AED training and its impact on skill acquisition, retention and performance : a systematic review of alternative training methods

Introduction The most popular method of training in basic life support and AED use remains instructor-led training courses. This systematic review examines the evidence for different training methods of basic life support providers (laypersons and healthcare providers) using standard instructor-led courses as comparators, to assess whether alternative method of training can lead to effective skill acquisition, skill retention and actual performance whilst using the AED. Method OVID Medline (including Medline 1950-November 2010; EMBASE 1988-November 2010) was searched using “training” OR “teaching” OR “education” as text words. Search was then combined by using AND “AED” OR “automatic external defibrillator” as MESH words. Additionally, the American Heart Association Endnote library was searched with the terms “AED” and “automatic external defibrillator”. Resuscitation journal was hand searched for relevant articles. Results 285 articles were identified. After duplicates were removed, 172 references were reviewed for relevance. From this 22 papers were scrutinized and 18 were included. All were manikin studies. Four LOE 1 studies, seven LOE 2 studies and three LOE 4 studies were supportive of alternative AED training methods. One LOE 2 study was neutral. Three LOE 1 studies provided opposing evidence. Conclusion There is good evidence to support alternative methods of AED training including lay instructors, self directed learning and brief training. There is also evidence to support that no training is needed but even brief training can improve speed of shock delivery and electrode pad placement. Features of AED can have an impact on its use and further research should be directed to making devices user-friendly and robust to untrained layperson

Anticipatory manual defibrillator charging during advanced life support:A scoping review

Background: Some resuscitation services advocate or teach routine manual defibrillator charging prior to a rhythm check during cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Objectives: We aimed to review the evidence for anticipatory defibrillator charging compared with charging after a shockable rhythm is confirmed. Methods: This scoping review was performed according to a specific methodological framework and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews. Grey literature was also reviewed using similar methodology and included in the results. Results: There are no randomized clinical trials studying anticipatory manual defibrillator charging. The limited available data does not address critical or important patient outcomes such as defibrillation success, return of spontaneous circulation, survival to hospital discharge or neurological outcomes. Evidence primarily from manikin studies and the grey literature suggests that anticipatory charging is feasible, safe, and can reduce the total pause duration during the period of chest compression between rhythm checks, but can increase the pre-shock pause and total peri-shock pause duration. Conclusions: Anticipatory manual defibrillator charging appears to be feasible in the clinical setting, although its impact on clinical outcomes is uncertain. Future studies of anticipatory charging should focus on clinical outcomes

2021 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations: Summary From the Basic Life Support; Advanced Life Support; Neonatal Life Support; Education, Implementation, and Teams; First Aid Task Forces; and the COVID-19 Working Group

The International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation initiated a continuous review of new, peer-reviewed published cardiopulmonary resuscitation science. This is the fifth annual summary of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations; a more comprehensive review was done in 2020. This latest summary addresses the most recently published resuscitation evidence reviewed by International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation task force science experts. Topics covered by systematic reviews in this summary include resuscitation topics of video-based dispatch systems; head-up cardiopulmonary resuscitation; early coronary angiography after return of spontaneous circulation; cardiopulmonary resuscitation in the prone patient; cord management at birth for preterm and term infants; devices for administering positive-pressure ventilation at birth; family presence during neonatal resuscitation; self-directed, digitally based basic life support education and training in adults and children; coronavirus disease 2019 infection risk to rescuers from patients in cardiac arrest; and first aid topics, including cooling with water for thermal burns, oral rehydration for exertional dehydration, pediatric tourniquet use, and methods of tick removal. Members from 6 International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation task forces have assessed, discussed, and debated the quality of the evidence, according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria, and their statements include consensus treatment recommendations or good practice statements. Insights into the deliberations of the task forces are provided in Justification and Evidence-to-Decision Framework Highlights sections. In addition, the task forces listed priority knowledge gaps for further research

Adult Advanced Life Support 2020 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science with Treatment Recommendations

This 2020 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations for advanced life support includes updates on multiple advanced life support topics addressed with 3 different types of reviews. Topics were prioritized on the basis of both recent interest within the resuscitation community and the amount of new evidence available since any previous review. Systematic reviews addressed higher-priority topics, and included double-sequential defibrillation, intravenous versus intraosseous route for drug administration during cardiac arrest, point-of-care echocardiography for intra-arrest prognostication, cardiac arrest caused by pulmonary embolism, postresuscitation oxygenation and ventilation, prophylactic antibiotics after resuscitation, postresuscitation seizure prophylaxis and treatment, and neuroprognostication. New or updated treatment recommendations on these topics are presented. Scoping reviews were conducted for anticipatory charging and monitoring of physiological parameters during cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Topics for which systematic reviews and new Consensuses on Science With Treatment Recommendations were completed since 2015 are also summarized here. All remaining topics reviewed were addressed with evidence updates to identify any new evidence and to help determine which topics should be the highest priority for systematic reviews in the next 1 to 2 years.Peer reviewe

Incidence and outcome of in-hospital cardiac arrest in the United Kingdom National Cardiac Arrest Audit

Objective To report the incidence, characteristics and outcome of adult in-hospital cardiac arrest in the United Kingdom (UK) National Cardiac Arrest Audit database. Methods A prospectively defined analysis of the UK National Cardiac Arrest Audit (NCAA) database. 144 acute hospitals contributed data relating to 22,628 patients aged 16 years or over receiving chest compressions and/or defibrillation and attended by a hospital-based resuscitation team in response to a 2222 call. The main outcome measures were incidence of adult in-hospital cardiac arrest and survival to hospital discharge. Results The overall incidence of adult in-hospital cardiac arrest was 1.6 per 1000 hospital admissions with a median across hospitals of 1.5 (interquartile range 1.2–2.2). Incidence varied seasonally, peaking in winter. Overall unadjusted survival to hospital discharge was 18.4%. The presenting rhythm was shockable (ventricular fibrillation or pulseless ventricular tachycardia) in 16.9% and non-shockable (asystole or pulseless electrical activity) in 72.3%; rates of survival to hospital discharge associated with these rhythms were 49.0% and 10.5%, respectively, but varied substantially across hospitals. Conclusions These first results from the NCAA database describing the current incidence and outcome of adult in-hospital cardiac arrest in UK hospitals will serve as a benchmark from which to assess the future impact of changes in service delivery, organisation and treatment for in-hospital cardiac arrest

Emergency training for in-hospital-based healthcare providers:effects on clinical practice and patient outcomes

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Intervention). The objectives are as follows: 1. To assess the effects of emergency training for in‐hospital‐based healthcare providers on patient outcomes. 2. To assess the effects of emergency training for in‐hospital‐based healthcare providers on clinical care practices or organisational practice or both. 3. To identify any essential components of effective emergency training programmes for in‐hospital‐based healthcare providers

Development and validation of risk models to predict outcomes following in-hospital cardiac arrest attended by a hospital-based resuscitation team

Aim The National Cardiac Arrest Audit (NCAA) is the UK national clinical audit for in-hospital cardiac arrest. To make fair comparisons among health care providers, clinical indicators require case mix adjustment using a validated risk model. The aim of this study was to develop and validate risk models to predict outcomes following in-hospital cardiac arrest attended by a hospital-based resuscitation team in UK hospitals. Methods Risk models for two outcomes—return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) for greater than 20 min and survival to hospital discharge—were developed and validated using data for in-hospital cardiac arrests between April 2011 and March 2013. For each outcome, a full model was fitted and then simplified by testing for non-linearity, combining categories and stepwise reduction. Finally, interactions between predictors were considered. Models were assessed for discrimination, calibration and accuracy. Results 22,479 in-hospital cardiac arrests in 143 hospitals were included (14,688 development, 7791 validation). The final risk model for ROSC > 20 min included: age (non-linear), sex, prior length of stay in hospital, reason for attendance, location of arrest, presenting rhythm, and interactions between presenting rhythm and location of arrest. The model for hospital survival included the same predictors, excluding sex. Both models had acceptable performance across the range of measures, although discrimination for hospital mortality exceeded that for ROSC > 20 min (c index 0.81 versus 0.72). Conclusions Validated risk models for ROSC > 20 min and hospital survival following in-hospital cardiac arrest have been developed. These models will strengthen comparative reporting in NCAA and support local quality improvement

Effectiveness of antiarrhythmic drugs for shockable cardiac arrest : a systematic review

Purpose The purpose of this systematic review is to provide up-to-date evidence on effectiveness of antiarrhythmic drugs for shockable cardiac arrest to help inform the 2018 International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation Consensus on Science with Treatment Recommendations. Methods A search was conducted in electronic databases Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library from inception to August 15, 2017. Results Of the 9371 citations reviewed, a total of 14 RCTs and 17 observational studies met our inclusion criteria for adult population and only 1 observational study for pediatric population. Based on RCT level evidence for adult population, none of the anti-arrhythmic drugs showed any difference in effect compared with placebo, or with other anti-arrhythmic drugs for the critical outcomes of survival to hospital discharge and discharge with good neurological function. For the outcome of return of spontaneous circulation, the results showed a significant increase for lidocaine compared with placebo (RR = 1.16; 95% CI, 1.03–1.29, p = 0.01). Conclusion The high level evidence supporting the use of antiarrhythmic drugs during CPR for shockable cardiac arrest is limited and showed no benefit for critical outcomes of survival at hospital discharge, survival with favorable neurological function and long-term survival. Future high quality research is needed to confirm these findings and also to evaluate the role of administering antiarrhythmic drugs in children with shockable cardiac arrest, and in adults immediately after ROSC