Defibrillation waveform and post-shock rhythm in out-of-hospital ventricular fibrillation cardiac arrest

Enhancing the Chain of Survival: The Role of Smartphone Applications in Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation

This review explores the role of smartphone applications in providing real-time guidance for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) practices and highlights their potential to improve CPR quality among laypersons. A narrative literature review was conducted on the effectiveness of mobile CPR applications for smartphones. Studies published between 2014 and 2024 were included to ensure that new technological advances were examined. Our findings revealed that guided CPR applications significantly improve most critical parameters for efficacious resuscitation. Application users demonstrated that they achieved performance comparable to or even better than CPR-certified individuals. However, these tools have limitations, mostly related to familiarity, which may result in a delay in activating the application and, therefore, in initiating CPR. While smartphone applications are promising tools for enhancing bystander CPR, their integration into emergency medical response requires careful consideration. To fully take advantage of these applications, they should be incorporated into public health campaigns and standard CPR training. This would be even more successful if the application's functionality were standardized across different regions. Our research indicates that a combination of education and technology will likely play a major role in CPR training in the future, improving the efficacy and accessibility of life-saving measures. Smartphone applications could greatly improve the chain of survival in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) events. The design and accessibility of these applications as well as the integration of these applications with current emergency response frameworks should be the main areas of future research.

Effectiveness of alternative shock strategies for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: A systematic review

Aim

To determine the optimal first-shock energy level for biphasic defibrillation and whether fixed or escalating protocols for subsequent shocks are most effective.

Methods

We searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, CINAHL, the Web of Science and national and international trial registry databases for papers published from database inception to January 2022. We reviewed reference lists of key papers to identify additional references. The population included adults sustaining non traumatic out-of-hospital cardiac arrest subject to attempted defibrillation. Studies of internal or monophasic defibrillation and studies other than randomised controlled trials or prospective cohorts were excluded. Two reviewers assessed study relevance. Data extraction and risk of bias assessment, using the ROBINS-I tool, were conducted by one reviewer and checked by a second reviewer. Data underwent intention-to-treat analysis.

Results

We identified no studies evaluating first shock energy. Only one study (n = 738) comparing fixed versus escalating energy met eligibility criteria: a prospective cohort analysis of a randomised controlled trial of manual versus mechanical CPR. High fixed (360 J) energy was compared with an escalating (200-200/300-360 J) strategy. Researchers found 27.5% (70/255) of patients in the escalating energy group and 27.61% (132/478) in the fixed high energy group survived to hospital discharge (unadjusted risk ratio 0.99, 95% CI 0.73, 1.23). Results were of very low certainty as the study was at serious risk of bias.

Conclusion

This systematic review did not identify an optimal first-shock energy for biphasic defibrillation. We identified no survival advantage at 30 days when comparing 360 J fixed with 200 J escalating strategy.

[Adult advanced life support]

These European Resuscitation Council Advanced Life Support guidelines are based on the 2020 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Science with Treatment Recommendations. This section provides guidelines on the prevention of and ALS treatments for both in-hospital cardiac arrest and out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

European Resuscitation Council Guidelines 2021: Adult advanced life support

These European Resuscitation Council Advanced Life Support guidelines, are based on the 2020 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Science with Treatment Recommendations. This section provides guidelines on the prevention of and ALS treatments for both in-hospital cardiac arrest and out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

A framework of current based defibrillation improves defibrillation efficacy of biphasic truncated exponential waveform in rabbits

Defibrillation is accomplished by the passage of sufficient current through the heart to terminate ventricular fibrillation (VF). Although current-based defibrillation has been shown to be superior to energy-based defibrillation with monophasic waveforms, defibrillators with biphasic waveforms still use energy as a therapeutic dosage. In the present study, we propose a novel framework of current-based, biphasic defibrillation grounded in transthoracic impedance (TTI) measurements: adjusting the charging voltage to deliver the desired current based on the energy setting and measured pre-shock TTI; and adjusting the pulse duration to deliver the desired energy based on the output current and intra-shock TTI. The defibrillation efficacy of current-based defibrillation was compared with that of energy-based defibrillation in a simulated high impedance rabbit model of VF. Cardiac arrest was induced by pacing the right ventricle for 60 s in 24 New Zealand rabbits (10 males). A defibrillatory shock was applied with one of the two defibrillators after 90 s of VF. The defibrillation thresholds (DFTs) at different pathway impedances were determined utilizing a 5-step up-and-down protocol. The procedure was repeated after an interval of 5 min. A total of 30 fibrillation events and defibrillation attempts were investigated for each animal. The pulse duration was significantly shorter, and the waveform tilt was much lower for the current-based defibrillator. Compared with energy-based defibrillation, the energy, peak voltage, and peak current DFT were markedly lower when the pathway impedance was > 120 Ω, but there were no differences in DFT values when the pathway impedance was between 80 and 120 Ω for current-based defibrillation. Additionally, peak voltage and the peak current DFT were significantly lower for current-based defibrillation when the pathway impedance was < 80 Ω. In sum, a framework of adjusting the charging voltage and shock duration to deliver constant energy for low impedance and constant current for high impedance via pre-shock and intra-shock impedance measurements, greatly improved the defibrillation efficacy of high impedance by lowering the energy DFT.

Return of spontaneous circulation and long-term survival according to feedback provided by automated external defibrillators

Background

We aimed to investigate the effect of automated external defibrillator (AED) feedback mechanisms on survival in out‐of‐hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) victims. In addition, we investigated converting rates in patients with shockable rhythms according to AED shock waveforms and energy levels.

Methods

We collected data on OHCA occurring between 2011 and 2014 in the Capital Region of Denmark where an AED was applied prior to ambulance arrival. Patient data were obtained from the Danish Cardiac Arrest Registry and medical records. AED data were retrieved from the Emergency Medical Dispatch Centre (EMDC) and information on feedback mechanisms, energy waveform and energy level was downloaded from the applied AEDs.

Results

A total of 196 OHCAs had an AED applied prior to ambulance arrival; 62 of these (32%) provided audio visual (AV) feedback while no feedback was provided in 134 (68%). We found no difference in return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) at hospital arrival according to AV‐feedback; 34 (55%, 95% confidence interval (CI) [13–67]) vs. 72 (54%, 95% CI [45–62]), P = 1 (odds ratio (OR) 1.1, 95% CI [0.6–1.9]) or 30‐day survival; 24 (39%, 95% CI [28–51]) vs. 53 (40%, 95% CI [32–49]), P = 0.88 (OR 1.1 (95% CI [0.6–2.0])). Moreover, we found no difference in converting rates among patients with initial shockable rhythm receiving one or more shocks according to AED energy waveform and energy level.

Conclusions

No difference in survival after OHCA according to AED feedback mechanisms, nor any difference in converting rates according to AED waveform or energy levels was detected.

The Effects of Public Access Defibrillation on Survival After Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest: A Systematic Review of Observational Studies

BACKGROUND

Despite recent advances, the average survival after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) remains <10%. Early defibrillation by an automated external defibrillator is the most important intervention for patients with OHCA, showing survival proportions >50%. Accordingly, placement of automated external defibrillators in the community as part of a public access defibrillation program (PAD) is recommended by international guidelines. However, different strategies have been proposed on how exactly to increase and make use of publicly available automated external defibrillators. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the effect of PAD and the different PAD strategies on survival after OHCA.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched on August 31, 2015 for observational studies reporting survival to hospital discharge in OHCA patients where an automated external defibrillator had been used by nonemergency medical services. PAD was divided into 3 groups according to who applied the defibrillator: nondispatched lay first responders, professional first responders (firefighters/police) dispatched by the Emergency Medical Dispatch Center (EMDC), or lay first responders dispatched by the EMDC.

RESULTS

A total of 41 studies were included; 18 reported PAD by nondispatched lay first responders, 20 reported PAD by EMDC-dispatched professional first responders (firefighters/police), and 3 reported both. We identified no qualified studies reporting survival after PAD by EMDC-dispatched lay first responders. The overall survival to hospital discharge after OHCA treated with PAD showed a median survival of 40.0% (range, 9.1-83.3). Defibrillation by nondispatched lay first responders was associated with the highest survival with a median survival of 53.0% (range, 26.0-72.0), whereas defibrillation by EMDC-dispatched professional first responders (firefighters/police) was associated with a median survival of 28.6% (range, 9.0-76.0). A meta-analysis of the different survival outcomes could not be performed because of the large heterogeneity of the included studies.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review showed a median overall survival of 40% for patients with OHCA treated by PAD. Defibrillation by nondispatched lay first responders was found to correlate with the highest impact on survival in comparison with EMDC-dispatched professional first responders. PAD by EMDC-dispatched lay first responders could be a promising strategy, but evidence is lacking.

Does the choice of definition for defibrillation and CPR success impact the predictability of ventricular fibrillation waveform analysis?

BACKGROUND

Quantitative analysis of ventricular fibrillation (VF), such as amplitude spectral area (AMSA), predicts shock outcomes. However, there is no uniform definition of shock/cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) success in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). The objective of this study is to investigate post-shock rhythm variations and the impact of shock/CPR success definition on the predictability of AMSA.

METHODS

A total of 554 shocks from 257 OHCA patients with VF as initial rhythm were analyzed. Post-shock rhythms were analyzed every 5s up to 120s and annotated as VF, asystole (AS) and organized rhythm (OR) at serial time intervals. Three shock/CPR success definitions were used to evaluate the predictability of AMSA: (1) termination of VF (ToVF); (2) return of organized electrical activity (ROEA); (3) return of potentially perfusing rhythm (RPPR).

RESULTS

Rhythm changes occurred after 54.5% (N=302) of shocks and 85.8% (N=259) of them occurred within 60s after shock delivery. The observed post-shock rhythm changes were (1) from AS to VF (24.9%), (2) from OR to VF (16.1%), and (3) from AS to OR (12.1%). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for AMSA as a predictor of shock/CPR success reached its maximum 60s post-shock. The AUC was 0.646 for ToVF, 0.782 for ROEA, and 0.835 for RPPR (p<0.001) respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Post-shock rhythm is unstable in the first minute after the shock. The predictability of AMSA varies depending on the definition of shock/CPR success and performs best with the return of potentially perfusing rhythm endpoint for OHCA.

Biphasic versus monophasic defibrillation in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Biphasic defibrillation is more effective than monophasic one in controlled in-hospital conditions. The present review evaluated the performance of both waveforms in the defibrillation of patients of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) with initial ventricular fibrillation (Vf) rhythm under the context of current recommendations for cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

METHODS

From inception to June 2012, Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched systemically for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational cohort studies that compared the effects of biphasic and monophasic shocks on Vf termination, return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), and survival to hospital discharge in OHCA patients with initial Vf rhythm. No restrictions were applied regarding language, population, or publication year.

RESULTS

Four RCTs including 572 patients were identified from 131 potentially relevant references for meta-analysis. The synthesis of these RCTs yielded fixed-effect pooled risk ratios (RRs) for biphasic and monophasic waveforms on Vf termination survival to hospital discharge (RR, 1.14; 95% CI, [0.84-1.54]).

CONCLUSION

Biphasic waveforms did not seem superior to monophasic ones with respect to Vf termination, ROSC, or survival to hospital discharge in OHCA patients with initial Vf rhythm under the context of current guidelines. However, most trials were conducted in accordance with previous guidelines for cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Therefore, further trials are needed to clarify this issue.

Autoresuscitation after pediatric cardiac arrest: is hyperventilation a cause?

There are a number of reports of delayed return of spontaneous circulation after pulseless arrest (the Lazarus phenomenon) in adults. There are no published reports of this phenomenon in children. We report 2 pediatric cases of the Lazarus phenomenon, likely caused by unintentional hyperventilation during resuscitation.

Cardiopulmonary resuscitation and pediatric advanced life support update for the emergency physician

Although pediatric cardiopulmonary arrest is uncommon, out-of-hospital survival is dismal. Through international consensus conferences, the American Heart Association develops new treatment recommendations for cardiopulmonary resuscitation every few years. The recent changes in cardiopulmonary resuscitation and pediatric advanced life support, with some background information about these changes, will be reviewed.

Inter Association Task Force recommendations on emergency preparedness and management of sudden cardiac arrest in high school and college athletic programs: a consensus statement

OBJECTIVE

To assist high school and college athletic programs prepare for and respond to a sudden cardiac arrest (SCA). This consensus statement summarizes our current understanding of SCA in young athletes, defines the necessary elements for emergency preparedness, and establishes uniform treatment protocols for the management of SCA.

BACKGROUND

Sudden cardiac arrest is the leading cause of death in young athletes. The increasing presence of and timely access to automated external defibrillators (AEDs) at sporting events provides a means of early defibrillation and the potential for effective secondary prevention of sudden cardiac death. An Inter-Association Task Force was sponsored by the National Athletic Trainers' Association to develop consensus recommendations on emergency preparedness and management of SCA in athletes.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Comprehensive emergency planning is needed for high school and college athletic programs to ensure an efficient and structured response to SCA. Essential elements of an emergency action plan include establishing an effective communication system, training of anticipated responders in cardiopulmonary resuscitation and AED use, access to an AED for early defibrillation, acquisition of necessary emergency equipment, coordination, and integration of on-site responder and AED programs with the local emergency medical services system, and practice and review of the response plan. Prompt recognition of SCA, early activation of the emergency medical services system, the presence of a trained rescuer to initiate cardiopulmonary resuscitation, and access to early defibrillation are critical in the management of SCA. In any collapsed and unresponsive athlete, SCA should be suspected and an AED applied as soon as possible for rhythm analysis and defibrillation if indicated.

Porcine defibrillation thresholds with chopped biphasic truncated exponential waveforms

PURPOSE

Conventional biphasic truncated exponential (BTE) waveforms have been studied extensively but less is known about "chopping modulated" BTE shocks. Previous studies comparing chopped and unchopped waveforms have found conflicting results. This study compared the defibrillation thresholds (DFTs) of a variety of chopped and unchopped BTE waveforms.

METHODS

Six anesthetized pigs were defibrillated after 15s of electrically induced ventricular fibrillation (VF). Three waveform types were studied: unchopped BTE, "short" duration chopped, and "long" duration chopped waveforms. Each type included waveforms generated with 50, 100, and 200 microF capacitances, giving 9 total waveforms. Shocks were delivered in a standard up-down protocol and the order of the waveforms was randomized. Defibrillation thresholds were calculated using a Bayesian logistic regression model.

RESULTS

DFTs of the 50, 100, and 200 microF unchopped waveforms were 122+/-22, 124+/-22, and 126+/-22 J. Short chopped DFTs were at least 75+/-23 J higher than unchopped DFTs. Long chopped DFTs averaged 66+/-20 J more than short chopped DFTs. There is a 99.5% probability that the best of the chopped waveforms has a higher DFT than the worst of the unchopped waveforms, and a 95% probability that the difference is at least 37 J. DFT differences between capacitor values were less than 7 J for all waveform types.

CONCLUSIONS

When treating swine with short-duration VF, chopped waveforms require more energy to defibrillate than unchopped waveforms. More study is required to assess the performance of chopped waveforms when treating cardiac arrest patients.

Resuscitation outcomes comparing year 2000 with year 2005 ALS guidelines in a pig model of cardiac arrest

BACKGROUND

Ventricular fibrillation remains the leading cause of death in western societies. International organizations publish guidelines to follow in case of cardiac arrest. The aim of the present study is to assess whether the newly published guidelines record similar resuscitation success with the 2000 Advanced Life Support Guidelines on Resuscitation in a swine model of cardiac arrest.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Nineteen landrace/large white pigs were used. Ventricular fibrillation was induced with the use of a transvenous pacing wire inserted into the right ventricle. The animals were randomized into two groups. In Group A, 10 animals were resuscitated using the 2000 guidelines, whereas in Group B, 9 animals were resuscitated using the 2005 guidelines. Both algorithms recorded similar successful resuscitation rates, as 60% of the animals in Group A and 44.5% in Group B were successfully resuscitated. However, animals in Group A restored a rhythm, compatible with a pulse, quicker than those in Group B (p=0.002). Coronary perfusion pressure (CPP) was not adversely affected by three defibrillation attempts in Group A.

CONCLUSIONS

Both algorithms' resulted in comparable resuscitation success, however, guidelines 2000 resulted in faster resuscitation times. These preliminary results merit further investigation.

BIPHASIC Trial

Background— There is little clear evidence as to the optimal energy levels for initial and subsequent shocks in biphasic waveform defibrillation. The present study compared fixed lower- and escalating higher-energy regimens for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

Methods and Results— The Randomized Controlled Trial to Compare Fixed Versus Escalating Energy Regimens for Biphasic Waveform Defibrillation (BIPHASIC Trial) was a multicenter, randomized controlled trial of 221 out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients who received ≥1 shock given by biphasic automated external defibrillator devices that were randomly programmed to provide, blindly, fixed lower-energy (150-150-150 J) or escalating higher-energy (200-300-360 J) regimens. Patient mean age was 66.0 years; 79.6% were male. The cardiac arrest was witnessed in 63.8%; a bystander performed cardiopulmonary resuscitation in 23.5%; and initial rhythm was ventricular fibrillation/ventricular tachycardia in 92.3%. The fixed lower- and escalating higher-energy regimen cases were similar for the 106 multishock patients and for all 221 patients. In the primary analysis in multishock patients, conversion rates differed significantly (fixed lower, 24.7%, versus escalating higher, 36.6%; P =0.035; absolute difference, 11.9%; 95% CI, 1.2 to 24.4). Ventricular fibrillation termination rates also were significantly different between groups (71.2% versus 82.5%; P =0.027; absolute difference, 11.3%; 95% CI, 1.6 to 20.9). For the secondary analysis of first shock success, conversion rates were similar between the fixed lower and escalating higher study groups (38.4% versus 36.7%; P =0.92), as were ventricular fibrillation termination rates (86.8% versus 88.8%; P =0.81). There were no distinguishable differences between regimens for survival outcomes or adverse effects.

Conclusions— This is the first randomized trial to compare fixed lower and escalating higher biphasic energy regimens in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, and it demonstrated higher rates of ventricular fibrillation conversion and termination with an escalating higher-energy regimen for patients requiring multiple shocks. These results suggest that patients in ventricular fibrillation benefit from higher biphasic energy levels if multiple defibrillation shocks are required.

Inter-association task force recommendations on emergency preparedness and management of sudden cardiac arrest in high school and college athletic programs: a consensus statement

OBJECTIVE

To assist high school and college athletic programs prepare for and respond to sudden cardiac arrest (SCA). This consensus statement summarizes our current understanding of SCA in young athletes, defines the necessary elements for emergency preparedness, and establishes uniform treatment protocols for the management of SCA.

BACKGROUND

SCA is the leading cause of death in young athletes. The increasing presence of and timely access to automated external defibrillators (AEDs) at sporting events provides a means of early defibrillation and the potential for effective secondary prevention of sudden cardiac death. An Inter-Association Task Force was sponsored by the National Athletic Trainers' Association to develop consensus recommendations on emergency preparedness and management of SCA in athletes.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Comprehensive emergency planning is needed for high school and college athletic programs to ensure an efficient and structured response to SCA. Essential elements of an emergency action plan include establishing an effective communication system, training of anticipated responders in cardiopulmonary resuscitation and AED use, access to an AED for early defibrillation, acquisition of necessary emergency equipment, coordination and integration of onsite responder and AED programs with the local emergency medical services system, and practice and review of the response plan. Prompt recognition of SCA, early activation of the emergency medical services system, the presence of a trained rescuer to initiate cardiopulmonary resuscitation, and access to early defibrillation are critical in the management of SCA. In any collapsed and unresponsive athlete, SCA should be suspected and an AED applied as soon as possible for rhythm analysis and defibrillation if indicated.

Increasing use of cardiopulmonary resuscitation during out-of-hospital ventricular fibrillation arrest: survival implications of guideline changes

BACKGROUND

The most recent resuscitation guidelines have sought to improve the interface between defibrillation and cardiopulmonary resuscitation; the survival impact of these changes is unknown, however. A year before issuance of the most recent guidelines, we implemented protocol changes that provided a single shock without rhythm reanalysis, stacked shocks, or postdefibrillation pulse check, and extended the period of cardiopulmonary resuscitation from 1 to 2 minutes. We hypothesized that survival would be better with the new protocol.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The present study took place in a community with a 2-tiered emergency medical services response and an established system of cardiac arrest surveillance, training, and review. The investigation was a cohort study of persons who had bystander-witnessed out-of-hospital ventricular fibrillation arrest because of heart disease, comparing a prospectively defined intervention group (January 1, 2005, to January 31, 2006) with a historical control group that was treated according to previous guidelines of rhythm reanalysis, stacked shocks, and postdefibrillation pulse checks (January 1, 2002, to December 31, 2004). The primary outcome was survival to hospital discharge. The proportion of treated arrests that met inclusion criteria was similar for intervention and control periods (15.4% [134/869] versus 16.6% [374/2255]). Survival to hospital discharge was significantly greater during the intervention period compared with the control period (46% [61/134] versus 33% [122/374], P=0.008) and corresponded to a decrease in the interval from shock to start of chest compressions (28 versus 7 seconds). Adjustment for covariates did not alter the survival association.

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest the new resuscitation guidelines will alter the interface between defibrillation and cardiopulmonary resuscitation and in turn may improve outcomes.

Definition of successful defibrillation

OBJECTIVES

The definition of defibrillation shock "success" endorsed by the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation since the publication of Guidelines 2000 for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiac Care has been removal of ventricular fibrillation at 5 secs after shock delivery. Although this success criterion provides a direct assessment of the primary task of a shock, it may not be the only clinically useful measure of shock outcome. We evaluated a different defibrillation success criterion to determine whether it could provide additional insight into the relative performance of different defibrillation shocks.

DESIGN

A randomized study comparing monophasic and biphasic waveform shocks is reported with return of organized rhythm as the primary outcome measure of defibrillation success.

PATIENTS

A total of 120 patients with out-of-hospital ventricular fibrillation as the first recorded rhythm were treated with defibrillation with automated external defibrillators.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Return of organized rhythm (two QRS complexes, <5 secs apart, <60 secs after defibrillation) was achieved in 31 monophasic shock (45%) and 35 biphasic shock (69%) patients (relative risk, 1.53, 95% confidence interval, 1.11-2.10). Logistic regression analysis revealed that shock waveform was the strongest independent predictor of return of organized rhythm (odds ratio, 4.0; 95% confidence interval, 1.67-10.0). Defibrillation success with the conventional International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation criterion was very high (91% and 98%, respectively) and not significantly different between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Return of organized rhythm proved to be a more sensitive measure of relative defibrillation shock performance than the conventional shock success criterion. Inclusion of return of organized rhythm as an end point in future clinical research could help discern more subtle defibrillation shock effects and contribute to further optimization of defibrillation technology.

Influence of electrophysiological heterogeneity on electrical stimulation in healthy and failing human hearts

The application of strong electrical stimuli is a common method used for terminating irregular cardiac behaviour. The study presents the influence of electrophysiological heterogeneity on the response of human hearts to electrical stimulation. The human electrophysiology was simulated using the ten Tusscher-Noble-Noble-Panfilov cell model. The anisotropic propagation of depolarisation in three-dimensional virtual myocardial preparations was calculated using bidomain equations. The research was carried out on different types of virtual cardiac wedge. The selection of the modelling parameters emphasises the influence of cellular electrophysiology on the response of the human myocardium to electrical stimulation. The simulations were initially performed on a virtual cardiac control model characterised by electrophysiological homogeneity. The second preparation incorporated the transmural electrophysiological heterogeneity characteristic of the healthy human heart. In the third model type, the normal electrophysiological heterogeneity was modified by the conditions of heart failure. The main currents responsible for repolarisation (Ito, IKs and IKI) were reduced by 25%. Successively, [Na+]i was increased by the regulation of the Na+-Ca2+ exchange function, and fibrosis was represented by decreasing electrical conductivity. Various electrical stimulation configurations were used to investigate the differences in the responses of the three different models. Monophasic and biphasic electrical stimuli were applied through rectangular paddles and needle electrodes. A whole systolic period was simulated. The distribution of the transmembrane voltage indicated that the modification of electrophysiological heterogeneity induced drastic changes during the repolarisation phase. The results illustrated that each of the heart failure conditions amplifies the modification of the response of the myocardium to electrical stimulation. Therefore a theoretical model of the failing human heart must incorporate all the characteristic features.

Transthoracic Incremental Monophasic Versus Biphasic Defibrillation by Emergency Responders (TIMBER)

Background— Although biphasic, as compared with monophasic, waveform defibrillation for cardiac arrest is increasing in use and popularity, whether it is truly a more lifesaving waveform is unproven.

Methods and Results— Consecutive adults with nontraumatic out-of-hospital ventricular fibrillation cardiac arrest were randomly allocated to defibrillation according to the waveform from automated external defibrillators administered by prehospital medical providers. The primary event of interest was admission alive to the hospital. Secondary events included return of rhythm and circulation, survival, and neurological outcome. Providers were blinded to automated defibrillator waveform. Of 168 randomized patients, 80 (48%) and 68 (40%) consistently received only monophasic or biphasic waveform shocks, respectively, throughout resuscitation. The prevalence of ventricular fibrillation, asystole, or organized rhythms at 5, 10, or 20 seconds after each shock did not differ significantly between treatment groups. The proportion of patients admitted alive to the hospital was relatively high: 73% in monophasic and 76% in biphasic treatment groups ( P =0.58). Several favorable trends were consistently associated with receipt of biphasic waveform shock, none of which reached statistical significance. Notably, 27 of 80 monophasic shock recipients (34%), compared with 28 of 68 biphasic shock recipients (41%), survived ( P =0.35). Neurological outcome was similar in both treatment groups ( P =0.4). Earlier administration of shock did not significantly alter the performance of one waveform relative to the other, nor did shock waveform predict any clinical outcome after multivariate adjustment.

Conclusions— No statistically significant differences in outcome could be ascribed to use of one waveform over another when out-of-hospital ventricular fibrillation was treated.

Increasing first responder CPR during resuscitation of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest using automated external defibrillators

OBJECTIVE

Evidence supports that increasing the balance of "hands-on" CPR may improve survival in ventricular fibrillation out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). We assessed whether training and/or AED reconfiguration was associated with an increase in the proportion of time during which CPR was performed between first and second stacks of shocks.

METHODS

The investigation was a cohort study of 291 persons who suffered ventricular fibrillation OHCA and were treated with at least two stacks of AED shocks by emergency medical services (EMS) first-tier responders. In January 2003, first-tier providers were retrained regarding the importance of CPR. In addition, a subset of AEDs was reconfigured to remove continuous fibrillation detection and its associated voice prompts as to be comparable with other AED models. The amount of time spent on CPR was assessed through review of AED electronic and audio recordings to compare the pre-intervention (n = 241) and post-intervention periods (n = 50).

RESULTS

The proportion of time spent performing hands-on CPR between first and second stacks of shocks was 0.40 in the pre-intervention period compared to 0.51 in the post-intervention period (p = 0.001). The difference was greatest for AEDs where EMS was retrained and the AED reconfigured (0.33 versus 0.50, p = 0.01). No difference in survival was detected between the pre- and post-intervention periods (24.9% versus 28.0%, p = 0.65).

CONCLUSIONS

An intervention consisting of retraining and AED reconfiguration was associated with an increase in the proportion of time spent performing CPR between first and second stacks of shocks by first-tier EMS. Whether this increase improves patient outcomes requires additional study.

One-shock versus three-shock defibrillation protocol significantly improves outcome in a porcine model of prolonged ventricular fibrillation cardiac arrest

BACKGROUND

The success of resuscitation with a 1-shock versus the conventional 3-shock defibrillation protocol was investigated subject to the range of treatment variation imposed by automated external defibrillators (AEDs).

METHODS AND RESULTS

Ventricular fibrillation was induced in 44 domestic pigs. After 7 minutes of untreated VF, animals were randomized among 4 groups representing all combinations of the 1- versus 3-shock protocol and 2 different AED regimens (AED1, AED2). Because few AEDs support a 1-shock protocol, manual defibrillators were used to replicate the AED treatment regimen: electrical waveform, dose sequence, and cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) interruption intervals. Initial shock(s) were delivered, followed by 60 seconds of CPR, and the treatment was repeated until resuscitation was successful or for 15 minutes. The 1-shock protocol was associated with improved outcome, reducing CPR interruptions from 45% to 34% of total resuscitation time (P=0.019) and increasing survival from 64% to 100% (P=0.004). Survival was 91% for AED1 versus 36% for AED2 (P=0.024) with a 3-shock protocol but was increased to 100% for both by adoption of a 1-shock protocol. Improvements in postresuscitation left ventricular ejection fraction and stroke volume were observed with AED1 compared with AED2 (difference of means, 15% and 28% of baseline respectively, P<0.001) regardless of defibrillation protocol.

CONCLUSIONS

Adoption of a 1-shock versus a 3-shock resuscitation protocol improved survival and minimized outcome differences imposed by variations in AED design and implementation. When a conventional 3-shock defibrillation protocol was used, however, the choice of AED had a significant impact on resuscitation outcome.

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).

Cardiopulmonary resuscitation algorithms, defibrillation and optimized ventilation during resuscitation

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

In 2005, the American Heart Association released its Guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care. This article reviews the treatment algorithms for Advanced Cardiac Life Support, citing the evidence on which the Guidelines are based. Additional focus is placed on defibrillation and optimized ventilation.

RECENT FINDINGS

Major changes include a reorganization of the algorithms for cardiac arrest. Emphasis on effective cardiopulmonary resuscitation is placed as the key to improved survival. Single defibrillation shocks are recommended (compared with three 'stacked' shocks) with immediate provision of cardiopulmonary resuscitation and minimal interruptions in chest compressions. The recommended chest compression : ventilation rate for single rescuers has been changed to 30:2.

SUMMARY

Despite advances in resuscitation science, basic life support remains the key to improving survival outcomes. Ultimately, as new knowledge is gained, we believe resuscitation therapies will be more individualized, on the basis of pathophysiology and etiology of the initial cardiac arrest.

Community Lay Rescuer Automated External Defibrillation Programs

Cardiovascular disease is a leading cause of death for adults ≥40 years of age. The American Heart Association (AHA) estimates that sudden cardiac arrest is responsible for about 250 000 out-of-hospital deaths annually in the United States. Since the early 1990s, the AHA has called for innovative approaches to reduce time to cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and defibrillation and improve survival from sudden cardiac arrest. In the mid-1990s, the AHA launched a public health initiative to promote early CPR and early use of automated external defibrillators (AEDs) by trained lay responders in community (lay rescuer) AED programs. Between 1995 and 2000, all 50 states passed laws and regulations concerning lay rescuer AED programs. In addition, the Cardiac Arrest Survival Act (CASA, Public Law 106-505) was passed and signed into federal law in 2000. The variations in state and federal legislation and regulations have complicated efforts to promote lay rescuer AED programs and in some cases have created impediments to such programs. Since 2000, most states have reexamined lay rescuer AED statutes, and many have passed legislation to remove impediments and encourage the development of lay rescuer AED programs. The purpose of this statement is to help policymakers develop new legislation or revise existing legislation to remove barriers to effective community lay rescuer AED programs. Important areas that should be considered in state legislation and regulations are highlighted, and sample legislation sections are included. Potential sources of controversy and the rationale for proposed legislative components are noted. This statement will not address legislation to support home AED programs. Such recommendations may be made after the conclusion of a large study of home AED use.