Adult advanced life support: Section 3 of the European Resuscitation Council Guidelines for Resuscitation 2015

Erweiterte lebensrettende Maßnahmen für Erwachsene („advanced life support“, ALS) kommen zum Einsatz, nachdem Basismaßnahmen zur Wiederbelebung („basic life support“, BLS) begonnen und, wenn sinnvoll, ein automatisierter externer Defibrillator (AED) verwendet wurde. Die Basismaßnahmen zur Wiederbelebung eines Erwachsenen und der Einsatz von AEDs wird in Kap. 2 ausgeführt. Basis- und erweiterte Maßnahmen sollen nahtlos ineinander übergehen, da erstere fortgeführt werden und sich mit den erweiterten überschneiden. Dieses Kapitel über die erweiterten Maßnahmen beinhaltet die Vermeidung des Kreislaufstillstands, spezielle Aspekte des außerklinischen ALS, den Start der innerklinischen Reanimation, den ALS-Algorithmus, die manuelle Defibrillation, das Atemwegsmanagement während der Reanimaton, Medikamente und ihre Anwendung während der Reanimation sowie die Behandlung von Periarrest-Arrhythmien. Es gibt zwei Änderungen in der äußeren Form dieser Leitlinien des Europäischen Rats für Wiederbelebung seit den Leitlinien von 2010: [1] Das Kapitel „Elektrotherapie“ [2] ist nicht mehr eigenständig, sondern Teil dieses Kapitels; und die Leitlinien zur Behandlung nach Reanimation sind in ein neues Kapitel ausgegliedert, welches die Bedeutung dieses letzten Glieds der Überlebenskette unterstreicht [3]. Diese Leitlinien basieren auf den International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR) Consensus on Science and Treatment Recommendations (CoSTR) für ALS von 2015 [4]. Die Überprüfung der ILCOR-Empfehlungen von 2015 konzentrierte sich auf 42 Themen, entsprechend der zeitlichen Abfolge der erweiterten Maßnahmen: Defibrillation, Atemwege, Oxygenierung und Ventilation, Kreislaufunterstützung und Überwachung und Einsatz von Medikamenten während der Reanimation. Für diese Leitlinien wurden die ILCOR-Empfehlungen durch ein gezieltes Literatur-Review ergänzt, welches von der ERC-ALS-Leitlinien Autorengruppe zu den Themen die nicht in den ILCOR-CoSTR-Empfehlungen von 2015 überarbeitet wurden erstellt wurde. Die Leitlinien wurden ausgearbeitet, von den ALS-Verfassern geprüft und abschließend von der ERC-Vollversammlung und dem ERC-Vorstand abgesegnet

Resuscitation of the patient with suspected/confirmed COVID-19 when wearing personal protective equipment: A randomized multicenter crossover simulation trial

Background: The aim of the study was to evaluate various methods of chest compressions in patients with suspected/confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection conducted by medical students wearing full personal protective equipment (PPE) for aerosol generating procedures (AGP).Methods: This was prospective, randomized, multicenter, single-blinded, crossover simulation trial. Thirty-five medical students after an advanced cardiovascular life support course, which included performing 2-min continuous chest compression scenarios using three methods: (A) manual chest compression (CC), (B) compression with CPRMeter, (C) compression with LifeLine ARM device. During resuscitation they are wearing full personal protective equipment for aerosol generating procedures.Results: The median chest compression depth using manual CC, CPRMeter and LifeLine ARM varied and amounted to 40 (38–45) vs. 45 (40–50) vs. 51 (50–52) mm, respectively (p = 0.002). The median chest compression rate was 109 (IQR; 102–131) compressions per minute (CPM) for manual CC, 107 (105–127) CPM for CPRMeter, and 102 (101–102) CPM for LifeLine ARM (p = 0.027). The percentage of correct chest recoil was the highest for LifeLine ARM — 100% (95–100), 80% (60–90) in CPRMeter group, and the lowest for manual CC — 29% (26–48).Conclusions: According to the results of this simulation trial, automated chest compression devices (ACCD) should be used for chest compression of patients with suspected/confirmed COVID-19. In the absence of ACCD, it seems reasonable to change the cardiopulmonary resuscitation algorithm (in the context of patients with suspected/confirmed COVID-19) by reducing the duration of the cardiopulmonary resuscitation cycle from the current 2-min to 1-min cycles due to a statistically significant reduction in the quality of chest compressions among rescuers wearing PPE AGP

Development and pilot testing of PHARAO—a decision support system for pharmacological risk assessment in the elderly

</h3

2019 international consensus on cardiopulmonary resuscitation and emergency cardiovascular care science with treatment recommendations : summary from the basic life support; advanced life support; pediatric life support; neonatal life support; education, implementation, and teams; and first aid task forces

The International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation has initiated a continuous review of new, peer-reviewed, published cardiopulmonary resuscitation science. This is the third annual summary of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations. It addresses the most recent published resuscitation evidence reviewed by International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation Task Force science experts. This summary addresses the role of cardiac arrest centers and dispatcher-assisted cardiopulmonary resuscitation, the role of extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation in adults and children, vasopressors in adults, advanced airway interventions in adults and children, targeted temperature management in children after cardiac arrest, initial oxygen concentration during resuscitation of newborns, and interventions for presyncope by first aid providers. Members from 6 International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation task forces have assessed, discussed, and debated the certainty of the evidence on the basis of the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria, and their statements include consensus treatment recommendations. Insights into the deliberations of the task forces are provided in the Justification and Evidence to Decision Framework Highlights sections. The task forces also listed priority knowledge gaps for further research

Immunogenicity and safety of concomitant administration of a measles, mumps and rubella vaccine (M-M-RvaxPro®) and a varicella vaccine (VARIVAX®) by intramuscular or subcutaneous routes at separate injection sites: a randomised clinical trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>When this trial was initiated, the combined measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine was licensed for subcutaneous administration in all European countries and for intramuscular administration in some countries, whereas varicella vaccine was licensed only for subcutaneous administration. This study evaluated the intramuscular administration of an MMR vaccine (M-M-RvaxPro^®) and a varicella vaccine (VARIVAX^®) compared with the subcutaneous route.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>An open-label randomised trial was performed in France and Germany. Healthy children, aged 12 to18 months, received single injections of M-M-RvaxPro and VARIVAX concomitantly at separate injection sites. Both vaccines were administered either intramuscularly (IM group, <it>n </it>= 374) or subcutaneously (SC group, <it>n </it>= 378). Immunogenicity was assessed before vaccination and 42 days after vaccination. Injection-site erythema, swelling and pain were recorded from days 0 to 4 after vaccination. Body temperature was monitored daily between 0 and 42 days after vaccination. Other adverse events were recorded up to 42 days after vaccination and serious adverse events until the second study visit.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Antibody response rates at day 42 in the per-protocol set of children initially seronegative to measles, mumps, rubella or varicella were similar between the IM and SC groups for all four antigens. Response rates were 94 to 96% for measles, 98% for both mumps and rubella and 86 to 88% for varicella. For children initially seronegative to varicella, 99% achieved the seroconversion threshold (antibody concentrations of ≥ 1.25 gpELISA units/ml). Erythema and swelling were the most frequently reported injection-site reactions for both vaccines. Most injection-site reactions were of mild intensity or small size (≤ 2.5 cm). There was a trend for lower rates of injection-site erythema and swelling in the IM group. The incidence and nature of systemic adverse events were comparable for the two routes of administration, except varicella-like rashes, which were less frequent in the IM group.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The immunogenicities of M-M-RvaxPro and VARIVAX administered by the intramuscular route were comparable with those following subcutaneous administration, and the tolerability of the two vaccines was comparable regardless of administration route. Integration of both administration routes in the current European indications for the two vaccines will now allow physicians in Europe to choose their preferred administration route in routine clinical practice.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00432523</p

EurOP2E – the European Open Platform for Prescribing Education, a consensus study among clinical pharmacology and therapeutics teachers

Purpose Sharing and developing digital educational resources and open educational resources has been proposed as a way to harmonize and improve clinical pharmacology and therapeutics (CPT) education in European medical schools. Previous research, however, has shown that there are barriers to the adoption and implementation of open educational resources. The aim of this study was to determine perceived opportunities and barriers to the use and creation of open educational resources among European CPT teachers and possible solutions for these barriers. Methods CPT teachers of British and EU medical schools completed an online survey. Opportunities and challenges were identified by thematic analyses and subsequently discussed in an international consensus meeting. Results Data from 99 CPT teachers from 95 medical schools were analysed. Thirty teachers (30.3%) shared or collaboratively produced digital educational resources. All teachers foresaw opportunities in the more active use of open educational resources, including improving the quality of their teaching. The challenges reported were language barriers, local differences, lack of time, technological issues, difficulties with quality management, and copyright restrictions. Practical solutions for these challenges were discussed and include a peer review system, clear indexing, and use of copyright licenses that permit adaptation of resources. Conclusion Key challenges to making greater use of CPT open educational resources are a limited applicability of such resources due to language and local differences and quality concerns. These challenges may be resolved by relatively simple measures, such as allowing adaptation and translation of resources and a peer review system

Essential competencies in prescribing : A first european cross-sectional study among 895 final-year medical students

European medical students should have acquired adequate prescribing competencies before graduation, but it is not known whether this is the case. In this international multicenter study, we evaluated the essential knowledge, skills, and attitudes in clinical pharmacology and therapeutics (CPT) of final-year medical students across Europe. In a cross-sectional design, 26 medical schools from 17 European countries were asked to administer a standardized assessment and questionnaire to 50 final-year students. Although there were differences between schools, our results show an overall lack of essential prescribing competencies among final-year students in Europe. Students had a poor knowledge of drug interactions and contraindications, and chose inappropriate therapies for common diseases or made prescribing errors. Our results suggest that undergraduate teaching in CPT is inadequate in many European schools, leading to incompetent prescribers and potentially unsafe patient care. A European core curriculum with clear learning outcomes and assessments should be urgently developed