The new European Resuscitation Council guidelines for Pediatric Life Support and their implications for pediatric anesthesia: an educational article

Background: The European Resuscitation Council (ERC) 2015 basic life support (BLS) guidelines introduced a simplified algorithm compared to the ERC 2010 BLS guidelines. This was intended to improve adherence to guidelines and retention of skills. This study aimed to compare the retention of BLS skills 3 months after training using the ERC 2010 or 2015 guidelines. Methods: This was an observational study including video recordings of laypersons being skill tested 3 months after participation in a standardized ERC BLS/AED course using either the ERC 2010 guidelines or the simplified ERC 2015 guidelines. The endpoints were 1) remembering the correct sequence of BLS/AED algorithm, 2) remembering the correct sequence of the BLS/AED algorithm and performing all skills correctly, 3) time to: emergency medical service (EMS) call, first compression, and shock delivery. Results: We analyzed videos of 133 laypersons skill tested 3 months after initial training; 64 trained using the 2010 guidelines (mean ±standard deviation (SD) age: 40 ±11 years, male sex: 19 (30%)) and 69 trained using the 2015 guidelines (age: 44 ±10 years, male sex: 36 (52%)). Participants in the 2015 guidelines group improved the retention of the BLS/AED algorithm compared to the 2010 guidelines group (29 (42%) vs. 10 (16%), relative risk (RR): 2.7 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.4 - 5.1) P=0.001). Both BLS/AED algorithm and all skills were correctly performed by 13 (19%) vs. 3 (5%) (RR: 4.0 (95% CI: 1.2 - 13.5) P=0.01) in the 2015 and 2010 groups respectively. No significant difference was found in time to EMS call (difference: 3 sec (95% CI: -2 - 9 sec) P=0.27), time to first compression (difference: 4 sec, (95% CI: -3 - 10 sec) P=0.28), and time to first shock (difference: 4 sec (95% CI: -5 - 14 sec) P=0.33) between the groups. Conclusion: BLS/AED training using ERC 2015 guidelines was associated with better skill retention compared to training using ERC 2010 guidelines. There was no difference in time to EMS call, first compression, or shock delivery.

Download Full-text

Adult advanced cardiac life support: the European Resuscitation Council guidelines 1992 (abridged). European Resuscitation Council Working Party.

BMJ ◽

10.1136/bmj.306.6892.1589 ◽

1993 ◽

Vol 306 (6892) ◽

pp. 1589-1593 ◽

Cited By ~ 18

Keyword(s):

Life Support ◽

Working Party ◽

Advanced Cardiac Life Support ◽

European Resuscitation Council

Download Full-text

BLS ERC Certified Greek Providers’ Willingness to Perform CPR and Skill Retention During the Covid-19 Pandemic. A Survey of the Hellenic Society of Cardiology (WG CPR)

10.21203/rs.3.rs-675780/v1 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

George Latsios ◽

Andreas Synetos ◽

Marianna Leopoulou ◽

Evaggelia Stamatopoulou ◽

Panagiotis Koukopoulos ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Life Support ◽

Negative Attitude ◽

Behavioral Changes ◽

European Resuscitation Council ◽

Skill Retention ◽

Electronic Survey ◽

Public Health Organization ◽

National Public Health ◽

Health Organization ◽

External Defibrillator

Abstract Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate a. the level of established knowledge regarding cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) during the Covid-19 pandemic era of certified Basic Life Support (BLS) providers and b. their attitude towards CPR, along with possible misconceptions regarding Covid-19. Methods: Certified BLS providers from courses held in Athens, Greece were asked to complete an electronic survey regarding their knowledge and behavioral changes on performing CPR on victims with confirmed or suspected Covid-19 infection. Their perception on BLS courses was also assessed. Answers were collected during June 2020. Results: Out of 5513 certified providers, 25.53% completed the survey. The majority (83.36%) would provide CPR to an arrest victim with possible or confirmed Covid-19 infection. Regarding the use of an automated external defibrillator, the majority thinks that it is equally safe as in the pre-Covid-19 period (58.24%). Older age (<0.001) and a lower level of education (p<0.001) made rescuers more willing to provide CPR. Exposure to the European Resuscitation Council (ERC) (p<0.001) and to a lesser degree to Greek National Public Health Organization (NPHO) guidelines was also correlated to a less negative attitude towards resuscitation, whereas time since the last BLS seminar had no such impact (p=0.18). All responders agree that training in CPR during Covid-19 remains necessary.Conclusion: Certified BLS providers maintain willingness to perform CPR in unresponsive victims even during the Covid-19 pandemic era. This attitude is reinforced by exposure to the updated CPR guidelines. Knowledge regarding Covid-19 CPR is satisfactory, with more training focused on the revised algorithms considered essential.

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