Leitlinien des European Resuscitation Council 2000 für die automatische externe Defibrillation Stellungnahme der Basic Life Support and Automated External Defibrillation Working Group, nach Verabschiedung durch das Executive Committee des European Resuscitation Council

Objectives Basic Life Support (BLS) should be taught to everyone; however, there is a lack of Automated External Defibrillation (AED) trainers in Thailand due to the cost of the imported equipment. An AED trainer, manikin, and manikin controller system was locally developed which can display training results to help reduce the cost. Methods This is a descriptive study of a locally developed controller and feedback system, the Chiang Mai AED trainer and manikin. The controller was examined by 5 BLS instructors using a 10-point scale questionnaire consisting of 3 questions to evaluate the efficacy of the device. Correlation among BLS instructors was also calculated. Results The controller and feedback system for the Chiang Mai AED trainer and manikin worked appropriately as intended. The instructor set up either a ‘shock advised’ or a ‘no shock advised’ scenario for 2 two-minute chest compressions. The AED trainer responded promptly when the electrode pads were attached to the manikin. The controller was also able to display compression depth, compression speed, chest recoils, rescue breaths, and time to first defibrillation. Evaluation of the controller using a 10-point scale resulted in a median of 27 (interquartile range 26-29) out of 30. Intraclass correlation was 0.97 (95% confidence interval 0.90-0.99, p < 0.001). Conclusions The controller for the Chiang Mai AED trainer and manikin is effective for use in BLS training. Chiang Mai Medical Journal 2021;60(1):87-98. doi 10.12982/CMUMEDJ.2021.08

Download Full-text

New guidelines for resuscitation in adults

Medicina ◽

10.3390/medicina43010129 ◽

2006 ◽

Vol 43 (1) ◽

pp. 79

Author(s):

Dinas Vaitkaitis ◽

Vidas Pilvinis ◽

Andrius Pranskūnas ◽

Nedas Jasinskas ◽

Paulius Dobožinskas

Keyword(s):

Basic Life Support ◽

Life Support ◽

Sudden Cardiac Arrest ◽

Heart Association ◽

European Resuscitation Council ◽

Resuscitation Guidelines ◽

New Guidelines ◽

Cardiovascular Care ◽

Foreign Body Airway Obstruction ◽

External Defibrillator

Five years after the last issue of the guidelines for cardiopulmonary resuscitation and emergency cardiovascular care, in 2005 American Heart Association and European Resuscitation Council published new guidelines. In this review, basic life support (BLS) technique, indications for use of an automated external defibrillator (AED), recognition of sudden cardiac arrest, and management of choking (foreign-body airway obstruction) are presented according to the “Resuscitation Guidelines 2005.”

Download Full-text

Meta-analysis of the accuracy of termination of resuscitation rules for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest

Emergency Medicine Journal ◽

10.1136/emermed-2018-207833 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 36 (8) ◽

pp. 479-484 ◽

Cited By ~ 5

Author(s):

Mark H Ebell ◽

Akke Vellinga ◽

Siobhan Masterson ◽

Phillip Yun

Keyword(s):

Cardiac Arrest ◽

Basic Life Support ◽

Life Support ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Advanced Life Support ◽

Study Quality ◽

European Resuscitation Council ◽

Comprehensive Search ◽

Hospital Cardiac Arrest ◽

Low Rate

BackgroundOur objective was to perform a systematic review of studies reporting the accuracy of termination of resuscitation rules (TORRs) for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA).MethodsWe performed a comprehensive search of the literature for studies evaluating the accuracy of TORRs, with two investigators abstracting relevant data from each study regarding study design, study quality and the accuracy of the TORRs. Bivariate meta-analysis was performed using the mada procedure in R.ResultsWe identified 14 studies reporting the performance of 9 separate TORRs. The sensitivity (proportion of eventual survivors for whom the TORR recommends resuscitation and transport) was generally high: 95% for the European Resuscitation Council (ERC) TORR, 97% for the basic life support (BLS) TORR and 99% for the advanced life support (ALS) TORR. The BLS and ERC TORR were more specific, which would lead to fewer futile transports, and all three of these TORRs had a miss rate of ≤0.13% (defined as a case where a patient is recommended for termination but survives). The pooled proportion of patients for whom each rule recommends TOR was much higher for the ERC and BLS TORRs (93.5% and 74.8%, respectively) than for the ALS TORR (29.0%).ConclusionsThe BLS and ERC TORRs identify a large proportion of patients who are candidates for termination of resuscitation following OHCA while having a very low rate of misclassifying eventual survivors (<0.1%). Further prospective validation of the ERC TORR and direct comparison with BLS TORR are needed.

Download Full-text

Reliability of the Cardiff Test of basic life support and automated external defibrillation version 3.1

Resuscitation ◽

10.1016/s0300-9572(03)00246-6 ◽

2003 ◽

Vol 59 (3) ◽

pp. 291-314 ◽

Cited By ~ 62

Author(s):

Richard H. Whitfield ◽

Robert G. Newcombe ◽

Malcolm Woollard

Keyword(s):

Basic Life Support ◽

Life Support ◽

Automated External Defibrillation

Download Full-text