediately after birth. Updated January 28, 2022. Accessed March 10, 2022. https://costr.ilcor.org/document/tactile-stimulation-for-resuscitation-immediately-after-birth-nls-5140-task-force-systematic-review
205.
Baik-Schneditz N, Urlesberger B, Schwaberger B, Mileder L, Schmölzer G, Avian A, Pichler G. Tactile stimulation during neonatal transition and its effect on vital parameters in neonates during neonatal transition. Acta Paediatr. 2018;107:952–957. doi: 10.1111/apa.14239
206.
Dekker J, Hooper SB, Martherus T, Cramer SJE, van Geloven N, Te Pas AB. Repetitive versus standard tactile stimulation of preterm infants at birth: a randomized controlled trial. Resuscitation. 2018;127:37–43. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2018.03.030
207.
Gaertner VD, Flemmer SA, Lorenz L, Davis PG, Kamlin COF. Physical stimulation of newborn infants in the delivery room. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2018;103:F132–F136. doi: 10.1136/archdischild-2016-312311
208.
Katheria A, Poeltler D, Durham J, Steen J, Rich W, Arnell K, Maldonado M, Cousins L, Finer N. Neonatal resuscitation with an intact cord: a randomized clinical trial. J Pediatr. 2016;178:75–80.e3. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2016.07.053
209.
Pietravalle A, Cavallin F, Opocher A, Madella S, Cavicchiolo ME, Pizzol D, Putoto G, Trevisanuto D. Neonatal tactile stimulation at birth in a low-resource setting. BMC Pediatr. 2018;18:306. doi: 10.1186/s12887-018-1279-4
210.
van Henten TMA, Dekker J, Te Pas AB, Zivanovic S, Hooper SB, Roehr CC. Tactile stimulation in the delivery room: do we practice what we preach? Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2019;104:F661–F662. doi: 10.1136/archdischild-2018-316344
211.
Cavallin F, Lochoro P, Ictho J, Nsubuga JB, Ameo J, Putoto G, Trevisanuto D. Back rubs or foot flicks for neonatal stimulation at birth in a low-resource setting: a randomized controlled trial. Resuscitation. 2021;167:137–143. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2021.08.028
212.
Ersdal HL, Mduma E, Svensen E, Perlman JM. Early initiation of basic resuscitation interventions including face mask ventilation may reduce birth asphyxia related mortality in low-income countries: a prospective descriptive observational study. Resuscitation. 2012;83:869–873. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2011.12.011
213.
Msemo G, Massawe A, Mmbando D, Rusibamayila N, Manji K, Kidanto HL, Mwizamuholya D, Ringia P, Ersdal HL, Perlman J. Newborn mortality and fresh stillbirth rates in Tanzania after helping babies breathe training. Pediatrics. 2013;131:e353–e360. doi: 10.1542/peds.2012-1795
214.
Kc A, Peven K, Ameen S, Msemo G, Basnet O, Ruysen H, Zaman SB, Mkony M, Sunny AK, Rahman QS, et al; EN-BIRTH Study Group. Neonatal resuscitation: EN-BIRTH multi-country validation study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2021;21(suppl 1):235. doi: 10.1186/s12884-020-03422-9
215.
Kalaniti K, Chacko A, Daspal S. Tactile stimulation during newborn resuscitation: the good, the bad, and the ugly. Oman Med J. 2018;33:84–85. doi: 10.5001/omj.2018.18
216.
Kapadia, VS, Kawakami, MD, Strand, M, Gately, C, Costa-Nobre, DT, Davis, PG, de Almeida, MF, El-Naggar, W, Fabres, JG, Fawke, J, et al. Methods of heart rate monitoring in the delivery room and neonatal outcomes. Updated February 3, 2022. Accessed March 10, 2022. https://costr.ilcor.org/document/delivery-room-heart-rate-monitoring-to-improve-outcomes-nls-5201
217.
Abbey NV, Mashruwala V, Weydig HM, Steven Brown L, Ramon EL, Ibrahim J, Mir IN, Wyckoff MH, Kapadia V. Electrocardiogram for heart rate evaluation during preterm resuscitation at birth: a randomized trial. Pediatr Res. 2022;91:1445–1451. doi: 10.1038/s41390-021-01731-z
218.
Katheria A, Arnell K, Brown M, Hassen K, Maldonado M, Rich W, Finer N. A pilot randomized controlled trial of EKG for neonatal resuscitation. PLoS One. 2017;12:e0187730. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0187730
219.
Shah BA, Wlodaver AG, Escobedo MB, Ahmed ST, Blunt MH, Anderson MP, Szyld EG. Impact of electronic cardiac (ECG) monitoring on delivery room resuscitation and neonatal outcomes. Resuscitation. 2019;143:10–16. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2019.07.031
220.
Shah, BA, Fabres, JG, Szyld, EG, Leone, TA, Schmölzer, GM, de Almeida, MF, Costa-Nobre, DT, Davis, PG, El-Naggar, W, Fawke, J, et al. Continuous positive airway pressure versus no continuous positive airway pressure for term and late preterm respiratory distress in the delivery room. Updated January 31, 2022. Accessed March 10, 2022. https://costr.ilcor.org/document/continuous-positive-airway-pressure-cpap-versus-no-cpap-for-term-respiratory-distress-in-delivery-room-nls-5312
221.
Celebi MY, Alan S, Kahvecioglu D, Cakir U, Yildiz D, Erdeve O, Arsan S, Atasay B. Impact of prophylactic continuous positive airway pressure on transient tachypnea of the newborn and neonatal intensive care admission in newborns delivered by elective cesarean section. Am J Perinatol. 2016;33:99–106. doi: 10.1055/s-0035-1560041
222.
Osman AM, El-Farrash RA, Mohammed EH. Early rescue Neopuff for infants with transient tachypnea of newborn: a randomized controlled trial. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2019;32:597–603. doi: 10.1080/14767058.2017.1387531
223.
Hishikawa K, Fujinaga H, Fujiwara T, Goishi K, Kaneshige M, Sago H, Ito Y. Respiratory stabilization after delivery in term infants after the update of the Japan Resuscitation Council guidelines in 2010. Neonatology. 2016;110:1–7. doi: 10.1159/000443948
224.
Hishikawa K, Goishi K, Fujiwara T, Kaneshige M, Ito Y, Sago H. Pulmonary air leak associated with CPAP at term birth resuscitation. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2015;100:F382–F387. doi: 10.1136/archdischild-2014-307891
225.
Smithhart W, Wyckoff MH, Kapadia V, Jaleel M, Kakkilaya V, Brown LS, Nelson DB, Brion LP. delivery room continuous positive airway pressure and pneumothorax. Pediatrics. 2019;144:e20190756. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-0756
225a.
Yamada NK, McKinlay CJ, Quek BH, Schmölzer GM, Wyckoff MH, Liley HG, Rabi Y, Weiner GM. Supraglottic airways compared with face masks for neonatal resuscitation: a systematic review. Pediatrics. 2022;150:e2022056568. doi: 10.1542/peds.2022-056568
226.
Yamada, NK, McKinlay, CJD, Quek, BH, Rabi, Y, Costa-Nobre, DT, de Almeida, MF, Davis, PG, El-Naggar, W, Fabres, JG, Fawke, J, et al. Supraglottic airways for neonatal resuscitation. Updated February 4, 2022. Accessed March 10, 2022. https://costr.ilcor.org/document/supraglottic-airways-for-neonatal-resuscitation-nls-618
227.
Feroze F, Khuwaja A, Masood N, Malik FI. Neonatal resuscitation; the use of laryngeal mask airway. Professional Med J Q. 2008;15:148–152.
228.
Pejovic NJ, Myrnerts Höök S, Byamugisha J, Alfvén T, Lubulwa C, Cavallin F, Nankunda J, Ersdal H, Blennow M, Trevisanuto D, et al. A randomized trial of laryngeal mask airway in neonatal resuscitation. N Engl J Med. 2020;383:2138–2147. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2005333
229.
Pejovic NJ, Trevisanuto D, Lubulwa C, Myrnerts Höök S, Cavallin F, Byamugisha J, Nankunda J, Tylleskär T. Neonatal resuscitation using a laryngeal mask airway: a randomised trial in Uganda. Arch Dis Child. 2018;103:255–260. doi: 10.1136/archdischild-2017-312934
230.
Singh R. Controlled trial to evaluate the use of LMA for neonatal resuscitation. J Anaesth Clin Pharmacol. 2005;21:303–306.
231.
Trevisanuto D, Cavallin F, Nguyen LN, Nguyen TV, Tran LD, Tran CD, Doglioni N, Micaglio M, Moccia L. Supreme laryngeal mask airway versus face mask during neonatal resuscitation: a randomized controlled trial. J Pediatr. 2015;167:286–291.e281. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2015.04.051
232.
Zhu XY, Lin BC, Zhang QS, Ye HM, Yu RJ. A prospective evaluation of the efficacy of the laryngeal mask airway during neonatal resuscitation. Resuscitation. 2011;82:1405–1409. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2011.06.010
233.
Trevisanuto D, Micaglio M, Pitton M, Magarotto M, Piva D, Zanardo V. Laryngeal mask airway: is the management of neonates requiring positive pressure ventilation at birth changing? Resuscitation. 2004;62:151–157. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2004.03.006
234.
Zanardo V, Weiner G, Micaglio M, Doglioni N, Buzzacchero R, Trevisanuto D. Delivery room resuscitation of near-term infants: role of the laryngeal mask airway. Resuscitation. 2010;81:327–330. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2009.11.005
235.
Pejovic NJ, Cavallin F, Mpamize A, Lubulwa C, Höök SM, Byamugisha J, Nankunda J, Tylleskär T, Trevisanuto D. Respiratory monitoring during neonatal resuscitation using a supraglottic airway device vs. a face mask. Resuscitation. 2022;171:107–113. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2021.10.025
236.
Schmölzer GM, Morley CJ, Wong C, Dawson JA, Kamlin CO, Donath SM, Hooper SB, Davis PG. Respiratory function monitor guidance of mask ventilation in the delivery room: a feasibility study. J Pediatr. 2012;160:377–381.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2011.09.017
237.
Fuerch, JH, Rabi, Y, Thio, M, Halamek, LP, Costa-Nobre, DT, de Almeida, MF, Davis, PG, El-Naggar, W, Fabres, JG, Fawke, J, et al. Respiratory function monitoring. Updated February 8, 2022. Accessed March 9, 2022. https://costr.ilcor.org/document/respiratory-function-monitoring-for-neonatal-resuscitation-nls-806
238.
van Zanten HA, Kuypers KLAM, van Zwet EW, van Vonderen JJ, Kamlin COF, Springer L, Lista G, Cavigioli F, Vento M, Nunez-Ramiro A, et al. A multi-centre randomised controlled trial of respiratory function monitoring during stabilisation of very preterm infants at birth. Resuscitation. 2021:317–325. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2021.07.012
239.
Zeballos Sarrato G, Sánchez Luna M, Zeballos Sarrato S, Pérez A, Pescador Chamorro I, Bellón Cano JM. New strategies of pulmonary protection of preterm infants in the delivery room with the respiratory function monitoring. Am J Perinatol. 2019;36:1368–1376. doi: 10.1055/s-0038-1676828
240.
Andersen LW, Holmberg MJ, Berg KM, Donnino MW, Granfeldt A. In-hospital cardiac arrest: a review. JAMA. 2019;321:1200–1210. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.1696
241.
Lauridsen, KG, Djärv, T, Couper, K, Tjissen, J, Breckwoldt, J, Greif, R; International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation Education, Implementation, and Teams Task Force. Pre-arrest prediction of survival following in-hospital cardiac arrest. Updated March 4, 2022. Accessed March 15, 2022. https://costr.ilcor.org/document/pre-arrest-prediction-of-survival-following-in-hospital-cardiac-arrest
242.
Bowker L, Stewart K. Predicting unsuccessful cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR): a comparison of three morbidity scores. Resuscitation. 1999;40:89–95. doi: 10.1016/s0300-9572(99)00008-8
243.
Cho YJ, Kim YJ, Kim MY, Shin YJ, Lee J, Choi E, Hong SB, Huh JW, Yang WS, Kim WY. Validation of the Good Outcome Following Attempted Resuscitation (GO-FAR) score in an East Asian population. Resuscitation. 2020;150:36–40. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2020.02.035
244.
Cohn EB, Lefevre F, Yarnold PR, Arron MJ, Martin GJ. Predicting survival from in-hospital CPR: meta-analysis and validation of a prediction model. J Gen Intern Med. 1993;8:347–353. doi: 10.1007/BF02600069
245.
Ebell MH. Artificial neural networks for predicting failure to survive following in-hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation. J Fam Pract. 1993;36:297–303.
246.
Ebell MH, Afonso AM, Geocadin RG; American Heart Association’s Get With the Guidelines–Resuscitation (formerly National Registry of Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation) Investigators. Prediction of survival to discharge following cardiopulmonary resuscitation using classification and regression trees. Crit Care Med. 2013;41:2688–2697. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e31829a708c
247.
Ebell MH, Jang W, Shen Y, Geocadin RG; Get With the Guidelines–Resuscitation Investigators. Development and validation of the Good Outcome Following Attempted Resuscitation (GO-FAR) score to predict neurologically intact survival after in-hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173:1872–1878. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.10037
248.
Ebell MH, Kruse JA, Smith M, Novak J, Drader-Wilcox J. Failure of three decision rules to predict the outcome of in-hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Med Decis Making. 1997;17:171–177. doi: 10.1177/0272989X9701700207
249.
George AL, Folk BP, Crecelius PL, Campbell WB. Pre-arrest morbidity and other correlates of survival after in-hospital cardiopulmonary arrest. Am J Med. 1989;87:28–34. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9343(89)80479-6
250.
George N, Thai TN, Chan PS, Ebell MH. Predicting the probability of survival with mild or moderate neurological dysfunction after in-hospital cardiopulmonary arrest: the GO-FAR 2 score. Resuscitation. 2020;146:162–169. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2019.12.001
251.
Guilbault RWR, Ohlsson MA, Afonso AM, Ebell MH. External validation of two classification and regression tree models to predict the outcome of inpatient cardiopulmonary resuscitation. J Intensive Care Med. 2017;32:333–338. doi: 10.1177/0885066616686924
252.
Haegdorens F, Monsieurs KG, De Meester K, Van Bogaert P. The optimal threshold for prompt clinical review: an external validation study of the National Early Warning Score. J Clin Nurs. 2020;29:4594–4603. doi: 10.1111/jocn.15493
253.
Hong SI, Kim YJ, Cho YJ, Huh JW, Hong SB, Kim WY. Predictive value of pre-arrest albumin level with GO-FAR score in patients with in-hospital cardiac arrest. Sci Rep. 2021;11:10631. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-90203-9
254.
Ibitoye SE, Rawlinson S, Cavanagh A, Phillips V, Shipway DJH. Frailty status predicts futility of cardiopulmonary resuscitation in older adults. Age Ageing. 2021;50:147–152. doi: 10.1093/ageing/afaa104
255.
Limpawattana P, Suraditnan C, Aungsakul W, Panitchote A, Patjanasoontorn B, Phunmanee A, Pittayawattanachai N. A comparison of the ability of morbidity scores to predict unsuccessful cardiopulmonary resuscitation in Thailand. J Med Assoc Thai. 2018;101:1231–1236
25a.
Yamada NK, McKinlay CJ, Quek BH, Schmölzer GM, Wyckoff MH, Liley HG, Rabi Y, Weiner GM. Supraglottic airways compared with face masks for neonatal resuscitation: a systematic review. Pediatrics. 2022;150:e2022056568. doi: 10.1542/peds.2022-056568
256.
Ohlsson MA, Kennedy LM, Ebell MH, Juhlin T, Melander O. Validation of the good outcome following attempted resuscitation score on in-hospital cardiac arrest in southern Sweden. Int J Cardiol. 2016;221:294–297. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2016.06.146
257.
Ohlsson MA, Kennedy LM, Juhlin T, Melander O. Evaluation of pre-arrest morbidity score and prognosis after resuscitation score and other clinical variables associated with in-hospital cardiac arrest in southern Sweden. Resuscitation. 2014;85:1370–1374. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2014.07.009
258.
O’Keeffe S, Ebell MH. Prediction of failure to survive following in-hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation: comparison of two predictive instruments. Resuscitation. 1994;28:21–25. doi: 10.1016/0300-9572(94)90050-7
259.
Piscator E, Göransson K, Bruchfeld S, Hammar U, El Gharbi S, Ebell M, Herlitz J, Djärv T. Predicting neurologically intact survival after in-hospital cardiac arrest-external validation of the Good Outcome Following Attempted Resuscitation score. Resuscitation. 2018;128:63–69. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2018.04.035
260.
Piscator E, Göransson K, Forsberg S, Bottai M, Ebell M, Herlitz J, Djärv T. Prearrest prediction of favourable neurological survival following in-hospital cardiac arrest: the Prediction of outcome for In-Hospital Cardiac Arrest (PIHCA) score. Resuscitation. 2019;143:92–99. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2019.08.010
261.
Roberts D, Djärv T. Preceding national early warnings scores among in-hospital cardiac arrests and their impact on survival. Am J Emerg Med. 2017;35:1601–1606. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2017.04.072
262.
Rubins JB, Kinzie SD, Rubins DM. Predicting outcomes of in-hospital cardiac arrest: retrospective US validation of the Good Outcome Following Attempted Resuscitation score. J Gen Intern Med. 2019;34:2530–2535. doi: 10.1007/s11606-019-05314-x
263.
Stark AP, Maciel RC, Sheppard W, Sacks G, Hines OJ. An early warning score predicts risk of death after inhospital cardiopulmonary arrest in surgical patients. Am Surg. 2015;81:916–921. doi: 10.1177/000313481508101001
264.
Thai TN, Ebell MH. Prospective validation of the Good Outcome Following Attempted Resuscitation (GO-FAR) score for in-hospital cardiac arrest prognosis. Resuscitation. 2019;140:2–8. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2019.05.002
265.
Bhanji F, Finn JC, Lockey A, Monsieurs K, Frengley R, Iwami T, Lang E, Ma MH, Mancini ME, McNeil MA, et al; Education, Implementation, and Teams Chapter Collaborators. Part 8: education, implementation, and teams: 2015 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations. Circulation. 2015;132(suppl 1):S242–S268. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000277
266.
Finn JC, Bhanji F, Lockey A, Monsieurs K, Frengley R, Iwami T, Lang E, Ma MH, Mancini ME, McNeil MA, et al; Education, Implementation, Teams Chapter Collaborators. Part 8: education, implementation, and teams: 2015 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science with Treatment Recommendations. Circ. 2015;132(suppl 1):S242–S268. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000277
267.
Cartledge S, Bray JE, Leary M, Stub D, Finn J. A systematic review of basic life support training targeted to family members of high-risk cardiac patients. Resuscitation. 2016;105:70–78. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2016.04.028
268.
Cartledge S, Feldman S, Bray JE, Stub D, Finn J. Understanding patients and spouses experiences of patient education following a cardiac event and eliciting attitudes and preferences towards incorporating cardiopulmonary resuscitation training: a qualitative study. J Adv Nurs. 2018;74:1157–1169. doi: 10.1111/jan.13522
269.
Cartledge S, Finn J, Smith K, Straney L, Stub D, Bray J. A cross-sectional survey examining cardiopulmonary resuscitation training in households with heart disease. Collegian. 2019;26:366–372. doi: 10.1016/j.colegn.2018.09.004
270.
Bray, J, Cartledge, S, Doherty, Z, Leary, M, Finn, J, Bhanji, F, Greif, R; International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation Education, Implementation, and Teams Task Force. Basic life support training for likely rescuers of adults and children at high-risk of cardiac arrest. Updated March 4, 2022. Accessed March 15, 2022. https://costr.ilcor.org/document/bls-training-in-high-risk-groups
271.
Deleted in proof.
272.
Deleted in proof.
273.
Bardy GH, Lee KL, Mark DB, Poole JE, Toff WD, Tonkin AM, Smith W, Dorian P, Packer DL, White RD, et al; HAT Investigators. Home use of automated external defibrillators for sudden cardiac arrest. N Engl J Med. 2008;358:1793–1804. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0801651
274.
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
275.
Blewer AL, Leary M, Esposito EC, Gonzalez M, Riegel B, Bobrow BJ, Abella BS. Continuous chest compression cardiopulmonary resuscitation training promotes rescuer self-confidence and increased secondary training: a hospital-based randomized controlled trial. Crit Care Med. 2012;40:787–792. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e318236f2ca
276.
Brannon TS, White LA, Kilcrease JN, Richard LD, Spillers JG, Phelps CL. Use of instructional video to prepare parents for learning infant cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent). 2009;22:133–137. doi: 10.1080/08998280.2009.11928493
277.
Dracup K, Doering LV, Moser DK, Evangelista L. Retention and use of cardiopulmonary resuscitation skills in parents of infants at risk for cardiopulmonary arrest. Pediatr Nurs. 1998;24:219–25; quiz 226–227.
278.
Dracup K, Guzy PM, Taylor SE, Barry J. Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) training: consequences for family members of high-risk cardiac patients. Arch Intern Med. 1986;146:1757–1761. doi: 10.1001/archinte.146.9.1757
279.
Dracup K, Heaney DM, Taylor SE, Guzy PM, Breu C. Can family members of high-risk cardiac patients learn cardiopulmonary resuscitation? Arch Intern Med. 1989;149:61–64.
280.
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
281.
Dracup K, Moser DK, Guzy PM, Taylor SE, Marsden C. Is cardiopulmonary resuscitation training deleterious for family members of cardiac patients? Am J Public Health. 1994;84:116–118. doi: 10.2105/ajph.84.1.116
282.
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
283.
Eisenberg MS, Moore J, Cummins RO, Andresen E, Litwin PE, Hallstrom AP, Hearne T. Use of the automatic external defibrillator in homes of survivors of out-of-hospital ventricular fibrillation. Am J Cardiol. 1989;63:443–446. doi: 10.1016/0002-9149(89)90316-0
284.
Greenberg MR, Barr GC, Rupp VA, Patel N, Weaver KR, Hamilton K, Reed JF. Cardiopulmonary resuscitation prescription program: a pilot randomized comparator trial. J Emerg Med. 2012;43:166–171. doi: 10.1016/j.jemermed.2011.05.078
285.
Haugk M, Robak O, Sterz F, Uray T, Kliegel A, Losert H, Holzer M, Herkner H, Laggner AN, Domanovits H. High acceptance of a home AED programme by survivors of sudden cardiac arrest and their families. Resuscitation. 2006;70:263–274. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2006.03.010
286.
Higgins SS, Hardy CE, Higashino SM. Should parents of children with congenital heart disease and life-threatening dysrhythmias be taught cardiopulmonary resuscitation? Pediatrics. 1989;84:1102–1104.
287.
Khan JA, Shafquat A, Kundi A. Basic life support skills: assessment and education of spouse and first degree relatives of patients with coronary disease. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 2010;20:299–302. doi: 05.2010/JCPSP.299302
288.
Kliegel A, Scheinecker W, Sterz F, Eisenburger P, Holzer M, Laggner AN. The attitudes of cardiac arrest survivors and their family members towards CPR courses. Resuscitation. 2000;47:147–154. doi: 10.1016/s0300-9572(00)00214-8
289.
Knight LJ, Wintch S, Nichols A, Arnolde V, Schroeder AR. Saving a life after discharge: CPR training for parents of high-risk children. J Healthc Qual. 2013;35:9–16; quiz 17. doi: 10.1111/j.1945-1474.2012.00221.x
290.
Komelasky AL. The effect of home nursing visits on parental anxiety and CPR knowledge retention of parents of apnea-monitored infants. J Pediatr Nurs. 1990;5:387–392.
291.
Komelasky AL, Bond BS. The effect of two forms of learning reinforcement upon parental retention of CPR skills. Pediatr Nurs. 1993;19:96–98, 77.
292.
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
293.
McDaniel CM, Berry VA, Haines DE, DiMarco JP. Automatic external defibrillation of patients after myocardial infarction by family members: practical aspects and psychological impact of training. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 1988;11(pt 2):2029–2034. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-8159.1988.tb06345.x
294.
McLauchlan CA, Ward A, Murphy NM, Griffith MJ, Skinner DV, Camm AJ. Resuscitation training for cardiac patients and their relatives–its effect on anxiety. Resuscitation. 1992;24:7–11. doi: 10.1016/0300-9572(92)90168-c
295.
Messmer P, Meehan R, Gilliam N, White S, Donaldson P. Teaching infant CPR to mothers of cocaine-positive infants. J Contin Educ Nurs. 1993;24:217–220. doi: 10.3928/0022-0124-19930901-07
296.
Moore JE, Eisenberg MS, Cummins RO, Hallstrom A, Litwin P, Carter W. Lay person use of automatic external defibrillation. Ann Emerg Med. 1987;16:669–672. doi: 10.1016/s0196-0644(87)80068-9
297.
Moser DK, Dracup K, Doering LV. Effect of cardiopulmonary resuscitation training for parents of high-risk neonates on perceived anxiety, control, and burden. Heart Lung. 1999;28:326–333. doi: 10.1053/hl.1999.v28.a101053
298.
Pane GA, Salness KA. Targeted recruitment of senior citizens and cardiac patients to a mass CPR training course. Ann Emerg Med. 1989;18:152–154. doi: 10.1016/s0196-0644(89)80105-2
299.
Pierick TA, Van Waning N, Patel SS, Atkins DL. Self-instructional CPR training for parents of high risk infants. Resuscitation. 2012;83:1140–1144. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2012.02.007
300.
Sanna T, Fedele F, Genuini I, Puglisi A, Azzolini P, Altamura G, Lobianco F, Ruzzolini M, Perna F, Micò M, et al. Home defibrillation: a feasibility study in myocardial infarction survivors at intermediate risk of sudden death. Am Heart J. 2006;152:685.e1–685.e7. doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2006.07.008
301.
Schneider L, Sterz F, Haugk M, Eisenburger P, Scheinecker W, Kliegel A, Laggner AN. CPR courses and semi-automatic defibrillators: life saving in cardiac arrest? Resuscitation. 2004;63:295–303. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2004.06.005
302.
Sharieff GQ, Hostetter S, Silva PD. Foster parents of medically fragile children can improve their BLS scores: results of a demonstration project. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2001;17:93–95. doi: 10.1097/00006565-200104000-00003
303.
Sigsbee M, Geden EA. Effects of anxiety on family members of patients with cardiac disease learning cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Heart Lung. 1990;19:662–665.
304.
Wright S, Norton C, Kesten K. Retention of infant CPR instruction by parents. Pediatr Nurs. 1989;15:37–41, 44.
305.
Ataiants J, Mazzella S, Roth AM, Sell RL, Robinson LF, Lankenau SE. Overdose response among trained and untrained women with a history of illicit drug use: a mixed-methods examination. Drugs (Abingdon Engl). 2021;28:328–339. doi: 10.1080/09687637.2020.1818691
306.
Blewer AL, Putt ME, Becker LB, Riegel BJ, Li J, Leary M, Shea JA, Kirkpatrick JN, Berg RA, Nadkarni VM, et al; CHIP Study Group. Video-only cardiopulmonary resuscitation education for high-risk families before hospital discharge: a multicenter pragmatic trial. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2016;9:740–748. doi: 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.116.002493
307.
Blewer AL, Putt ME, McGovern SK, Murray AD, Leary M, Riegel B, Shea JA, Berg RA, Asch DA, Viera AJ, et al; CHIP Study Group. A pragmatic randomized trial of cardiopulmonary resuscitation training for families of cardiac patients before hospital discharge using a mobile application. Resuscitation. 2020;152:28–35. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2020.04.026
308.
Cartledge S, Finn J, Bray JE, Case R, Barker L, Missen D, Shaw J, Stub D. Incorporating cardiopulmonary resuscitation training into a cardiac rehabilitation programme: a feasibility study. Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2018;17:148–158. doi: 10.1177/1474515117721010
309.
González-Salvado V, Abelairas-Gómez C, Gude F, Peña-Gil C, Neiro-Rey C, González-Juanatey JR, Rodríguez-Núñez A. Targeting relatives: impact of a cardiac rehabilitation programme including basic life support training on their skills and attitudes. Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2019;26:795–805. doi: 10.1177/2047487319830190
310.
Han KS, Lee JS, Kim SJ, Lee SW. Targeted cardiopulmonary resuscitation training focused on the family members of high-risk patients at a regional medical center: a comparison between family members of high-risk and no-risk patients. Ulus Travma Acil Cerrahi Derg. 2018;24:224–233. doi: 10.5505/tjtes.2017.01493
311.
Ikeda DJ, Buckler DG, Li J, Agarwal AK, Di Taranti LJ, Kurtz J, Reis RD, Leary M, Abella BS, Blewer AL. Dissemination of CPR video self-instruction materials to secondary trainees: results from a hospital-based CPR education trial. Resuscitation. 2016;100:45–50. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2015.12.016
312.
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
313.
Michel J, Hofbeck M, Neunhoeffer F, Müller M, Heimberg E. Evaluation of a multimodal resuscitation program and comparison of mouth-to-mouth and bag-mask ventilation by relatives of children with chronic diseases. Pediatr Crit Care Med. 2020;21:e114–e120. doi: 10.1097/PCC.0000000000002204
314.
Raaj N, Lakshmanan G, Baidya D, Velayoudam D, Bhoi S. A comparative study to evaluate the effectiveness of mannequin demonstration versus video teaching programme on basic life support to the family members of adult patients at high risk of cardiopulmonary arrest. Int J Nurs Educ. 2016;8:142–147. doi: 10.5958/0974-9357.2016.00141.0
315.
Tomatis Souverbielle C, González-Martínez F, González-Sánchez MI, Carrón M, Guerra Miguez L, Butragueño L, Gonzalo H, Villalba T, Perez Moreno J, Toledo B, et al. Strengthening the chain of survival: cardiopulmonary resuscitation workshop for caregivers of children at risk. Pediatr Qual Saf. 2019;4:e141. doi: 10.1097/pq9.0000000000000141
316.
Varalakshmi E. Assess the effectiveness of training module on knowledge and skill in basic life support (BLS) among the care givers of clients. Int J Pharma Bio Sci. 2016;7:B574–B578.
317.
Lockey, A, Patocka, C, Lauridsen, K, Finn, J, Greif, T International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation Education, Implementation, and Teams Task Force. Are cardiac arrest patient outcomes improved as a result of a member of the resuscitation team attending an accredited advanced life support course. Updated March 14, 2022. Accessed March 15, 2022. https://costr.ilcor.org/document/are-cardiac-arrest-patient-outcomes-improved-as-a-result-of-a-member-of-the-resuscitation-team-having-attended-an-accredited-advanced-life-support-course-eit-4000
318.
Pareek M, Parmar V, Badheka J, Lodh N. Study of the impact of training of registered nurses in cardiopulmonary resuscitation in a tertiary care centre on patient mortality. Indian J Anaesth. 2018;62:381–384. doi: 10.4103/ija.IJA_17_18
319.
Carlo WA, Goudar SS, Jehan I, Chomba E, Tshefu A, Garces A, Parida S, Althabe F, McClure EM, Derman RJ, et al; First Breath Study Group. High mortality rates for very low birth weight infants in developing countries despite training. Pediatrics. 2010;126:e1072–e1080. doi: 10.1542/peds.2010-1183
320.
Carlo WA, Goudar SS, Jehan I, Chomba E, Tshefu A, Garces A, Parida S, Althabe F, McClure EM, Derman RJ, et al; First Breath Study Group. Newborn-care training and perinatal mortality in developing countries. N Engl J Med. 2010;362:614–623. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsa0806033
321.
Carlo WA, McClure EM, Chomba E, Chakraborty H, Hartwell T, Harris H, Lincetto O, Wright LL. Newborn care training of midwives and neonatal and perinatal mortality rates in a developing country. Pediatrics. 2010;126:e1064–e1071. doi: 10.1542/peds.2009-3464
322.
Chomba E, McClure EM, Wright LL, Carlo WA, Chakraborty H, Harris H. Effect of WHO newborn care training on neonatal mortality by education. Ambul Pediatr. 2008;8:300–304. doi: 10.1016/j.ambp.2008.04.006
323.
Deorari AK, Paul VK, Singh M, Vidyasagar D; Medical Colleges Network. Impact of education and training on neonatal resuscitation practices in 14 teaching hospitals in India. Ann Trop Paediatr. 2001;21:29–33.
324.
Matendo R, Engmann C, Ditekemena J, Gado J, Tshefu A, Kinoshita R, McClure EM, Moore J, Wallace D, Carlo WA, et al. Reduced perinatal mortality following enhanced training of birth attendants in the Democratic Republic of Congo: a time-dependent effect. BMC Med. 2011;9:93. doi: 10.1186/1741-7015-9-93
325.
Opiyo N, Were F, Govedi F, Fegan G, Wasunna A, English M. Effect of newborn resuscitation training on health worker practices in Pumwani Hospital, Kenya. PLoS One. 2008;3:e1599. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0001599
326.
Pammi M, Dempsey EM, Ryan CA, Barrington KJ. Newborn resuscitation training programmes reduce early neonatal mortality. Neonatology. 2016;110:210–224. doi: 10.1159/000443875
327.
Trevisanuto D, Bertuola F, Lanzoni P, Cavallin F, Matediana E, Manzungu OW, Gomez E, Da Dalt L, Putoto G. Effect of a neonatal resuscitation course on healthcare providers’ performances assessed by video recording in a low-resource setting. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0144443. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0144443
328.
Xu T, Wang H, Gong L, Ye H, Yu R, Wang D, Wang L, Feng Q, Lee HC, McGowan JE, et al. The impact of an intervention package promoting effective neonatal resuscitation training in rural China. Resuscitation. 2014;85:253–259. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2013.10.020
329.
Xu T, Wang HS, Ye HM, Yu RJ, Huang XH, Wang DH, Wang LX, Feng Q, Gong LM, Ma Y, et al. Impact of a nationwide training program for neonatal resuscitation in China. Chin Med J (Engl). 2012;125:1448–1456.
330.
Arabi AME, Ibrahim SA, Manar AR, Abdalla MS, Ahmed SE, Dempsey EP, Ryan CA. Perinatal outcomes following Helping Babies Breathe training and regular peer-peer skills practice among village midwives in Sudan. Arch Dis Child. 2018;103:24–27. doi: 10.1136/archdischild-2017-312809
331.
Bellad RM, Bang A, Carlo WA, McClure EM, Meleth S, Goco N, Goudar SS, Derman RJ, Hibberd PL, Patel A, et al; HBB Study Group. A pre-post study of a multi-country scale up of resuscitation training of facility birth attendants: does Helping Babies Breathe training save lives? BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2016;16:222. doi: 10.1186/s12884-016-0997-6
332.
Goudar SS, Somannavar MS, Clark R, Lockyer JM, Revankar AP, Fidler HM, Sloan NL, Niermeyer S, Keenan WJ, Singhal N. Stillbirth and newborn mortality in India after helping babies breathe training. Pediatrics. 2013;131:e344–e352. doi: 10.1542/peds.2012-2112
333.
Innerdal M, Simaga I, Diall H, Eielsen M, Niermeyer S, Eielsen O, Saugstad OD. Reduction in perinatal mortality after implementation of HBB training at a district hospital in Mali. J Trop Pediatr. 2020;66:315–321. doi: 10.1093/tropej/fmz072
334.
Kc A, Wrammert J, Clark RB, Ewald U, Vitrakoti R, Chaudhary P, Pun A, Raaijmakers H, Målqvist M. Reducing perinatal mortality in Nepal using Helping Babies Breathe. Pediatrics. 2016;137:e20150117. doi: 10.1542/peds.2015-0117
335.
Patel A, Bang A, Kurhe K, Bhargav S, Prakash A, Arramraj S, Hibberd PL. Comparison of perinatal outcomes in facilities before and after Global Network’s Helping Babies Breathe implementation study in Nagpur, India. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2019;19:324. doi: 10.1186/s12884-019-2480-7
336.
Patel A, Khatib MN, Kurhe K, Bhargava S, Bang A. Impact of neonatal resuscitation trainings on neonatal and perinatal mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Paediatr Open. 2017;1:e000183. doi: 10.1136/bmjpo-2017-000183
337.
Versantvoort JMD, Kleinhout MY, Ockhuijsen HDL, Bloemenkamp K, de Vries WB, van den Hoogen A. Helping Babies Breathe and its effects on intrapartum-related stillbirths and neonatal mortality in low-resource settings: a systematic review. Arch Dis Child. 2020;105:127–133. doi: 10.1136/archdischild-2018-316319
338.
Lockey A, Lin Y, Cheng A. Impact of adult advanced cardiac life support course participation on patient outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Resuscitation. 2018;129:48–54. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2018.05.034
339.
International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation. ILCOR Task Force ADOLOPMENT of existing publication: step by step guide. November 2019. Accessed March 4, 2022. https://www.ilcor.org/data/Task_Force_Adolopment_Instructions_v_2_2Nov2019SACapproved.docx
340.
Boo NY. Neonatal resuscitation programme in Malaysia: an eight-year experience. Singapore Med J. 2009;50:152–159.
341.
Jeffery HE, Kocova M, Tozija F, Gjorgiev D, Pop-Lazarova M, Foster K, Polverino J, Hill DA. The impact of evidence-based education on a perinatal capacity-building initiative in Macedonia. Med Educ. 2004;38:435–447. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2923.2004.01785.x
342.
O’Hare BA, Nakakeeto M, Southall DP. A pilot study to determine if nurses trained in basic neonatal resuscitation would impact the outcome of neonates delivered in Kampala, Uganda. J Trop Pediatr. 2006;52:376–379. doi: 10.1093/tropej/fml027
343.
Sorensen BL, Rasch V, Massawe S, Nyakina J, Elsass P, Nielsen BB. Impact of ALSO training on the management of prolonged labor and neonatal care at Kagera Regional Hospital, Tanzania. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2010;111:8–12. doi: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2010.04.031
344.
Zhu XY, Fang HQ, Zeng SP, Li YM, Lin HL, Shi SZ. The impact of the neonatal resuscitation program guidelines (NRPG) on the neonatal mortality in a hospital in Zhuhai, China. Singapore Med J. 1997;38:485–487.
345.
Vakrilova L, Elleau Ch, Slŭncheva B. French-Bulgarian program “Resuscitation of the newborn in a delivery room”: results and perspectives [in Bulgarian]. Akush Ginekol (Sofiia). 2005;44:35–40.
346.
Vossius C, Lotto E, Lyanga S, Mduma E, Msemo G, Perlman J, Ersdal HL. Cost-effectiveness of the “Helping Babies Breathe” program in a missionary hospital in rural Tanzania. PLoS One. 2014;9:e102080. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0102080
347.
Hole MK, Olmsted K, Kiromera A, Chamberlain L. A neonatal resuscitation curriculum in Malawi, Africa: did it change in-hospital mortality? Int J Pediatr. 2012;2012:408689. doi: 10.1155/2012/408689
348.
Zehry K, Halder N, Theodosiou L. E-learning in medical education in the United Kingdom. Procedia Soc Behav Sci. 2011;15:3163–3167.
349.
Gordon M, Patricio M, Horne L, Muston A, Alston SR, Pammi M, Thammasitboon S, Park S, Pawlikowska T, Rees EL, et al. Developments in medical education in response to the COVID-19 pandemic: a rapid BEME systematic review: BEME Guide No. 63. Med Teach. 2020;42:1202–1215. doi: 10.1080/0142159X.2020.1807484
350.
Kent F, George J, Lindley J, Brock T. Virtual workshops to preserve interprofessional collaboration when physical distancing. Med Educ. 2020;54:661–662. doi: 10.1111/medu.14179
351.
Theoret C, Ming X. Our education, our concerns: medical student education impact due to COVID-19. Med Educ. 2020;54:591–592. doi: 10.1111/medu.14181
352.
Tsang ACO, Lee PP-W, Chen JY, Leung GKK. From bedside to webside: a neurological clinical teaching experience. Med Educ. 2020;54:600. doi: 10.1111/medu.14175
353.
Greif R, Bhanji F, Bigham BL, Bray J, Breckwoldt J, Cheng A, Duff JP, Gilfoyle E, Hsieh MJ, Iwami T, et al. Education, implementation, and teams: 2020 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations. Circ. 2020;142(suppl 1):S222–S283. doi: 10.1161/CIR.000000000000089
354.
Elgohary M, Palazzo FS, Breckwoldt J, Cheng A, Pellegrino J, Schnaubelt S, Greif R, Lockey A. Blended learning for accredited life support: a systematic review. Resusc Plus. 2022;10:100240. doi: 10.1016/j.resplu.2022.100240
355.
Lockey, A, Breckwoldt, J, Cheng, A, Pellogrino, J, Schnaubelt, S, Elgohary, M, Palazzo, F, Finn, J, Greif, T; International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation Education, Implementation, and Teams Task Force. Are participant educational outcomes improved as a result of a blended learning approach for life support education. 2022. Updated March 4, 2022. Accessed March 15, 2022. https://costr.ilcor.org/document/blended-learning-approach-for-life-support-education
356.
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
357.
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
358.
Deleted in proof.
359.
Nord A, Svensson L, Claesson A, Herlitz J, Hult H, Kreitz-Sandberg S, Nilsson L. The effect of a national web course “Help-Brain-Heart” as a supplemental learning tool before CPR training: a cluster randomised trial. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2017;25:93. doi: 10.1186/s13049-017-0439-0
360.
Shavit I, Peled S, Steiner IP, Harley DD, Ross S, Tal-Or E, Lemire A. Comparison of outcomes of two skills‐teaching methods on lay‐rescuers’ acquisition of infant basic life support skills. Acad Emerg Med. 2010;17:979–986. doi: 10.1111/j.1553-2712.2010.00849.x
361.
Castillo J, Gallart A, Rodríguez E, Castillo J, Gomar C. Basic life support and external defibrillation competences after instruction and at 6 months comparing face-to-face and blended training: randomised trial. Nurse Educ Today. 2018;65:232–238. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2018.03.008
362.
Chien CY, Fang SY, Tsai LH, Tsai SL, Chen CB, Seak CJ, Weng YM, Lin CC, Chien WC, Huang CH, et al. Traditional versus blended CPR training program: a randomized controlled non-inferiority study. Sci Rep. 2020;10:10032. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-67193-1
363.
Castillo García J, Cerdà Vila M, de Balanzó Fernández X, Ferrés-Amat E, Rodríguez Higueras E. Standard basic life support training of the European Resuscitation Council versus blended training: a randomized trial of a new teaching method. Emergencias. 2020;32:45–48.
364.
Nakanishi T, Goto T, Kobuchi T, Kimura T, Hayashi H, Tokuda Y. The effects of flipped learning for bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation on undergraduate medical students. Int J Med Educ. 2017;8:430–436. doi: 10.5116/ijme.5a2b.ae56
365.
Nishiyama C, Iwami T, Kawamura T, Ando M, Yonemoto N, Hiraide A, Nonogi H. Effectiveness of simplified chest compression-only CPR training for the general public: a randomized controlled trial. Resuscitation. 2008;79:90–96. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2008.05.009
366.
Serwetnyk TM, Filmore K, VonBacho S, Cole R, Miterko C, Smith C, Smith CM. Comparison of online and traditional basic life support renewal training methods for registered professional nurses. J Nurses Prof Dev. 2015;31:E1–E10. doi: 10.1097/NND.0000000000000201
367.
Sopka S, Biermann H, Rossaint R, Knott S, Skorning M, Brokmann JC, Heussen N, Beckers SK. Evaluation of a newly developed media-supported 4-step approach for basic life support training. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2012;20:37. doi: 10.1186/1757-7241-20-37
368.
Perkins GD, Fullerton JN, Davis-Gomez N, Davies RP, Baldock C, Stevens H, Bullock I, Lockey AS. The effect of pre-course e-learning prior to advanced life support training: a randomised controlled trial. Resuscitation. 2010;81:877–881. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2010.03.019
369.
Dyer L, Llerena L, Brannick M, Lunde JR, Whitaker F. Advanced trauma life support course delivery: comparison of outcomes from modifications during COVID-19. Cureus. 2021;13:e16811. doi: 10.7759/cureus.16811
370.
Castillo J, Gomar C, Rodriguez E, Trapero M, Gallart A. Cost minimization analysis for basic life support. Resuscitation. 2019;134:127–132. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2018.11.008
371.
Szyld EG, Aguilar A, Lloret SP, Pardo A, Fabres J, Castro A, Dannaway D, Desai PV, Capelli C, Song CH, et al; EdM on behalf of the SAVER Study Group. Self-directed video versus instructor-based neonatal resuscitation training: a randomized controlled blinded non-inferiority multicenter international study. J Perinatol. 2021;41:1583–1589. doi: 10.1038/s41372-021-00941-x
372.
Arithra Abdullah A, Nor J, Baladas J, Tg Hamzah TMA, Tuan Kamauzaman TH, Md Noh AY, Rahman A. E-learning in advanced cardiac life support: outcome and attitude among healthcare professionals. Hong Kong J Emerg Med. 2019;27:328–333.
373.
Chaves J, Lorca-Marín AA, Delgado-Algarra EJ. Methodology of specialist physicians training: from traditional to e-learning. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17:E7681. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17207681
374.
George PP, Ooi CK, Leong E, Jarbrink K, Car J, Lockwood C. Return on investment in blended advanced cardiac life support training compared to face-to-face training in Singapore. Proc Singapore Healthc. 2018;27:234–242.
375.
Ko PY, Scott JM, Mihai A, Grant WD. Comparison of a modified longitudinal simulation-based advanced cardiovascular life support to a traditional advanced cardiovascular life support curriculum in third-year medical students. Teach Learn Med. 2011;23:324–330. doi: 10.1080/10401334.2011.611763
376.
Lockey AS, Dyal L, Kimani PK, Lam J, Bullock I, Buck D, Davies RP, Perkins GD. Electronic learning in advanced resuscitation training: the perspective of the candidate. Resuscitation. 2015;97:48–54. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2015.09.391
377.
Perkins GD, Kimani PK, Bullock I, Clutton-Brock T, Davies RP, Gale M, Lam J, Lockey A, Stallard N; Electronic Advanced Life Support Collaborators. Improving the efficiency of advanced life support training: a randomized, controlled trial. Ann Intern Med. 2012;157:19–28. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-157-1-201207030-00005
378.
Thorne CJ, Lockey AS, Bullock I, Hampshire S, Begum-Ali S, Perkins GD; Advanced Life Support Subcommittee of the Resuscitation Council (UK). E-learning in advanced life support: an evaluation by the Resuscitation Council (UK). Resuscitation. 2015;90:79–84. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2015.02.026
379.
Hsieh MJ, Ko YC, Cheng A, Glerup Lauridsen K, Sawyer TL, Greif R; International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation Education, Implementation, and Teams Task Force. Faculty development approaches for life support courses: a scoping review. J Am Heart Assoc. 2022;11:e025661. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.122.025661
380.
Hsieh, MJ, Ko, YC, Cheng, A, Glerup Lauridsen, K, Sawyer, TL, Greif, R; on behalf of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation Education I, and Teams Task Force. Faculty development approaches for life support courses: a scoping review and task force insights. Updated January 7, 2022. Accessed March 15, 2022. https://costr.ilcor.org/document/faculty-development-approaches-for-life-support-courses-a-scoping-review.
381.
Al-Rasheed RS, Devine J, Dunbar-Viveiros JA, Jones MS, Dannecker M, Machan JT, Jay GD, Kobayashi L. Simulation intervention with manikin-based objective metrics improves CPR instructor chest compression performance skills without improvement in chest compression assessment skills. Simul Healthc. 2013;8:242–252. doi: 10.1097/SIH.0b013e31828e716d
382.
Amin HJ, Aziz K, Halamek LP, Beran TN. Simulation-based learning combined with debriefing: trainers satisfaction with a new approach to training the trainers to teach neonatal resuscitation. BMC Res Notes. 2013;6:251. doi: 10.1186/1756-0500-6-251
383.
Baldwin LJ, Jones CM, Hulme J, Owen A. Use of the learning conversation improves instructor confidence in life support training: an open randomised controlled cross-over trial comparing teaching feedback mechanisms. Resuscitation. 2015;96:199–207. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2015.08.010
384.
Benthem Y, Van De Pol E, Van Goor H, Tan E. Effects of train the trainer course on the quality and feedback in a basis life support course for first year medical students: a randomized controlled trial. Resuscitation. 2012;83:e103. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2012.08.266
385.
Breckwoldt J, Svensson J, Lingemann C, Gruber H. Does clinical teacher training always improve teaching effectiveness as opposed to no teacher training? A randomized controlled study. BMC Med Educ. 2014;14:6. doi: 10.1186/1472-6920-14-6
386.
Cheng A, Hunt EA, Donoghue A, Nelson-McMillan K, Nishisaki A, Leflore J, Eppich W, Moyer M, Brett-Fleegler M, Kleinman M, et al; EXPRESS Investigators. Examining pediatric resuscitation education using simulation and scripted debriefing: a multicenter randomized trial. JAMA Pediatr. 2013;167:528–536. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2013.1389
387.
Einspruch EL, Lembach J, Lynch B, Lee W, Harper R, Fleischman RJ. Basic life support instructor training: comparison of instructor-led and self-guided training. J Nurses Staff Dev. 2011;27:E4–E9. doi: 10.1097/NND.0b013e318217b421
388.
Feltes M, Becker J, McCall N, Mbanjumucyo G, Sivasankar S, Wang NE. Teaching how to teach in a train-the-trainer program. J Grad Med Educ. 2019;11(suppl):202–204. doi: 10.4300/JGME-D-18-01014
389.
Goldman SL, Thompson B, Whitcomb J. A new evaluation method for instructors of advanced cardiac life support. Resuscitation. 1986;14:163–169. doi: 10.1016/0300-9572(86)90121-8
390.
Herrero P, Baron M, Sojo J, Abad F, Lopez-Messa J. Introducing a new training tool for instructors courses. Resuscitation. 2010;81:S106. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2010.09.433
391.
Ismail A, AlRayyes M, Shatat M, Al Hafi R, Heszlein-Lossius H, Veronese G, Gilbert M. Medical students can be trained to be life-saving first aid instructors for laypeople: a feasibility study from Gaza, Occupied Palestinian Territory. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2019;34:604–609. doi: 10.1017/S1049023X19005004
392.
Kim EJ, Roh YS. Competence-based training needs assessment for basic life support instructors. Nurs Health Sci. 2019;21:198–205. doi: 10.1111/nhs.12581
393.
López-Herce J, Carrillo A, Urbano J, Manrique G, Mencía YS; Grupo Madrileño de Cuidados Intensivos Pediátricos. Evaluation of the pediatric life support instructors courses. BMC Med Educ. 2021;21:71. doi: 10.1186/s12909-021-02504-2
394.
Nallamilli S, Alderman J, Ainsley K, Jones C, Hulme J. Introduction and perceived effectiveness of a novel skillmeter training programme for training in basic life support. Resuscitation. 2012;83:e40. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2012.08.101
395.
Pollock L, Jefferis O, Dube Q, Kadewa R. “I am the nurse who does IO!”: impact of a “training of trainers” paediatric resuscitation training programme in Malawi. Arch Dis Child. 2011;96:A75. doi: 10.1136/adc.2011.212563.175
396.
Rajapakse BN, Neeman T, Dawson AH. The effectiveness of a “train the trainer” model of resuscitation education for rural peripheral hospital doctors in Sri Lanka. PLoS One. 2013;8:e79491. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0079491
397.
Thorne CJ, Jones CM, Coffin NJ, Hulme J, Owen A. Structured training in assessment increases confidence amongst basic life support instructors. Resuscitation. 2015;93:58–62. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2015.05.028
398.
Thorne CJ, Jones CM, Harvey P, Hulme J, Owen A. An analysis of the introduction and efficacy of a novel training programme for ERC basic life support assessors. Resuscitation. 2013;84:526–529. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2012.09.030
399.
Wada M, Tamura M. Training of neonatal cardiopulmonary resuscitation instructors. Pediatr Int. 2015;57:629–632. doi: 10.1111/ped.12683
400.
Yamahata Y, Ohta B, Irie J, Takebe K. Instructors must be trained the ability to evaluate chest compressions. Resuscitation. 2014;85:S49. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2014.03.125
401.
Douma MJ, Handley AJ, MacKenzie E, Raitt J, Orkin A, Berry D, Bendall J, O’Dochartaigh D, Picard C, Carlson JN, et al. The recovery position for maintenance of adequate ventilation and the prevention of cardiac arrest: a systematic review. Resusc Plus. 2022;10:100236. doi: 10.1016/j.resplu.2022.100236
402.
Douma, MJ, Handley, AJ, MacKenzie, E, Raitt, J, Orkin, A, Bendall, J, Picard, C, Singletary, E, Zideman, DA, Berry, DC, et al. The recovery position for maintenance of adequate ventilation and the prevention of cardiac arrest: a systematic review. Updated January 24, 2022. Accessed February 14, 2022. https://costr.ilcor.org/document/fa-517-recovery-position.
403.
Adnet F, Borron SW, Finot MA, Minadeo J, Baud FJ. Relation of body position at the time of discovery with suspected aspiration pneumonia in poisoned comatose patients. Crit Care Med. 1999;27:745–748. doi: 10.1097/00003246-199904000-00028
404.
Julliand S, Desmarest M, Gonzalez L, Ballestero Y, Martinez A, Moretti R, Rivas A, Lacroix L, Biver A, Lejay E, et al. Recovery position significantly associated with a reduced admission rate of children with loss of consciousness. Arch Dis Child. 2016;101:521–526. doi: 10.1136/archdischild-2015-308857
405.
Wagner P, Schloesser S, Braun J, Arntz HR, Breckwoldt J. In out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, is the positioning of victims by bystanders adequate for CPR? A cohort study. BMJ Open. 2020;10:e037676. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-037676
406.
Freire-Tellado M, Pavón-Prieto Mdel P, Fernández-López M, Navarro-Patón R. Does the recovery position threaten cardiac arrest victim’s safety assessment? Resuscitation. 2016;105:e1. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2016.01.040
407.
Kloster R, Engelskjøn T. Sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP): a clinical perspective and a search for risk factors. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1999;67:439–444. doi: 10.1136/jnnp.67.4.439
408.
Ryvlin P, Nashef L, Lhatoo SD, Bateman LM, Bird J, Bleasel A, Boon P, Crespel A, Dworetzky BA, Høgenhaven H, et al. Incidence and mechanisms of cardiorespiratory arrests in epilepsy monitoring units (MORTEMUS): a retrospective study. Lancet Neurol. 2013;12:966–977. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(13)70214-X
409.
Verducci C, Hussain F, Donner E, Moseley BD, Buchhalter J, Hesdorffer D, Friedman D, Devinsky O. SUDEP in the North American SUDEP Registry: the full spectrum of epilepsies. Neurology. 2019;93:e227–e236. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000007778
410.
Singletary EM, Zideman DA, 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. Circulation. 2015;132(suppl 1):S269–S311. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000278
411.
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
412.
Freire-Tellado M, Navarro-Patón R, Pavón-Prieto MDP, Fernández-López M, Mateos-Lorenzo J, López-Fórneas I. Does lying in the recovery position increase the likelihood of not delivering cardiopulmonary resuscitation? Resuscitation. 2017;115:173–177. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2017.03.008
413.
Navarro-Patón R, Freire-Tellado M, Fernández-González N, Basanta-Camiño S, Mateos-Lorenzo J, Lago-Ballesteros J. What is the best position to place and re-evaluate an unconscious but normally breathing victim? A randomised controlled human simulation trial on children. Resuscitation. 2019;134:104–109. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2018.10.030
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Copyright
© 2022 American Heart Association, Inc.
Versions
You are viewing the most recent version of this article.
History
Published online: 3 November 2022
Published in print: 20 December 2022
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.