Search

For this 2020 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations , the Education, Implementation, and Teams Task Force applied the population, intervention, comparator, outcome, study design, time frame format and performed 15 systematic reviews, applying the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation guidance. Furthermore, 4 scoping reviews and 7 evidence updates assessed any new evidence to determine if a change in any existing treatment recommendation was required. The topics covered included training for the treatment of opioid overdose; basic life support, including automated external defibrillator training; measuring implementation and performance in communities, and cardiac arrest centers; advanced life support training, including team and leadership training and rapid response teams; measuring cardiopulmonary resuscitation performance, feedback devices, and debriefing; and the use of social media to improve cardiopulmonary resuscitation application.

The International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation has initiated a continuous review of new, peer-reviewed, published cardiopulmonary resuscitation science. This is the third annual summary of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations. It addresses the most recent published resuscitation evidence reviewed by International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation Task Force science experts. This summary addresses the role of cardiac arrest centers and dispatcher-assisted cardiopulmonary resuscitation, the role of extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation in adults and children, vasopressors in adults, advanced airway interventions in adults and children, targeted temperature management in children after cardiac arrest, initial oxygen concentration during resuscitation of newborns, and interventions for presyncope by first aid providers. Members from 6 International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation task forces have assessed, discussed, and debated the certainty of the evidence on the basis of the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria, and their statements include consensus treatment recommendations. Insights into the deliberations of the task forces are provided in the Justification and Evidence to Decision Framework Highlights sections. The task forces also listed priority knowledge gaps for further research.

Current evidence demonstrates considerable variability in cardiac arrest survival in and out of hospital and, therefore, substantial opportunity to save many more lives.1–3 The Formula for Survival4 postulates that optimal survival from cardiac arrest requires high-quality science, education of lay providers and healthcare professionals, and a well-functioning Chain of Survival5 (implementation). The Education, Implementation, and Teams (EIT) Task Force of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR) set out to define the key PICO (population, intervention, comparator, outcome) questions related to resuscitation education (including teamwork skills) and systems-level implementation that would be reviewed by 2015. The selection of questions was supported through the use of an online anonymous task force member–only voting process where the results were considered in the ultimate consensus decisions of the task force. Topics from the 2010 evidence review process were scrutinized for relevance, the potential to improve outcomes, and the likelihood of new evidence being published since 2010. Finally, PICO questions for which the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) process was not as well developed at the time of PICO selection were deferred until at least after the 2015 cycle. We planned to reduce the total number of PICO questions reviewed to provide more in-depth and evidence-based reviews of the included questions. New topics were determined on the basis of the evolving literature and changes in resuscitation practice. Input on the selection of PICO questions was sought from the general public through the ILCOR website and from ILCOR member resuscitation councils through their council chairs and individual task force members. The EIT Task Force performed detailed systematic reviews based on the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies6 and using the methodological approach proposed by the …