Nasal route for infant resuscitation by mothers

The association of gasping and outcome, in out of hospital cardiac arrest: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Gasping is common after cardiac arrest, and its frequency decreases over time. The aim of this study was to conduct a meta-analysis to evaluate the association of gasping and survival to discharge in patients who suffered out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

METHODS

Relevant studies were identified by searching in PubMed, Medline, Embase, OVID, Web of Science and Google Scholar. Risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated to assess the association of gasping and on out-of-hospital cardiac arrest outcomes. Heterogeneity, subgroup analysis, sensitivity analysis and publication bias were explored.

RESULTS

Individual patient data was obtained from 10,797 participants suffered out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in five cohort studies of 4 articles. A fixed effects model suggested that patients with gasping were 3.525 times (95% CI: 3.028-4.104; P<0.01) more likely to survive to discharge than those without gasping, and there was no heterogeneity among studies (P=0.564). Also it may be a favorable factor for return of spontaneous circulation (RR: 2.170; 95% CI: 1.691, 2.785) with high heterogeneity (Q=5.26; P=0.022).

CONCLUSIONS

Findings of this meta-analysis demonstrated that gasping is common after cardiac arrest, and is associated with increased survival to discharge. Patients who are cardiac arrest with gasping should be promptly resuscitated.

Basic Life Support Ventilation in Mountain Rescue

Cardiopulmonary resuscitation in the mountains usually has to be performed under difficult and hostile circumstances and sometimes for extended periods of time. Therefore, mountain rescuers should have the ability and the appropriate equipment to perform prolonged, efficient, and safe ventilation. Members of the International Commission for Mountain Emergency Medicine (ICAR MEDCOM) discussed the results of a literature review, focusing on the advantages and disadvantages of common ventilation techniques in basic life support and their training methods with specific respect to use in mountain rescue, and recommendations were proposed. Bystanders fear the potential risk of infection and lack the willingness to perform mouth-to-mouth ventilation, though the risk of infection is low. Mouth-to-mouth ventilation remains the standard technique for bystander ventilation and, in the absence of a barrier device, bystanders should not hesitate to ventilate a patient by this technique. For mountain rescue teams, we encourage the use of a barrier device for artificial ventilation. Mouth-to-mask ventilation devices are most likely to fulfill the requirements of being safe, simple, and efficient in the hands of a basic-trained rescuer. The use of a mouth-to-mask ventilation device is recommended for out-of-hospital ventilation in the mountains and should be part of the mountain rescuer's standard equipment. Bag-valve-mask ventilation is efficient, if performed by well-trained rescuers, but it leads to a low ventilation quality in the hands of a less experienced rescuer. It should be emphasized that regular training every 6 to 12 months is necessary to perform proper ventilation.

The International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR) consensus on science with treatment recommendations for pediatric and neonatal patients: pediatric basic and advanced life support

This publication contains the pediatric and neonatal sections of the 2005 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations (COSTR). The consensus process that produced this document was sponsored by the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR). ILCOR was formed in 1993 and consists of representatives of resuscitation councils from all over the world. Its mission is to identify and review international science and knowledge relevant to cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and emergency cardiovascular care (ECC) and to generate consensus on treatment recommendations. ECC includes all responses necessary to treat life-threatening cardiovascular and respiratory events. The COSTR document presents international consensus statements on the science of resuscitation. ILCOR member organizations are each publishing resuscitation guidelines that are consistent with the science in this consensus document, but they also take into consideration geographic, economic, and system differences in practice and the regional availability of medical devices and drugs. The American Heart Association (AHA) pediatric and the American Academy of Pediatrics/AHA neonatal sections of the resuscitation guidelines are reprinted in this issue of Pediatrics (see pages e978-e988). The 2005 evidence evaluation process began shortly after publication of the 2000 International Guidelines for CPR and ECC. The process included topic identification, expert topic review, discussion and debate at 6 international meetings, further review, and debate within ILCOR member organizations and ultimate approval by the member organizations, an Editorial Board, and peer reviewers. The complete COSTR document was published simultaneously in Circulation (International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation. 2005 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations. Circulation. 2005;112(suppl):73-90) and Resuscitation (International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation. 2005 International Consensus Conference on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations. Resuscitation. 2005;67:271-291). Readers are encouraged to review the 2005 COSTR document in its entirety. It can be accessed through the CPR and ECC link at the AHA Web site: www.americanheart.org. The complete publication represents the largest evaluation of resuscitation literature ever published and contains electronic links to more detailed information about the international collaborative process. To organize the evidence evaluation, ILCOR representatives established 6 task forces: basic life support, advanced life support, acute coronary syndromes, pediatric life support, neonatal life support, and an interdisciplinary task force to consider overlapping topics such as educational issues. The AHA established additional task forces on stroke and, in collaboration with the American Red Cross, a task force on first aid. Each task force identified topics requiring evaluation and appointed international experts to review them. A detailed worksheet template was created to help the experts document their literature review, evaluate studies, determine levels of evidence, develop treatment recommendations, and disclose conflicts of interest. Two evidence evaluation experts reviewed all worksheets and assisted the worksheet reviewers to ensure that the worksheets met a consistently high standard. A total of 281 experts completed 403 worksheets on 275 topics, reviewing more than 22000 published studies. In December 2004 the evidence review and summary portions of the evidence evaluation worksheets, with worksheet author conflict of interest statements, were posted on the Internet at www.C2005.org, where readers can continue to access them. Journal advertisements and e-mails invited public comment. Two hundred forty-nine worksheet authors (141 from the United States and 108 from 17 other countries) and additional invited experts and reviewers attended the 2005 International Consensus Conference for presentation, discussion, and debate of the evidence. All 380 participants at the conference received electronic copies of the worksheets. Internet access was available to all conference participants during the conference to facilitate real-time verification of the literature. Expert reviewers presented topics in plenary, concurrent, and poster conference sessions with strict adherence to a novel and rigorous conflict of interest process. Presenters and participants then debated the evidence, conclusions, and draft summary statements. Wording of science statements and treatment recommendations was refined after further review by ILCOR member organizations and the international editorial board. This format ensured that the final document represented a truly international consensus process. The COSTR manuscript was ultimately approved by all ILCOR member organizations and by an international editorial board. The AHA Science Advisory and Coordinating Committee and the editor of Circulation obtained peer reviews of this document before it was accepted for publication. The most important changes in recommendations for pediatric resuscitation since the last ILCOR review in 2000 include: Increased emphasis on performing high quality CPR: "Push hard, push fast, minimize interruptions of chest compression; allow full chest recoil, and don't provide excessive ventilation" Recommended chest compression-ventilation ratio: For lone rescuers with victims of all ages: 30:2 For health care providers performing 2-rescuer CPR for infants and children: 15:2 (except 3:1 for neonates) Either a 2- or 1-hand technique is acceptable for chest compressions in children Use of 1 shock followed by immediate CPR is recommended for each defibrillation attempt, instead of 3 stacked shocks Biphasic shocks with an automated external defibrillator (AED) are acceptable for children 1 year of age. Attenuated shocks using child cables or activation of a key or switch are recommended in children <8 years old. Routine use of high-dose intravenous (IV) epinephrine is no longer recommended. Intravascular (IV and intraosseous) route of drug administration is preferred to the endotracheal route. Cuffed endotracheal tubes can be used in infants and children provided correct tube size and cuff inflation pressure are used. Exhaled CO2 detection is recommended for confirmation of endotracheal tube placement. Consider induced hypothermia for 12 to 24 hours in patients who remain comatose following resuscitation. Some of the most important changes in recommendations for neonatal resuscitation since the last ILCOR review in 2000 include less emphasis on using 100% oxygen when initiating resuscitation, de-emphasis of the need for routine intrapartum oropharyngeal and nasopharyngeal suctioning for infants born to mothers with meconium staining of amniotic fluid, proven value of occlusive wrapping of very low birth weight infants <28 weeks' gestation to reduce heat loss, preference for the IV versus the endotracheal route for epinephrine, and an increased emphasis on parental autonomy at the threshold of viability. The scientific evidence supporting these recommendations is summarized in the neonatal document (see pages e978-e988).

2005 American Heart Association (AHA) guidelines for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and emergency cardiovascular care (ECC) of pediatric and neonatal patients: pediatric basic life support

This publication presents the 2005 American Heart Association (AHA) guidelines for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and emergency cardiovascular care (ECC) of the pediatric patient and the 2005 American Academy of Pediatrics/AHA guidelines for CPR and ECC of the neonate. The guidelines are based on the evidence evaluation from the 2005 International Consensus Conference on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations, hosted by the American Heart Association in Dallas, Texas, January 23-30, 2005. The "2005 AHA Guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care" contain recommendations designed to improve survival from sudden cardiac arrest and acute life-threatening cardiopulmonary problems. The evidence evaluation process that was the basis for these guidelines was accomplished in collaboration with the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR). The ILCOR process is described in more detail in the "International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations." The recommendations in the "2005 AHA Guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care" confirm the safety and effectiveness of many approaches, acknowledge that other approaches may not be optimal, and recommend new treatments that have undergone evidence evaluation. These new recommendations do not imply that care involving the use of earlier guidelines is unsafe. In addition, it is important to note that these guidelines will not apply to all rescuers and all victims in all situations. The leader of a resuscitation attempt may need to adapt application of the guidelines to unique circumstances. The following are the major pediatric advanced life support changes in the 2005 guidelines: There is further caution about the use of endotracheal tubes. Laryngeal mask airways are acceptable when used by experienced providers. Cuffed endotracheal tubes may be used in infants (except newborns) and children in in-hospital settings provided that cuff inflation pressure is kept <20 cm H2O. Confirmation of tube placement requires clinical assessment and assessment of exhaled carbon dioxide (CO2); esophageal detector devices may be considered for use in children weighing >20 kg who have a perfusing rhythm. Correct placement must be verified when the tube is inserted, during transport, and whenever the patient is moved. During CPR with an advanced airway in place, rescuers will no longer perform "cycles" of CPR. Instead, the rescuer performing chest compressions will perform them continuously at a rate of 100/minute without pauses for ventilation. The rescuer providing ventilation will deliver 8 to 10 breaths per minute (1 breath approximately every 6-8 seconds). Timing of 1 shock, CPR, and drug administration during pulseless arrest has changed and now is identical to that for advanced cardiac life support. Routine use of high-dose epinephrine is not recommended. Lidocaine is de-emphasized, but it can be used for treatment of ventricular fibrillation/pulseless ventricular tachycardia if amiodarone is not available. Induced hypothermia (32-34 degrees C for 12-24 hours) may be considered if the child remains comatose after resuscitation. Indications for the use of inodilators are mentioned in the postresuscitation section. Termination of resuscitative efforts is discussed. It is noted that intact survival has been reported following prolonged resuscitation and absence of spontaneous circulation despite 2 doses of epinephrine. The following are the major neonatal resuscitation changes in the 2005 guidelines: Supplementary oxygen is recommended whenever positive-pressure ventilation is indicated for resuscitation; free-flow oxygen should be administered to infants who are breathing but have central cyanosis. Although the standard approach to resuscitation is to use 100% oxygen, it is reasonable to begin resuscitation with an oxygen concentration of less than 100% or to start with no supplementary oxygen (ie, start with room air). If the clinician begins resuscitation with room air, it is recommended that supplementary oxygen be available to use if there is no appreciable improvement within 90 seconds after birth. In situations where supplementary oxygen is not readily available, positive-pressure ventilation should be administered with room air. Current recommendations no longer advise routine intrapartum oropharyngeal and nasopharyngeal suctioning for infants born to mothers with meconium staining of amniotic fluid. Endotracheal suctioning for infants who are not vigorous should be performed immediately after birth. A self-inflating bag, a flow-inflating bag, or a T-piece (a valved mechanical device designed to regulate pressure and limit flow) can be used to ventilate a newborn. An increase in heart rate is the primary sign of improved ventilation during resuscitation. Exhaled CO2 detection is the recommended primary technique to confirm correct endotracheal tube placement when a prompt increase in heart rate does not occur after intubation. The recommended intravenous (IV) epinephrine dose is 0.01 to 0.03 mg/kg per dose. Higher IV doses are not recommended, and IV administration is the preferred route. Although access is being obtained, administration of a higher dose (up to 0.1 mg/kg) through the endotracheal tube may be considered. It is possible to identify conditions associated with high mortality and poor outcome in which withholding resuscitative efforts may be considered reasonable, particularly when there has been the opportunity for parental agreement. The following guidelines must be interpreted according to current regional outcomes: When gestation, birth weight, or congenital anomalies are associated with almost certain early death and when unacceptably high morbidity is likely among the rare survivors, resuscitation is not indicated. Examples are provided in the guidelines. In conditions associated with a high rate of survival and acceptable morbidity, resuscitation is nearly always indicated. In conditions associated with uncertain prognosis in which survival is borderline, the morbidity rate is relatively high, and the anticipated burden to the child is high, parental desires concerning initiation of resuscitation should be supported. Infants without signs of life (no heartbeat and no respiratory effort) after 10 minutes of resuscitation show either a high mortality rate or severe neurodevelopmental disability. After 10 minutes of continuous and adequate resuscitative efforts, discontinuation of resuscitation may be justified if there are no signs of life.

Update in pediatric resuscitation

This article updates research concerning the resuscitation of a pediatric patient. The topics discussed include the state of pediatric life support, the current guidelines, the management of those guidelines, and coping with death.

Failure of mouth-to-mouth resuscitation in cases of sudden infant death

We describe two cases of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) and one case of apparent life threatening apnoea where resuscitation was attempted by the mouth-to-mouth route. This was associated with evidence of gastric distension, including reflux of milk into the airway in the first two cases. In the second case the mother used mouth-to-mouth breathing after finding that she could not cover her baby's nose-and-open-mouth with her mouth. In the last case, the mother went on to try the mouth-to-nose route, with a good outcome. Systematic documentation of the route of resuscitation and its outcome in all cases of SIDS and near-miss SIDS may provide valuable insights into the optimal route for infant resuscitation.

Part 9: pediatric basic life support. European Resuscitation Council

The epidemiology and outcome of pediatric cardiopulmonary arrest and the priorities, techniques, and sequence of pediatric resuscitation assessments and intervention differ from those of adults. Current guidelines have been updated after extensive multinational evidence-based review and discussion over several years. Areas of controversy in current guidelines and recommendations made by consensus are detailed. A large degree of uniformity exists in the current guidelines advocated by the AHA, Council on Latin American Resuscitation, Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, European Resuscitation Council, Australian Resuscitation Council, and Resuscitation Council of Southern Africa. Differences are currently based on local and regional preferences, training networks, and customs rather than scientific controversy. Unresolved issues with potential for future universal application are highlighted.

Assessment of infant cardiopulmonary resuscitation rescue breathing technique: relationship of infant and caregiver facial measurements

OBJECTIVE

Although a few infants ever require resuscitation, pediatric cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is performed most commonly under 1 year of age. American Heart Association guidelines for pediatric basic life support recommend that the caregiver place his/her mouth over the infant's mouth and nose to create a seal. The way CPR is currently taught encourages parents to attempt to seal the nose and open the mouth of the infant for rescue breathing. Recent studies suggest some parents may have trouble sealing an infant's nose and open mouth, but their study participant numbers were small. The aim of this report is to estimate, among a large cohort, the ability of caregivers to create a seal to their infants for the provision of rescue breathing according to current guidelines.

METHODS

Infants up to 1 year of age (n = 281) and their caregivers were enrolled from Philadelphia pediatric offices. Facial measurements of the infants were obtained to estimate the length needed to seal the nose and open mouth, and the nose and closed mouth. Mouth widths of the caregivers were compared with their infant's nose and mouth lengths. One-way analysis of variance with Tukey's postmortem analysis and ordinary least squares means regression were used for univariate analysis with analysis of covariance used to control for the effects of multiple variables when necessary. Infant measurements were stratified into 3-month age quadrants to compare against matched adult caregiver measurements.

RESULTS

Most caregivers (n = 270) were female. Females had smaller mouth widths than males (4.9 +/- 0.5 cm vs 5.2 +/- 0.5 cm). Infant nose and mouth length increased during the first year of life, with the largest increase between 0 to 3 months and 3 to 6 months (4.2 +/- 0.4 cm to 4.7 +/- 0.4 cm). As infant age and face length increased, a progressively higher rate of adult females were estimated not to be able to cover their infant's nose and open mouth, with the greatest increase again between 0 to 3 months (9%) and 3 to 6 months (40%). All female caregivers except 1 were predicted to be able to seal their infant's nose and closed mouth by our measurements.

CONCLUSIONS

Infant face length grows rapidly during the first year of life with the most rapid growth occurring during the first 6 months. As early as 3 to 6 months of infant age, many adult caregivers' facial measurements, especially female, predict that they may not be able to form a seal for mouth-to-nose and open-mouth infant rescue breathing. By related measurements, nearly 100% of caregivers should be able to seal their infant's nose and closed mouth. If facial measurement predictions correlate with functional inability to seal an infant's nose and open mouth, infant CPR rescue breathing instruction will need to emphasize head position and creation of a seal over the mouth and nose without teaching that the mouth be open. pediatric basic life support, infant CPR, rescue breathing, sudden infant death syndrome, acute life-threatening episode.

'What should I do if the baby stops breathing'?

Images

Nasal route to ventilation during basic cardiopulmonary resuscitation in children under two months of age

In order to determine the feasibility of performing mouth to mouth and nose resuscitation according to the established guidelines, a study was carried out on the facial dimensions of 40 children under 2 months of age (20 under 1 month and 20 aged 1 month) and the open-mouth dimensions of the 40 adults in charge of these children. Only nine adults in charge of children under 1 month of age would have been able to seal the mouth and nose of these infants. In the case of the 1 month old infants, only one adult (5%) proved able to encircle the mouth and nose. Strikingly, none of the adults involved in this study would have been able to perform the ventilation manoeuvres in children with open mouths as recommended by the American Heart Association and European Resuscitation Council guidelines. In conclusion, since adults are unable to cover with their mouths both the mouth and nose of the infants, the nasal route to ventilation, with oral sealing of the nose, is recommended as the best approach for the practice and teaching of the basic cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) in children under 2 months of age who have respiratory arrest.

Paediatric life support. An advisory statement by the Paediatric Life Support Working Group of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation

This document reflects the deliberations of ILCOR. The epidemiology and outcome of paediatric cardiopulmonary arrest and the priorities, techniques and sequence of paediatric resuscitation assessments and interventions differ from those of adults. The working group identified areas of conflict and controversy in current paediatric basic and advanced life support guidelines, outlined solutions considered and made recommendations by consensus. The working group was surprised by the degree of conformity already existing in current guidelines advocated by the American Heart Association (AHA), the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada (HSFC), the European Resuscitation Council (ERC), the Australian Resuscitation Council (ARC), and the Resuscitation Council of Southern Africa (RCSA). Differences are currently based upon local and regional preferences, training networks and customs, rather than scientific controversy. Unresolved issues with potential for future universal application are highlighted. This document does not include a complete list of guidelines for which there is no perceived controversy and the algorithm/decision tree figures presented attempt to follow a common flow of assessments and interventions, in coordination with their adult counterparts. Survival following paediatric prehospital cardiopulmonary arrest occurs in only approximately 3-17% and survivors are often neurologically devastated. Most paediatric resuscitation reports have been retrospective in design and plagued with inconsistent resuscitation definitions and patient inclusion criteria. Careful and thoughtful application of uniform guidelines for reporting outcomes of advanced life support interventions using large, randomized, multicenter and multinational clinical trials are clearly needed. Paediatric advisory statements from ILCOR will, by necessity, be vibrant and evolving guidelines fostered by national and international organizations intent on improving the outcome of resuscitation for infants and children worldwide.

Air entry in infant resuscitation: oral or nasal routes?

The current recommendation for resuscitation of infants is to blow air into both the nose and mouth. We have observed that mothers cannot cover both the nose and mouth of their infants. We compared postmortem tracheal and esophageal air entry by using the nose, combined nose and mouth, and mouth routes in eight infants. Air entry into the trachea occurred at lower pressures (P < 0.05) via a nose mask than via a combined nose and mouth mask or via a mouth mask. Air entry into the trachea occurred at lower pressures (P < 0.05) via the nose route in the neutral and extended neck positions compared with the flexed position. We were unable to demonstrate an effect of the route of air entry on esophageal air entry. The findings indicate that the nasal route of air entry is more effective than the combined nose and mouth or mouth routes and that neck flexion impedes air entry. We recommend that parents are taught to blow air into their infants' noses if the infant stops breathing.