Most Significant Factors Affecting the Survival of Patients with Out-of-hospital Cardiac Arrest

As with other Parts of the 2015 American Heart Association (AHA) Guidelines Update for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) and Emergency Cardiovascular Care (ECC), Part 5 is based on the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR) 2015 international evidence review process. ILCOR Basic Life Support (BLS) Task Force members identified and prioritized topics and questions with the newest or most controversial evidence, or those that were thought to be most important for resuscitation. This 2015 Guidelines Update is based on the systematic reviews and recommendations of the 2015 International Consensus on CPR and ECC Science With Treatment Recommendations , “Part 3: Adult Basic Life Support and Automated External Defibrillation.”1,2 In the online version of this document, live links are provided so the reader can connect directly to the systematic reviews on the ILCOR Scientific Evidence Evaluation and Review System (SEERS) website. These links are indicated by a combination of letters and numbers (eg, BLS 740). We encourage readers to use the links and review the evidence and appendix. As with all AHA Guidelines, each 2015 recommendation is labeled with a Class of Recommendation (COR) and a Level of Evidence (LOE). The 2015 Guidelines Update uses the newest AHA COR and LOE classification system, which contains modifications of the Class III recommendation and introduces LOE B-R (randomized studies) and B-NR (nonrandomized studies) as well as LOE C-LD (based on limited data) and LOE C-EO (consensus of expert opinion). The AHA process for identification and management of potential conflicts of interest was used, and potential conflicts for writing group members are listed at the end of each Part of the 2015 Guidelines Update. For additional information about the systematic review process or management of potential conflicts of interest, see “Part 2: Evidence Evaluation and Management of Conflicts of Interest” in this …

Sudden cardiac arrest (SCA) is a leading cause of death in the United States and Canada. In the United States, each year ≈330 000 people die of coronary heart disease out of the hospital or in emergency departments. Of these, >150 000 SCAs occur out of the hospital.1,2 Despite the development of electrical defibrillation and the more recent implementation of lay rescuer defibrillation programs, the vast majority of these victims do not leave the hospital alive. In studies over the past 15 years, only 1.4% of patients with out-of-hospital arrest in Los Angeles, Calif, survived to hospital discharge3; in Chicago, Ill, the number was 2%,4 and in Detroit, Mich, it was <1%.5 Conversely, a few municipalities such as Seattle, Wash, report much higher survival rates from SCA—more than 15% in 1 study6—which suggests that survival rates need not remain so low. Recent work in Europe and elsewhere has confirmed that a higher survival-to-hospital discharge rate is indeed a realistic goal, with survival rates as high as 9% reported in Amsterdam7 and 21% in Maribor, Slovenia.8 The American Heart Association (AHA) uses 4 links in the “chain of survival” to illustrate the time-sensitive actions required for victims of SCA: (1) early recognition of the emergency and activation of emergency medical services (EMS), (2) early bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), (3) early delivery of shock(s) from a defibrillator if indicated, and (4) early advanced life support and postresuscitation care. Immediate bystander recognition of the emergency and EMS activation are critical. In many communities, however, these actions may be followed by significant delays, because the time interval from activation of EMS to arrival of these medical personnel may be 7 to 8 minutes or longer.4 Therefore, initial care in the first critical minutes after …

The recommendations for electrical therapies described in this section are designed to improve survival from SCA and life-threatening arrhythmias. Whenever defibrillation is attempted, rescuers must coordinate high-quality CPR with defibrillation to minimize interruptions in chest compressions and to ensure immediate resumption of chest compressions after shock delivery. The high first-shock efficacy of newer biphasic defibrillators led to the recommendation of single shocks plus immediate CPR instead of 3-shock sequences that were recommended prior to 2005 to treat VF. Further data are needed to refine recommendations for energy levels for defibrillation and cardioversion using biphasic waveforms.

Cardiac arrest is a common and treatable cause of death and disability. Each year ≈424 000 people experience emergency medical services (EMS)-assessed out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) in the United States.1 The actual burden of OHCA is likely significantly higher because a substantial number go unassessed. In a prospective analysis of deaths in a US county, 5.6% of annual mortality was attributable to cardiac arrest.2 Many patients who suffer OHCA do not receive prompt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Among those who receive CPR, a large number do not survive because of an inability to restore spontaneous circulation, or anoxic cerebral injury even after restoration of circulation. Nevertheless, when timely interventions are provided, a small proportion of patients (10.4% of all EMS-treated OHCA) recover to resume normal lives. The key therapeutic interventions that make the difference between life and death, metaphorically characterized as the 5 links in a chain of survival by the American Heart Association, include: (1) immediate recognition of cardiac arrest and activation of the EMS, (2) early CPR with emphasis on chest compression, (3) rapid defibrillation, (4) effective advanced life support, and (5) integrated postcardiac arrest care.3 Resuscitation science has undergone major advances since the origins of modern CPR >50 years ago.4 The field continues to be dynamic with emergence of new therapies such as therapeutic hypothermia5 and improvements in systems of care. However, many questions remain on issues such as optimum compression rate, efficacy of chest compression only CPR (CCCPR), dispatcher-assisted CPR, and benefits of postresuscitation measures such as hypothermia. A critical challenge also lies in the translation of resuscitation science into practice. To improve outcomes, each of the links in the chain of survival needs to be executed promptly and effectively. There remain several lacunae, which need to be overcome to develop an …

During the past 20 years, morbidity and mortality rates for nearly all types of cardiovascular disease have declined. Progress in these areas is in stark contrast to that for sudden cardiac death, which continues unabated at a rate of approximately 1000 times per day in the United States, with little decline in incidence or improved outcome. Clearly, the problem of sudden cardiac death is best approached through prevention, but horizons in that area seem no more promising and in some respects less promising and substantially more costly than 2 decades ago. The means necessary for successful resuscitation of a patient in cardiac arrest were known by the early 1960s. Externally performed cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) could maintain an “oxygen plateau” and delay permanent brain damage long enough to allow external defibrillation using direct current (DC). The possibility of long-term survival was increasingly recognized, as early anecdotal experiences accumulated into published series.1 2 3 Given the hindsight of 3 decades, the obstacles to be overcome before significant progress could be made in out-of-hospital resuscitation were formidable. First, cardiac arrest was perceived as an event that typically occurred in the hospital. In-hospital cardiac arrests are now recognized to represent only a small proportion of sudden deaths based in the community. Second, the CPR technique was known to only a limited number of hospital-based physicians. CPR is no longer restricted to hospitals or physicians; it is routinely taught to the lay public. Third, only line-powered, bulky, and awkward defibrillators were available. The first out-of-hospital defibrillation device weighed 110 lb. Contemporary external defibrillators are available that weigh less than 10 lb. The present report details progress made in achieving the goal of facilitating out-of-hospital resuscitation and specifies those areas in which further headway is needed. This effort began in 1990 with an American Heart …

Sudden cardiac arrest (SCA) is recognized as a serious public health problem, accounting for 250 000 to 300 000 deaths per year; it is now the third-leading cause of death behind cancer and nonsudden cardiovascular deaths.1,2 Immediate, well-performed cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and early defibrillation are the only out-of-hospital interventions that improve outcomes.3 The chain of survival relies on lay responders and emergency medical services (EMS) to initiate the potentially life-saving procedures of CPR and defibrillation. Articles see pp 510 and 518 In 1994, the American Heart Association (AHA) convened the first conference on public access defibrillation (PAD) to introduce the strategy of placing easy-to-use defibrillators in public places to decrease the death rate from SCA.4 Specific recommendations encouraged the stakeholders (the AHA, the US Food and Drug Administration, the National Institutes of Health, industry, and communities) to facilitate PAD by developing user-friendly, less-expensive automated external defibrillators (AEDs); testing the concept within large clinical trials; and organizing communities to promote and support effective PAD programs. Widespread CPR and AED training of the public was emphasized. In the ensuing 15 years, many of these recommendations have been heeded, and PAD programs are now commonplace. The National Institutes of Health–sponsored PAD trial demonstrated that survival doubled when events occurred in communities equipped and trained with CPR and AEDs compared with CPR alone.5 Within the Resuscitations Outcomes Consortium (ROC), out-of-hospital cardiac arrest victims had a markedly increased chance of survival if the first shock was delivered by a bystander using an AED rather than by EMS.6 PAD programs in airports, airlines, and casinos have also validated the effectiveness of the concept. Out-of hospital cardiac arrest is treatable, and outcomes can be improved with currently available approaches. Multiple locations have been recognized as having a higher incidence of cardiac arrest …

External Defibrillation: The Need for Uniformity in Analyzing and Reporting Results

The emergency cardiovascular care (ECC) scientists involved in the 2005 evidence evaluation process and the revision of the 2005 AHA Guidelines for CPR and ECC began and ended the process aware of the limitations of the resuscitation scientific evidence, optimistic about emerging data that documents the benefits of high-quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), and determined to make recommendations that would increase survival from cardiac arrest and life-threatening emergencies. This editorial summarizes the factors that contributed to the tipping point, the point at which information and discussion either triggered support for major changes in the guidelines or reaffirmed existing recommendations. The scientists critically reviewed the sequence and priorities of the steps of CPR to identify those factors with the greatest potential impact on survival. They then developed recommendations to support those interventions that should be performed frequently and well. There was unanimous support for increased emphasis on ensuring that rescuers deliver high-quality CPR: rescuers need to provide an adequate number and depth of compressions, allow complete chest recoil after each compression, and minimize interruptions in chest compressions. The 2005 AHA Guidelines for CPR and ECC are based on the most comprehensive review of resuscitation literature ever published.1 The evidence evaluation process incorporated the input of 281 international resuscitation experts who evaluated research, topics, and hypotheses over a 36-month period before the 2005 Consensus Conference. The process included structured evidence evaluation, analysis, and documentation of the literature.2 It also included rigorous disclosure and management of potential conflicts of interest, a process summarized in two editorials.3,4 Cardiopulmonary resuscitation and emergency cardiovascular care is a relatively new field. The epidemiologic data is incomplete, and high-level evidence is insufficient to support many recommendations. Although sudden cardiac arrest (SCA) is responsible for an estimated 250 000 deaths out of the hospital in the United …

Review question/objective The objective of this review is to synthesise the best available evidence of the effectiveness of using automated external defibrillator by trained healthcare professionals on survival outcomes in adult patients after in-hospital cardiac arrest. More specifically, the objectives are to identify: the effectiveness of using automated external defibrillator by trained healthcare professionals on return of spontaneous circulation and survival to hospital discharge in adult patients after in-hospital cardiac arrest. Inclusion criteria Types of participants This review will consider studies that include adults 18 years old and above; suffering from cardiac arrest requiring chest compression in in-patient wards, emergency department and out-patient procedures in hospital; presenting with an initial index pulseless (for example, but not limited to, ventricular fibrillation and pulseless ventricular tachycardia, asystole or pulseless electrical activities); presence or absence of co-morbidities such as congestive heart failure, myocardial infarction, diabetes mellitus, renal, hepatic or respiratory insufficiency, motor, cognitive or functional deficits, acute stroke, acute non-stroke neurological disorder, pneumonia, hypotension, sepsis, major trauma, metabolic or electrolyte abnormality, metastatic or haematology malignancy. The exclusion criteria are any age group who suffered out-of-hospital cardiac arrest or adults 18 years old and above suffered in-hospital cardiac arrest with a ‘do not resuscitate’ order (DNR). Types of intervention(s) This review will consider as interventions any use of commercially available automated external defibrillator by trained healthcare professionals for in-hospital cardiac arrest. The comparator of interest is use of manual/standard external defibrillator by trained healthcare professionals for in-hospital cardiac arrest. Types of outcomes This review will consider studies that include the following outcome measures: 1. survival with a return of spontaneous circulation for at least 20 minutes during resuscitation 2. survival to hospital discharge regardless of time to discharge 3. initial cardiac arrest rhythms

Restart a Heart Day: A strategy by the European Resuscitation Council to raise cardiac arrest awareness

Resuscitation highlights in 2011

Interim Guidance for Emergency Medical Services Management of Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

<i>Circulation</i> : Clinical Summaries

Cardiac arrest, acute myocardial infarction (AMI), and stroke affect millions of people in the United States annually.1 Despite significant advances in medical treatments for these conditions, they remain a major public health problem and a leading cause of morbidity and mortality.1 A critical common element in optimizing care and outcomes for these conditions is the timely recognition of symptoms and initiation of treatment. For example, rapid initiation of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is associated with improved survival from cardiac arrest.2 Similarly, early recognition and presentation after onset of symptoms of AMI and ischemic stroke enable implementation of critical therapies such as primary angioplasty and thrombolysis, which are known to improve outcomes.1 Indeed, the “Chain of Survival” for emergency cardiovascular and cerebrovascular care (ECCC) starts with prompt identification of the condition and early activation of the healthcare system to rapidly initiate care.3 Unfortunately, despite national efforts that include public education initiatives and clinical practice guideline recommendations from entities such as the American Heart Association (AHA), major gaps remain in the timely identification of symptoms and initiation of ECCC.4–6 As one example, studies of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) have consistently noted delays in the initiation of bystander CPR.7 For AMI, there have been advances in the provision of timely primary angioplasty for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), as reflected by significant improvements in door-to-balloon times.8 However, the time from patient symptom onset to seeking care for possible myocardial infarction has not improved significantly.9,10 Similarly, for stroke, there continue to be advances in door-to-needle times, but stroke symptom recognition and seeking of treatment by patients and their families remain a major barrier to timely stroke care.11–16 Public and clinician education efforts alone are not sufficient to reduce gaps …

This 2015 American Heart Association (AHA) Guidelines Update for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) and Emergency Cardiovascular Care (ECC) section on pediatric basic life support (BLS) differs substantially from previous versions of the AHA Guidelines.1 This publication updates the 2010 AHA Guidelines on pediatric BLS for several key questions related to pediatric CPR. The Pediatric ILCOR Task Force reviewed the topics covered in the 2010 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations and the 2010 council-specific guidelines for CPR and ECC (including those published by the AHA) and formulated 3 priority questions to address for the 2015 systematic reviews. In the online version of this document, live links are provided so the reader can connect directly to those systematic reviews on the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR) Scientific Evidence Evaluation and Review System (SEERS) website. These links are indicated by a superscript combination of letters and numbers (eg, Peds 709). We encourage readers to use the links and review the evidence and appendices. A rigorous systematic review process was undertaken to review the relevant literature to answer those questions, resulting in the 2015 International Consensus on CPR and ECC Science With Treatment Recommendations , “Part 6: Pediatric Basic Life Support and Pediatric Advanced Life Support.”2,3 This 2015 Guidelines Update covers only those topics reviewed as part of the 2015 systematic review process. Other recommendations published in the 2010 AHA Guidelines remain the official recommendations of the AHA ECC scientists (see Appendix). When making AHA treatment recommendations, we used the AHA Class of Recommendation and Level of Evidence (LOE) systems. This update uses the newest AHA Class of Recommendation and LOE classification system, which contains modifications of the Class III recommendation and introduces LOE B-R (randomized studies) and B-NR (nonrandomized studies) as …