| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
- Ringh, M, et al.
(author)
-
The challenges and possibilities of public access defibrillation.
- 2018
-
In: Journal of Internal Medicine. - : Wiley. - 0954-6820 .- 1365-2796. ; 283:3, s. 238-256
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is a major health problem that affects approximately four hundred and thousand patients annually in the United States alone. It is a major challenge for the emergency medical system as decreased survival rates are directly proportional to the time delay from collapse to defibrillation. Historically, defibrillation has only been performed by physicians and in-hospital. With the development of automated external defibrillators (AEDs), rapid defibrillation by nonmedical professionals and subsequently by trained or untrained lay bystanders has become possible. Much hope has been put to the concept of Public Access Defibrillation with a massive dissemination of public available AEDs throughout most Western countries. Accordingly, current guidelines recommend that AEDs should be deployed in places with a high likelihood of OHCA. Despite these efforts, AED use is in most settings anecdotal with little effect on overall OHCA survival. The major reasons for low use of public AEDs are that most OHCAs take place outside high incidence sites of cardiac arrest and that most OHCAs take place in residential settings, currently defined as not suitable for Public Access Defibrillation. However, the use of new technology for identification and recruitment of lay bystanders and nearby AEDs to the scene of the cardiac arrest as well as new methods for strategic AED placement redefines and challenges the current concept and definitions of Public Access Defibrillation. Existing evidence of Public Access Defibrillation and knowledge gaps and future directions to improve outcomes for OHCA are discussed. In addition, a new definition of the different levels of Public Access Defibrillation is offered as well as new strategies for increasing AED use in the society.
|
|
| 9. |
- Soar, J, et al.
(author)
-
[Adult advanced life support]
- 2021
-
In: Notfall & rettungsmedizin. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1434-6222 .- 1436-0578. ; 24:4, s. 406-446
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)
|
|
| 10. |
|
|
| 11. |
|
|
| 12. |
|
|
| 13. |
|
|
| 14. |
|
|
| 15. |
|
|
| 16. |
|
|
| 17. |
|
|
| 18. |
|
|
| 19. |
- Herlitz, Johan, 1949, et al.
(author)
-
Treatment of asystole and PEA
- 2009
-
In: Resuscitation. - : Elsevier Ireland Ltd. - 1873-1570 .- 0300-9572. ; 80:9, s. 975-6
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Recent reports consistently point to a substantial decline in the incidence of ventricular fibrillation (VF) as the initial rhythm observed by Emergency Medical Service (EMS) responders and a complementary increase in pulseless electrical activity (PEA) and asystole. Historically, efforts at improving survival have focused primarily on patients found in VF. Consequently, the approach for other patients has included frequent pauses in cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) to check for VF followed by shock when VF is observed. However, the "yield" of survivors comes largely from the non-shocked patients. Therefore, it is critical that we start evaluating treatments specifically for the PEA and asystole groups.
|
|
| 20. |
- Nishiyama, C, et al.
(author)
-
Apples to apples or apples to oranges? International variation in reporting of process and outcome of care for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest
- 2014
-
In: Resuscitation. - : Elsevier Ireland Ltd.. - 0300-9572 .- 1873-1570. ; 85:11, s. 1599-1609
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- OBJECTIVES: Survival after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) varies between communities, due in part to variation in the methods of measurement. The Utstein template was disseminated to standardize comparisons of risk factors, quality of care, and outcomes in patients with OHCA. We sought to assess whether OHCA registries are able to collate common data using the Utstein template. A subsequent study will assess whether the Utstein factors explain differences in survival between emergency medical services (EMS) systems. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective study. SETTING: This retrospective analysis of prospective cohorts included adults treated for OHCA, regardless of the etiology of arrest. Data describing the baseline characteristics of patients, and the process and outcome of their care were grouped by EMS system, de-identified, and then collated. Included were core Utstein variables and timed event data from each participating registry. This study was classified as exempt from human subjects' research by a research ethics committee. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Thirteen registries with 265 first-responding EMS agencies in 13 countries contributed data describing 125,840 cases of OHCA. Variation in inclusion criteria, definition, coding, and process of care variables were observed. Contributing registries collected 61.9% of recommended core variables and 42.9% of timed event variables. Among core variables, the proportion of missingness was mean 1.9±2.2%. The proportion of unknown was mean 4.8±6.4%. Among time variables, missingness was mean 9.0±6.3%. CONCLUSIONS: International differences in measurement of care after OHCA persist. Greater consistency would facilitate improved resuscitation care and comparison within and between communities.
|
|
| 21. |
- Nolan, Jerry P., et al.
(author)
-
ERC-ESICM guidelines on temperature control after cardiac arrest in adults
- 2022
-
In: Resuscitation. - : Elsevier BV. - 0300-9572. ; 172, s. 229-236
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- The aim of these guidelines is to provide evidence‑based guidance for temperature control in adults who are comatose after resuscitation from either in-hospital or out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, regardless of the underlying cardiac rhythm. These guidelines replace the recommendations on temperature management after cardiac arrest included in the 2021 post-resuscitation care guidelines co-issued by the European Resuscitation Council (ERC) and the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM). The guideline panel included thirteen international clinical experts who authored the 2021 ERC-ESICM guidelines and two methodologists who participated in the evidence review completed on behalf of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR) of whom ERC is a member society. We followed the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess the certainty of evidence and grade recommendations. The panel provided suggestions on guideline implementation and identified priorities for future research. The certainty of evidence ranged from moderate to low. In patients who remain comatose after cardiac arrest, we recommend continuous monitoring of core temperature and actively preventing fever (defined as a temperature > 37.7 °C) for at least 72 hours. There was insufficient evidence to recommend for or against temperature control at 32–36 °C or early cooling after cardiac arrest. We recommend not actively rewarming comatose patients with mild hypothermia after return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) to achieve normothermia. We recommend not using prehospital cooling with rapid infusion of large volumes of cold intravenous fluids immediately after ROSC.
|
|
| 22. |
- Sandroni, Claudio, et al.
(author)
-
ERC-ESICM guidelines on temperature control after cardiac arrest in adults
- 2022
-
In: Intensive Care Medicine. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 0342-4642 .- 1432-1238. ; 48:3, s. 261-269
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- The aim of these guidelines is to provide evidence‑based guidance for temperature control in adults who are comatose after resuscitation from either in-hospital or out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, regardless of the underlying cardiac rhythm. These guidelines replace the recommendations on temperature management after cardiac arrest included in the 2021 post-resuscitation care guidelines co-issued by the European Resuscitation Council (ERC) and the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM). The guideline panel included thirteen international clinical experts who authored the 2021 ERC-ESICM guidelines and two methodologists who participated in the evidence review completed on behalf of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR) of whom ERC is a member society. We followed the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess the certainty of evidence and grade recommendations. The panel provided suggestions on guideline implementation and identified priorities for future research. The certainty of evidence ranged from moderate to low. In patients who remain comatose after cardiac arrest, we recommend continuous monitoring of core temperature and actively preventing fever (defined as a temperature > 37.7 °C) for at least 72 h. There was insufficient evidence to recommend for or against temperature control at 32–36 °C or early cooling after cardiac arrest. We recommend not actively rewarming comatose patients with mild hypothermia after return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) to achieve normothermia. We recommend not using prehospital cooling with rapid infusion of large volumes of cold intravenous fluids immediately after ROSC.
|
|
| 23. |
|
|
| 24. |
- Zijlstra, Jolande A, et al.
(author)
-
Different defibrillation strategies in survivors after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.
- 2018
-
In: Heart. - : BMJ. - 1355-6037 .- 1468-201X. ; 104:23, s. 1929-1936
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- BACKGROUND: In the last decade, there has been a rapid increase in the dissemination of automated external defibrillators (AEDs) for prehospital defibrillation of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients. The aim of this study was to study the association between different defibrillation strategies on survival rates over time in Copenhagen, Stockholm, Western Sweden and Amsterdam, and the hypothesis was that non-EMS defibrillation increased over time and was associated with increased survival.METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of four prospectively collected cohorts of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients between 2008 and 2013. Emergency medical service (EMS)-witnessed arrests were excluded.RESULTS: A total of 22 453 out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients with known survival status were identified, of whom 2957 (13%) survived at least 30 days postresuscitation. Of all survivors with a known defibrillation status, 2289 (81%) were defibrillated, 1349 (59%) were defibrillated by EMS, 454 (20%) were defibrillated by a first responder AED and 429 (19%) were defibrillated by an onsite AED and 57 (2%) were unknown. The percentage of survivors defibrillated by first responder AEDs (from 13% in 2008 to 26% in 2013, p<0.001 for trend) and onsite AEDs (from 14% in 2008 to 30% in 2013, p<0.001 for trend) increased. The increased use of these non-EMS AEDs was associated with the increase in survival rate of patients with a shockable initial rhythm.CONCLUSION: Survivors of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest are increasingly defibrillated by non-EMS AEDs. This increase is primarily due to a large increase in the use of onsite AEDs as well as an increase in first-responder defibrillation over time. Non-EMS defibrillation accounted for at least part of the increase in survival rate of patients with a shockable initial rhythm.
|
|
