ERC Guidelines Research Articles

Recurrent ventricular fibrillation during advanced life support care of patients with prehospital cardiac arrest

The response of recurrent episodes of ventricular fibrillation (VF) to defibrillation shocks has not been systematically studied. We analyzed outcomes from countershocks delivered for VF during advanced life support (ALS) care of patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Cohort of patients with prehospital cardiac arrest presenting with VF, treated by ALS ambulance staff following ERC Guidelines 2000. Biphasic defibrillators provided shocks increasing from 200 to 360J. Recorded signals were analyzed to determine, for each shock, if VF was terminated and if a sustained organized rhythm was restored within 60s. In 465 of the 467 patients enrolled, the initial VF episode was terminated within three shocks: 92%, 61%, and 83% responded to 200J first, 200J second and 360J third shocks, respectively. VF recurred in 48% of patients within 2min of the first episode, and in 74% sometime during prehospital care. In the 175 patients experiencing five or more VF episodes, single shock VF termination dropped from the first to the fifth episode (90-80%, p<0.001) without change in transthoracic impedance, yet the proportion returning to organized rhythms increased (11-42%, p<0.0001). Repeated refibrillation is common in patients with VF cardiac arrest. The likelihood of countershocks to terminate VF declines for repeated episodes of VF, yet shocks that terminate these episodes result increasingly in a sustained organized rhythm.

Influence of airway management strategy on "no-flow-time" during an "Advanced life support course" for intensive care nurses – A single rescuer resuscitation manikin study

BackgroundIn 1999, the laryngeal tube (VBM Medizintechnik, Sulz, Germany) was introduced as a new supraglottic airway. It was designed to allow either spontaneous breathing or controlled ventilation during anaesthesia; additionally it may serve as an alternative to endotracheal intubation, or bag-mask ventilation during resuscitation. Several variations of this supraglottic airway exist. In our study, we compared ventilation with the laryngeal tube suction for single use (LTS-D) and a bag-mask device. One of the main points of the revised ERC 2005 guidelines is a low no-flow-time (NFT). The NFT is defined as the time during which no chest compression occurs. Traditionally during the first few minutes of resuscitation NFT is very high. We evaluated the hypothesis that utilization of the LTS-D could reduce the NFT compared to bag-mask ventilation (BMV) during simulated cardiac arrest in a single rescuer manikin study.MethodsParticipants were studied during a one day advanced life support (ALS) course. Two scenarios of arrhythmias requiring defibrillation were simulated in a manikin. One scenario required subjects to establish the airway with a LTS-D; alternatively, the second scenario required them to use BMV. The scenario duration was 430 seconds for the LTS-D scenario, and 420 seconds for the BMV scenario, respectively. Experienced ICU nurses were recruited as study subjects. Participants were randomly assigned to one of the two groups first (LTS-D and BMV) to establish the airway. Endpoints were the total NFT during the scenario, the successful airway management using the respective device, and participants' preference of one of the two strategies for airway management.ResultsUtilization of the LTS-D reduced NFT significantly (p < 0.01). Adherence to the time frame of ERC guidelines was 96% in the LTS-D group versus 30% in the BMV group. Two participants in the LTS-D group required more than one attempt to establish the LTS-D correctly. Once established, ventilation was effective in 100%. In a subjective evaluation all participants preferred the LTS-D over BMV to provide ventilation in a cardiac arrest scenario.ConclusionIn our manikin study, NFT was reduced significantly when using LTS-D compared to BMV. During cardiac arrest, the LTS-D might be a good alternative to BMV for providing and maintaining a patent airway. For personnel not experienced in endotracheal intubation it seems to be a safe airway device in a manikin use.

Abstract 92: Evaluation Of Knowledge And Practice Of Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Of Children And Infants By An Out-of-hospital Emergency Care Team

Introduction The French emergency response system in life threatening situations is the deployment of fully equipped ambulances with paramedic, nurse and emergency physician. The 2005 ILCOR and ERC guidelines concerning cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) have led to significant changes, especially in terms of basic life support (BLS). We aimed to review fundamental knowledge and practice by our personnel concerning CPR in children and infants to determine current training needs for our teams. Materials and methods Paper questionnaires were filled out by our personnel and immediately collected. Inclusion criteria: physicians, nurses, and paramedics (refusals to fill out questionnaire were not included). We recorded: profile of personnel, knowledge of 2005 guidelines, basic CPR and advanced CPR parameters. Majors results were compared based on job title. Results Sixty-one questionnaires were filled out (25 paramedics, 13 nurses, and 23 physicians). Personnel was mostly aged under 40 (70,5%, n=43), with over 2 years experience in prehospital emergency care(75,4%, n=46); 47,5% (n=\29) had no training in pediatrics; 68,9% (n=42) had BLS certification and 31,1% (n=19) reported regular participation in first aid training programs. A minority of subjects declared knowing the 2005 Guidelines (11,5%, n=7), even among physician (17,4%, n=4). Table 1 shows major results about CPR parameters according to job title. Conclusion This study emphasizes the lack of knowledge and the repeated changes witch require more frequent and more extensive training for entire personnel on the team, focusing on basic CPR for physicians and advanced CPR for paramedics and nurses. Table 1: Answers according to job title AED : Automatic External Defibrillator

Do we hyperventilate cardiac arrest patients?

Hyperventilation during cardiopulmonary resuscitation is detrimental to survival. Several clinical studies of ventilation during hospital and out-of-hospital cardiac arrest have demonstrated respiratory rates far in excess of the 10 min(-1) recommended by the ERC. We observed detailed ventilation variables prospectively during manual ventilation of 12 cardiac arrest patients treated in the emergency department of a UK Hospital. Adult cardiac arrest patients were treated according to ERC guidelines. Ventilation was provided using a self-inflating bag. A COSMOplus monitor (Respironics Inc.) was inserted into the ventilation circuit at the beginning of the resuscitation from which ventilation data were downloaded to a laptop. Data were collected from 12 patients (7 male; age 47-82 years). The maximum respiratory rate was 9-41 breaths per minute (median 26). The median tidal volume was 619 ml (374-923 ml) and the median respiratory rate was 21 min(-1) (7-37 min(-1)). The corresponding median minute volume was 13.0 l/min (4.6-21.3 min(-1)). Median peak inspiratory pressures were 60.6 cmH(2)O (range 46-106). Airway pressure was positive for 95.3% of the respiratory cycle (range 87.9-100%). Hyperventilation was common, mostly through high respiratory rates rather than excessive tidal volumes. This is the first study to document tidal volumes and airway pressures during resuscitation. The persistently high airway pressures are likely to have a detrimental effect on blood flow during CPR. Guidelines on respiratory rates are well known, but it would appear that in practice they are not being observed.

Why Norwegian 2005 guidelines differs slightly from the ERC guidelines

Why Norwegian 2005 guidelines differs slightly from the ERC guidelines

Ventilation volumes with different self-inflating bags with reference to the ERC guidelines for airway management: comparison of two compression techniques

The 1998 ERC-guidelines for airway-management recommend an tidal volume of 400–600 ml for adults undergoing CPR. As commercially available self-inflating bags were designed to meet former recommendations (800–1200 ml) we investigated how to meet the latest recommendations with these bags. We combined the head of a training manikin (Laerdal Medical) and a standard lung (VTTL™; Michigan Instrument), adjusted to a physiological compliance and resistance. Volume was measured with a Wright spirometer (BOC). Seven self-inflating bags were investigated. Tests were carried out by ten people (five female and five male) for 5 min each using two different techniques. Technique 1: standard ventilation with one hand without compression of the self-inflating bag against the rescuers knee. Technique 2: modified open palm technique with total squeezing of the self-inflating bag by compression against the rescuers knee. The average tidal volumes for technique 1 ranged from 438 to 604 ml. Applying technique 2 the volumes ranged from 888 to 1192 ml. The latest recommendations were met using a single hand technique without compression against the rescuers knee for all seven bags tested. The modified open palm technique produced larger tidal volumes which were more in line with previous recommendations.

Quality of mechanical, manual standard and active compression–decompression CPR on the arrest site and during transport in a manikin model

The quality of mechanical CPR (M-CPR) was compared with manual standard CPR (S-CPR) and active compression–decompression CPR (ACD-CPR) performed by paramedics on the site of a cardiac arrest and during manual and ambulance transport. Each technique was performed 12 times on manikins using teams from a group of 12 paramedic students with good clinical CPR experience using a random cross-over design. Except for some lost ventilations the CPR effort using the mechanical device adhered to the European Resuscitation Council guidelines, with an added time requirement of median 40 s for attaching the device compared with manual standard CPR. Throughout the study, in comparison with mechanical CPR the quality of CPR with either manual method was significantly worse. In particular, there were considerable individual variations during stretcher transport. With S-CPR and ACD-CPR the median compression times were 38 and 31%, significantly lower than the recommended 50%, and 46–98% of the decompression efforts with ACD-CPR were too weak, particularly during transport on the stairs. With both manual methods, there were no significant differences in the CPR effort between the site of the arrest and the ambulance transport. However, compression rates were reduced and became more erratic during stretcher transport to the ambulance. When walking horizontally, a median of 19% of S-CPR compressions and 84% of ACD-CPR compressions were to weak. On the stairs, 68% of S-CPR compressions and 100% of ACD-CPR compressions were too weak. In conclusion, when evaluated on a manikin, in comparison with manual standard and ACD-CPR, mechanical CPR adhered more closely to ERC guidelines. This was particularly true when performing CPR during transport on a stretcher.