Utstein-style guidelines for uniform reporting of laboratory CPR research.: A Statement for Healthcare Professionals from a Task Force of the American Heart Association, the American College of Emergency Physicians, the American College of Cardiology, the European Resuscitation Council, the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, the Institute of Critical Care Medicine, the Safar Center for Resuscitation Research, and the Society

Abstract

Both laboratory and clinical investigators contribute to the multidisciplinary knowledge base of resuscitation science. While diversity can be a strength, it can also be a hindrance because of the lack of a common language and poor communication among investigators. Modern cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) research depends on the use of animal models that are designed to simulate cardiac arrest in humans.1 2 Such models are used to explore important new treatments and to refine protocols used in standard interventions, including doses of drugs, chest compression techniques, defibrillation energies, and cerebral resuscitation, before they are applied to humans.3 When favorable results are reported in animal models, the new or refined techniques are often implemented soon afterward in human victims of cardiac arrest. Unfortunately, the results obtained in one laboratory may not be reproducible in another laboratory or in human trials. For example, high-dose epinephrine therapy significantly improves survival in most animal models of cardiac arrest but does not improve survival in humans.4 5 6 7 In addition, some animal studies have documented the efficacy of administering bicarbonate during cardiac arrest, while others have shown it to be ineffective or deleterious.8 Some of these differences are to be expected because an animal simulation is not a perfect model of cardiac arrest in humans. However, it is likely that some of these conflicting results are due to differences in experimental methods and laboratory model design. Variations in study design, such as the quality of chest compressions and ventilation, definitions of variables, or time intervals between an event and the beginning of therapy, are probably responsible for many of the inconsistencies and contradictions reported. The lack of standardization and the use of nonuniform terminology in reports of studies of cardiac arrest in humans have been described as a “Tower of Babel.” …