Search

This is the eighth annual summary of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations; a more comprehensive review was done in 2020. This latest summary addresses the most recent published resuscitation evidence reviewed by the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation task force science experts. Members from 6 International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation task forces have assessed, discussed, and debated the quality of the evidence, using 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. In addition, the task forces list priority knowledge gaps for further research.

The International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation engages in a continuous review of new, peer-reviewed, published cardiopulmonary resuscitation and first aid science. Draft Consensus on Science With Treatment Recommendations are posted online throughout the year, and this annual summary provides more concise versions of the final Consensus on Science With Treatment Recommendations from all task forces for the year. Topics addressed by systematic reviews this year include resuscitation of cardiac arrest from drowning, extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation for adults and children, calcium during cardiac arrest, double sequential defibrillation, neuroprognostication after cardiac arrest for adults and children, maintaining normal temperature after preterm birth, heart rate monitoring methods for diagnostics in neonates, detection of exhaled carbon dioxide in neonates, family presence during resuscitation of adults, and a stepwise approach to resuscitation skills training. Members from 6 International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation task forces have assessed, discussed, and debated the quality of the evidence, using 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. In addition, the task forces list priority knowledge gaps for further research. Additional topics are addressed with scoping reviews and evidence updates., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

The International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation engages in a continuous review of new, peer-reviewed, published cardiopulmonary resuscitation and first aid science. Draft Consensus on Science With Treatment Recommendations are posted online throughout the year, and this annual summary provides more concise versions of the final Consensus on Science With Treatment Recommendations from all task forces for the year. Topics addressed by systematic reviews this year include resuscitation of cardiac arrest from drowning, extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation for adults and children, calcium during cardiac arrest, double sequential defibrillation, neuroprognostication after cardiac arrest for adults and children, maintaining normal temperature after preterm birth, heart rate monitoring methods for diagnostics in neonates, detection of exhaled carbon dioxide in neonates, family presence during resuscitation of adults, and a stepwise approach to resuscitation skills training. Members from 6 International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation task forces have assessed, discussed, and debated the quality of the evidence, using 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. In addition, the task forces list priority knowledge gaps for further research. Additional topics are addressed with scoping reviews and evidence updates.

Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Competing Interests: Disclosures Dr Chan has received research funding from the American Heart Association (AHA) and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI). Dr Djärv is the chair of Swedish Resuscitation Council and the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR) First Aid Task Force. A. Doll is employed by the Resuscitation Academy. Dr Edelson has equity interest and employment in AgileMD. Dr Girotra receives funding from the National Institutes of Health (R01HL160734, R56HL158803, and R01HL166305). He also receives a stipend from AHA for editorial work. Dr Greif is chair of ILCOR Education, Implementation and Team Task Force and the European Resuscitation Council board birector of guidelines. Dr Lauridsen serves as an ERC Science and Education Committee member and member of the ILCOR EIT Task Force. Dr Moskowitz receives funding from NHLBI (R33HL162980). M.C. Myburgh serves on the ILCOR Pediatric Task Force. Dr Neumar is the ILCOR cochair. J.P. Nolan is the editor in chief of Resuscitation and receives National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) grant funding. Dr Olasveengen is a board member of the Laerdal Foundation. Dr Perkins receives grant funding from the NIHR Applied Research Collaboration West Midlands, Resuscitation Council United Kingdom, Laerdal Foundation, and the British Heart Foundation and serves on the boards for the European Resuscitation Council, Resuscitation Council UK, ILCOR, and University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire. He also serves as an editor for Resuscitation and Resuscitation Plus. J.K. Previdi serves as the AHA Emergency Cardiovascular Care Committee chair and is an AHA product consultant. Dr Vaillancourt is a member of the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada Resuscitation Advisory Committee and receives funding from The Ottawa Hospital Academic Medical Organization. Dr Montgomery serves as the ILCOR consultant. Dr Sasson is employed by AHA. Dr Nallamothu has been a principal investigator or coinvestigator on research grants from the NIH, AHA, Janssen, and Apple, Inc. He also receives compensation as an editor in chief of Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes. Finally, he is a coinventor on the US Utility Patent Number US15/356012 (US20170148158A1) entitled “Automated Analysis of Vasculature in Coronary Angiograms” that uses software technology with signal processing and machine learning to automate the reading of coronary angiograms, held by the University of Michigan. The patent is licensed to AngioInsight, Inc, in which he holds ownership shares and receives consultancy fees. Dr Nadkarni receives research funding to his institution from the National Institutes of Health, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, US Department of Defense, American Heart Association, Zoll Medical, RQI Partners, and Laerdal Foundation; he also serves as the President of the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) 2023-2024. The views expressed in the manuscript are his, and not intended to represent the views of the SCCM. The other authors report no conflicts.

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., (Copyright © 2023 by the American Academy of Pediatrics.)

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.

The International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation initiated a continuous review of new, peer-reviewed published cardiopulmonary resuscitation science. This is the fifth annual summary of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations; a more comprehensive review was done in 2020. This latest summary addresses the most recently published resuscitation evidence reviewed by International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation task force science experts. Topics covered by systematic reviews in this summary include resuscitation topics of video-based dispatch systems; head-up cardiopulmonary resuscitation; early coronary angiography after return of spontaneous circulation; cardiopulmonary resuscitation in the prone patient; cord management at birth for preterm and term infants; devices for administering positive-pressure ventilation at birth; family presence during neonatal resuscitation; self-directed, digitally based basic life support education and training in adults and children; coronavirus disease 2019 infection risk to rescuers from patients in cardiac arrest; and first aid topics, including cooling with water for thermal burns, oral rehydration for exertional dehydration, pediatric tourniquet use, and methods of tick removal. Members from 6 International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation task forces have assessed, discussed, and debated the quality of the evidence, according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria, and their statements include consensus treatment recommendations or good practice statements. Insights into the deliberations of the task forces are provided in Justification and Evidence-to-Decision Framework Highlights sections. In addition, the task forces listed priority knowledge gaps for further research.

The International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation initiated a continuous review of new, peer-reviewed published cardiopulmonary resuscitation science. This is the fifth annual summary of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations; a more comprehensive review was done in 2020. This latest summary addresses the most recently published resuscitation evidence reviewed by International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation task force science experts. Topics covered by systematic reviews in this summary include resuscitation topics of video-based dispatch systems; head-up cardiopulmonary resuscitation; early coronary angiography after return of spontaneous circulation; cardiopulmonary resuscitation in the prone patient; cord management at birth for preterm and term infants; devices for administering positive-pressure ventilation at birth; family presence during neonatal resuscitation; self-directed, digitally based basic life support education and training in adults and children; coronavirus disease 2019 infection risk to rescuers from patients in cardiac arrest; and first aid topics, including cooling with water for thermal burns, oral rehydration for exertional dehydration, pediatric tourniquet use, and methods of tick removal. Members from 6 International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation task forces have assessed, discussed, and debated the quality of the evidence, according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria, and their statements include consensus treatment recommendations or good practice statements. Insights into the deliberations of the task forces are provided in Justification and Evidence-to-Decision Framework Highlights sections. In addition, the task forces listed priority knowledge gaps for further research., (Copyright © 2021 European Resuscitation Council, American Heart Association, Inc. and International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Brain death has been accepted worldwide medically and legally as the biological state of death of the organism. Nevertheless, the literature has described persistent problems with this acceptance ever since brain death was described. Many of these problems are not widely known or properly understood by much of the medical community. Here we aim to clarify these issues, based on the two intractable problems in the brain death debates. First, the metaphysical problem: there is no reason that withstands critical scrutiny to believe that BD is the state of biological death of the human organism. Second, the epistemic problem: there is no way currently to diagnose the state of BD, the irreversible loss of all brain functions, using clinical tests and ancillary tests, given potential confounders to testing. We discuss these problems and their main objections and conclude that these problems are intractable in that there has been no acceptable solution offered other than bare assertions of an 'operational definition' of death. We present possible ways to move forward that accept both the metaphysical problem - that BD is not biological death of the human organism - and the epistemic problem - that as currently diagnosed, BD is a devastating neurological state where recovery of sentience is very unlikely, but not a confirmed state of irreversible loss of all [critical] brain functions. We argue that the best solution is to abandon the dead donor rule, thus allowing vital organ donation from patients currently diagnosed as BD, assuming appropriate changes are made to the consent process and to laws about killing., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

This 2020 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations (CoSTR) for pediatric life support is based on the most extensive evidence evaluation ever performed by the Pediatric Life Support Task Force. Three types of evidence evaluation were used in this review: systematic reviews, scoping reviews, and evidence updates. Per agreement with the evidence evaluation recommendations of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation, only systematic reviews could result in a new or revised treatment recommendation.Systematic reviews performed for this 2020 CoSTR for pediatric life support included the topics of sequencing of airway-breaths-compressions versus compressions-airway-breaths in the delivery of pediatric basic life support, the initial timing and dose intervals for epinephrine administration during resuscitation, and the targets for oxygen and carbon dioxide levels in pediatric patients after return of spontaneous circulation. The most controversial topics included the initial timing and dose intervals of epinephrine administration (new treatment recommendations were made) and the administration of fluid for infants and children with septic shock (this latter topic was evaluated by evidence update). All evidence reviews identified the paucity of pediatric data and the need for more research involving resuscitation of infants and children., (© 2020 American Heart Association, Inc. Reprinted with permission of the American Heart Association, Inc. This article has been published in Circulation. https://www.ahajournals.org/journal/circ.)

This 2020 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations (CoSTR) for pediatric life support is based on the most extensive evidence evaluation ever performed by the Pediatric Life Support Task Force. Three types of evidence evaluation were used in this review: systematic reviews, scoping reviews, and evidence updates. Per agreement with the evidence evaluation recommendations of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation, only systematic reviews could result in a new or revised treatment recommendation. Systematic reviews performed for this 2020 CoSTR for pediatric life support included the topics of sequencing of airway-breaths-compressions versus compressions-airway-breaths in the delivery of pediatric basic life support, the initial timing and dose intervals for epinephrine administration during resuscitation, and the targets for oxygen and carbon dioxide levels in pediatric patients after return of spontaneous circulation. The most controversial topics included the initial timing and dose intervals of epinephrine administration (new treatment recommendations were made) and the administration of fluid for infants and children with septic shock (this latter topic was evaluated by evidence update). All evidence reviews identified the paucity of pediatric data and the need for more research involving resuscitation of infants and children., (Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

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.

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., (Copyright © 2019 European Resuscitation Council and American Heart Association, Inc. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

The International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation has initiated a continuous review of new, peer-reviewed, published cardiopulmonary resuscitation science. This is the second annual summary of International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations that includes the most recent cardiopulmonary resuscitation science reviewed by the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation. This summary addresses the role of antiarrhythmic drugs in adults and children and includes the Advanced Life Support Task Force and Pediatric Task Force consensus statements, which summarize the most recent published evidence and an assessment of the quality of the evidence based on Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria. The statements include consensus treatment recommendations approved by members of the relevant task forces. Insights into the deliberations of each task force are provided in the Values and Preferences and Task Force Insights sections. Finally, the task force members have listed the top knowledge gaps for further research.

Objectives: Pediatric in-hospital cardiac arrest cardiopulmonary resuscitation quality metrics have been reported in few children less than 8 years. Our objective was to characterize chest compression fraction, rate, depth, and compliance with 2015 American Heart Association guidelines across multiple pediatric hospitals., Design: Retrospective observational study of data from a multicenter resuscitation quality collaborative from October 2015 to April 2017., Setting: Twelve pediatric hospitals across United States, Canada, and Europe., Patients: In-hospital cardiac arrest patients (age < 18 yr) with quantitative cardiopulmonary resuscitation data recordings., Interventions: None., Measurements and Main Results: There were 112 events yielding 2,046 evaluable 60-second epochs of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (196,669 chest compression). Event cardiopulmonary resuscitation metric summaries (median [interquartile range]) by age: less than 1 year (38/112): chest compression fraction 0.88 (0.61-0.98), chest compression rate 119/min (110-129), and chest compression depth 2.3 cm (1.9-3.0 cm); for 1 to less than 8 years (42/112): chest compression fraction 0.94 (0.79-1.00), chest compression rate 117/min (110-124), and chest compression depth 3.8 cm (2.9-4.6 cm); for 8 to less than 18 years (32/112): chest compression fraction 0.94 (0.85-1.00), chest compression rate 117/min (110-123), chest compression depth 5.5 cm (4.0-6.5 cm). "Compliance" with guideline targets for 60-second chest compression "epochs" was predefined: chest compression fraction greater than 0.80, chest compression rate 100-120/min, and chest compression depth: greater than or equal to 3.4 cm in less than 1 year, greater than or equal to 4.4 cm in 1 to less than 8 years, and 4.5 to less than 6.6 cm in 8 to less than 18 years. Proportion of less than 1 year, 1 to less than 8 years, and 8 to less than 18 years events with greater than or equal to 60% of 60-second epochs meeting compliance (respectively): chest compression fraction was 53%, 81%, and 78%; chest compression rate was 32%, 50%, and 63%; chest compression depth was 13%, 19%, and 44%. For all events combined, total compliance (meeting all three guideline targets) was 10% (11/112)., Conclusions: Across an international pediatric resuscitation collaborative, we characterized the landscape of pediatric in-hospital cardiac arrest chest compression quality metrics and found that they often do not meet 2015 American Heart Association guidelines. Guideline compliance for rate and depth in children less than 18 years is poor, with the greatest difficulty in achieving chest compression depth targets in younger children.

This focused update to the American Heart Association guidelines for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and emergency cardiovascular care follows the Pediatric Task Force of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation evidence review. It aligns with the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation's continuous evidence review process, and updates are published when the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation completes a literature review based on new science. This update provides the evidence review and treatment recommendation for chest compression-only CPR versus CPR using chest compressions with rescue breaths for children <18 years of age. Four large database studies were available for review, including 2 published after the "2015 American Heart Association Guidelines Update for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care." Two demonstrated worse 30-day outcomes with chest compression-only CPR for children 1 through 18 years of age, whereas 2 studies documented no difference between chest compression-only CPR and CPR using chest compressions with rescue breaths. When the results were analyzed for infants <1 year of age, CPR using chest compressions with rescue breaths was better than no CPR but was no different from chest compression-only CPR in 1 study, whereas another study observed no differences among chest compression-only CPR, CPR using chest compressions with rescue breaths, and no CPR. CPR using chest compressions with rescue breaths should be provided for infants and children in cardiac arrest. If bystanders are unwilling or unable to deliver rescue breaths, we recommend that rescuers provide chest compressions for infants and children., Competing Interests: The American Heart Association makes every effort to avoid any actual or potential conflicts of interest that may arise as a result of an outside relationship or a personal, professional, or business interest of a member of the writing panel. Specifically, all members of the writing group are required to complete and submit a Disclosure Questionnaire showing all such relationships that might be perceived as real or potential conflicts of interest., (© 2017 American Heart Association, Inc.)

The International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation has initiated a near-continuous review of cardiopulmonary resuscitation science that replaces the previous 5-year cyclic batch-and-queue approach process. This is the first of an annual series of International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations summary articles that will include the cardiopulmonary resuscitation science reviewed by the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation in the previous year. The review this year includes 5 basic life support and 1 pediatric Consensuses on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations. Each of these includes a summary of the science and its quality based on Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria and treatment recommendations. Insights into the deliberations of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation task force members are provided in Values and Preferences sections. Finally, the task force members have prioritized and listed the top 3 knowledge gaps for each population, intervention, comparator, and outcome question., Competing Interests: The American Heart Association makes every effort to avoid any actual or potential conflicts of interest that may arise as a result of an outside relationship or a personal, professional, or business interest of a member of the writing panel. Specifically, all members of the writing group are required to complete and submit a Disclosure Questionnaire showing all such relationships that might be perceived as real or potential conflicts of interest., (© 2017 American Heart Association, Inc., and European Resuscitation Council.)

Aim: To compare the effectiveness of different compression-to-ventilation methods during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) in patients with cardiac arrest., Methods: We searched MEDLINE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception until January 2016. We included experimental, quasi-experimental, and observational studies that compared different chest compression-to-ventilation ratios during CPR for all patients and assessed at least one of the following outcomes: favourable neurological outcomes, survival, return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), and quality of life. Two reviewers independently screened literature search results, abstracted data, and appraised the risk of bias. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted separately for randomised and non-randomised studies, as well as study characteristics, such as CPR provider., Results: After screening 5703 titles and abstracts and 229 full-text articles, we included 41 studies, of which 13 were companion reports. For adults receiving bystander or dispatcher-instructed CPR, no significant differences were observed across all comparisons and outcomes. Significantly less adults receiving bystander-initiated or plus dispatcher-instructed compression-only CPR experienced favourable neurological outcomes, survival, and ROSC compared to CPR 30:2 (compression-to-ventilation) in un-adjusted analyses in a large cohort study. Evidence from emergency medical service (EMS) CPR providers showed significantly more adults receiving CPR 30:2 experiencing improved favourable neurological outcomes and survival versus those receiving CPR 15:2. Significantly more children receiving CPR 15:2 or 30:2 experienced favourable neurological outcomes, survival, and greater ROSC compared to compression-only CPR. However, for children <1 years of age, no significant differences were observed between CPR 15:2 or 30:2 and compression-only CPR., Conclusions: Our results demonstrated that for adults, CPR 30:2 is associated with better survival and favourable neurological outcomes when compared to CPR 15:2. For children, more patients receiving CPR with either 15:2 or 30:2 compression-to ventilation ratio experienced favourable neurological function, survival, and ROSC when compared to CO-CPR for children of all ages, but for children <1years of age, no statistically significant differences were observed., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The American College of Critical Care Medicine provided 2002 and 2007 guidelines for hemodynamic support of newborn and pediatric septic shock. Provide the 2014 update of the 2007 American College of Critical Care Medicine "Clinical Guidelines for Hemodynamic Support of Neonates and Children with Septic Shock.", Design: Society of Critical Care Medicine members were identified from general solicitation at Society of Critical Care Medicine Educational and Scientific Symposia (2006-2014). The PubMed/Medline/Embase literature (2006-14) was searched by the Society of Critical Care Medicine librarian using the keywords: sepsis, septicemia, septic shock, endotoxemia, persistent pulmonary hypertension, nitric oxide, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and American College of Critical Care Medicine guidelines in the newborn and pediatric age groups., Measurements and Main Results: The 2002 and 2007 guidelines were widely disseminated, translated into Spanish and Portuguese, and incorporated into Society of Critical Care Medicine and American Heart Association/Pediatric Advanced Life Support sanctioned recommendations. The review of new literature highlights two tertiary pediatric centers that implemented quality improvement initiatives to improve early septic shock recognition and first-hour compliance to these guidelines. Improved compliance reduced hospital mortality from 4% to 2%. Analysis of Global Sepsis Initiative data in resource rich developed and developing nations further showed improved hospital mortality with compliance to first-hour and stabilization guideline recommendations., Conclusions: The major new recommendation in the 2014 update is consideration of institution-specific use of 1) a "recognition bundle" containing a trigger tool for rapid identification of patients with septic shock, 2) a "resuscitation and stabilization bundle" to help adherence to best practice principles, and 3) a "performance bundle" to identify and overcome perceived barriers to the pursuit of best practice principles.

Objective: We performed a systematic review as part of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation process to create a consensus on science statement regarding amiodarone or lidocaine during pediatric cardiac arrest for the 2015 International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation's Consensus on Science and Treatment Recommendations., Data Sources: Studies were identified from comprehensive searches in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library., Study Selection: Studies eligible for inclusion were randomized controlled and observational studies on the relative clinical effect of amiodarone or lidocaine in cardiac arrest., Data Extraction: Studies addressing the clinical effect of amiodarone versus lidocaine were extracted and reviewed for inclusion and exclusion criteria by the reviewers. Studies were rigorously analyzed thereafter., Data Synthesis: We identified three articles addressing lidocaine versus amiodarone in cardiac arrest: 1) a prospective study assessing lidocaine versus amiodarone for refractory ventricular fibrillation in out-of-hospital adults; 2) an observational retrospective cohort study of inpatient pediatric patients with ventricular fibrillation or pulseless ventricular tachycardia who received lidocaine, amiodarone, neither or both; and 3) a prospective study of ventricular tachycardia with a pulse in adults. The first study showed a statistically significant improvement in survival to hospital admission with amiodarone (22.8% vs 12.0%; p = 0.009) and a lack of statistical difference for survival at discharge (p = 0.34). The second article demonstrated 44% return of spontaneous circulation for amiodarone and 64% for lidocaine (odds ratio, 2.02; 1.36-3.03) with no statistical difference for survival at hospital discharge. The third article demonstrated 48.3% arrhythmia termination for amiodarone versus 10.3% for lidocaine (p < 0.05). All were classified as lower quality studies without preference for one agent., Conclusions: The confidence in effect estimates is so low that International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation felt that a recommendation to use of amiodarone over lidocaine is too speculative; we suggest that amiodarone or lidocaine can be used in the setting of pulseless ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation in infants and children.

Utstein-style guidelines contribute to improved public health internationally by providing a structured framework with which to compare emergency medical services systems. Advances in resuscitation science, new insights into important predictors of outcome from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, and lessons learned from methodological research prompted this review and update of the 2004 Utstein guidelines. Representatives of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation developed an updated Utstein reporting framework iteratively by meeting face to face, by teleconference, and by Web survey during 2012 through 2014. Herein are recommendations for reporting out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Data elements were grouped by system factors, dispatch/recognition, patient variables, resuscitation/postresuscitation processes, and outcomes. Elements were classified as core or supplemental using a modified Delphi process primarily based on respondents' assessment of the evidence-based importance of capturing those elements, tempered by the challenges to collect them. New or modified elements reflected consensus on the need to account for emergency medical services system factors, increasing availability of automated external defibrillators, data collection processes, epidemiology trends, increasing use of dispatcher-assisted cardiopulmonary resuscitation, emerging field treatments, postresuscitation care, prognostication tools, and trends in organ recovery. A standard reporting template is recommended to promote standardized reporting. This template facilitates reporting of the bystander-witnessed, shockable rhythm as a measure of emergency medical services system efficacy and all emergency medical services system-treated arrests as a measure of system effectiveness. Several additional important subgroups are identified that enable an estimate of the specific contribution of rhythm and bystander actions that are key determinants of outcome., (Copyright © 2014 European Resuscitation Council and American Heart Association, Inc. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

The "2010 American Heart Association Guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care" increased the focus on methods to ensure that high-quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is performed in all resuscitation attempts. There are 5 critical components of high-quality CPR: minimize interruptions in chest compressions, provide compressions of adequate rate and depth, avoid leaning between compressions, and avoid excessive ventilation. Although it is clear that high-quality CPR is the primary component in influencing survival from cardiac arrest, there is considerable variation in monitoring, implementation, and quality improvement. As such, CPR quality varies widely between systems and locations. Victims often do not receive high-quality CPR because of provider ambiguity in prioritization of resuscitative efforts during an arrest. This ambiguity also impedes the development of optimal systems of care to increase survival from cardiac arrest. This consensus statement addresses the following key areas of CPR quality for the trained rescuer: metrics of CPR performance; monitoring, feedback, and integration of the patient's response to CPR; team-level logistics to ensure performance of high-quality CPR; and continuous quality improvement on provider, team, and systems levels. Clear definitions of metrics and methods to consistently deliver and improve the quality of CPR will narrow the gap between resuscitation science and the victims, both in and out of the hospital, and lay the foundation for further improvements in the future.