scholarly journals Advanced life support guidelines. European Resuscitation Council

1997 ◽  
Vol 79 (2) ◽  
pp. 172-177 ◽  
Author(s):  
C E Robertson
Author(s):  
Jasmeet Soar ◽  
Bernd W. Böttiger ◽  
Pierre Carli ◽  
Keith Couper ◽  
Charles D. Deakin ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 36 (8) ◽  
pp. 479-484 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark H Ebell ◽  
Akke Vellinga ◽  
Siobhan Masterson ◽  
Phillip Yun

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.


2016 ◽  
Vol 32 (8) ◽  
pp. 499-503 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jana Sperka ◽  
Sheila J. Hanson ◽  
Raymond G. Hoffmann ◽  
Mahua Dasgupta ◽  
Michael T. Meyer

Resuscitation ◽  
2007 ◽  
Vol 72 (3) ◽  
pp. 496-497 ◽  
Author(s):  
John H.J.M. Meertens ◽  
Wilma E. Monteban-Kooistra ◽  
Carla A. Veldhuis ◽  
Jack J.M. Ligtenberg ◽  
Jan G. Zijlstra ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 17 (8) ◽  
pp. 6-19
Author(s):  
L.V. Usenko ◽  
А.V. Tsarev ◽  
Yu.Yu. Kobelatsky

The article presents the current changes in the algorithm of cardiopulmonary and cerebral resuscitation (CPCR), adopted by the European Council for Resuscitation in 2021. The article presents the principles of basic life support and advanced life support, inclu-ding taking into account the European recommendations published in 2020, dedicated to the specifics of CPCR in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. The main focus of CPCR in the COVID-19 pandemic is that the safety of healthcare workers should never be compromised, based on the premise that the time it takes to ensure that care is delivered safely to rescuers is acceptable part of the CPCR process. The principles of electrical defibrillation, including in patients with coronavirus disease who are in the prone position, pharmacological support of CPCR, modern monitoring capabilities for assessing the quality of resuscitation measures and identifying potentially reversible causes of cardiac arrest, the use of extracorporeal life support techno-logies during CPR are highlighted. The modern principles of intensive care of the post-resuscitation syndrome are presented, which makes it possible to provide improved outcomes in patients after cardiac arrest.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document