A reappraisal of mouth-to-mouth ventilation during bystander-initiated cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a statement for Healthcare Professionals from the Ventilation Working Group of the Basic Life Support and Pediatric Life Support Subcommittees, American Heart Association

An exploration of attitudes toward bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation in university students in Tianjin, China: A survey

BACKGROUND

Despite the importance of early effective bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) to improve survival rates from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, the attitudes toward performing, learning and disseminating CPR in university students of China are still unclear.

METHODS AND AIMS

To assess the attitudes regarding performing, learning and disseminating bystander CPR in university students of China.

RESULTS

The results indicated that except for the scenario where the victim was their own family member or close friend, all other scenarios showed a relatively dismally lower rate of positive response. Besides, it showed a greater willingness to perform chest compression only CPR (CC) than chest compression with mouth-to-mouth ventilation (CCMV) (P < 0.05). Females were more willing to perform CC across seven of the hypothetic scenarios than males. University students of medical-related specialties (45.3%) than university students of non-medical specialties (29.9%) were more willing to perform bystander CPR (P < 0.05). The top four reasons for being unwilling to perform bystander CPR were lack of confidence (32.9%), fear of legal disputes (17.2%), fear of disease transmission (16.0%) and feeling embarrassed (14.0%). 92.6% of respondents wanted to learn CPR and 80.3% of respondents were willing to disseminate CPR.

CONCLUSIONS

CPR technique, victim's status, respondent's specialty and respondent's gender affected the attitudes of respondents toward performing bystander CPR. The top four reasons for being unwilling to perform bystander CPR were lack of confidence, fear of legal disputes, fear of disease transmission and feeling embarrassed. However, the key reason for being unwilling to perform bystander CPR differed in different specialties and particularly 'feeling embarrassment' might be a cultural phenomenon. The attitudes toward learning and disseminating CPR were positive and affected by respondent's gender and specialty.

Gasping during cardiac arrest in humans is frequent and associated with improved survival

BACKGROUND

The incidence and significance of gasping after cardiac arrest in humans are controversial.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Two approaches were used. The first was a retrospective analysis of consecutive confirmed out-of-hospital cardiac arrests from the Phoenix Fire Department Regional Dispatch Center text files to determine the presence of gasping soon after collapse. The second was a retrospective analysis of 1218 patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrests in Arizona documented by emergency medical system (EMS) first-care reports to determine the incidence of gasping after arrest in relation to the various EMS arrival times. The primary outcome measure was survival to hospital discharge. An analysis of the Phoenix Fire Department Regional Dispatch Center records of witnessed and unwitnessed out-of-hospital cardiac arrests with attempted resuscitation found that 44 of 113 (39%) of all arrested patients had gasping. An analysis of 1218 EMS-attended, witnessed, out-of-hospital cardiac arrests demonstrated that the presence or absence of gasping correlated with EMS arrival time. Gasping was present in 39 of 119 patients (33%) who arrested after EMS arrival, in 73 of 363 (20%) when EMS arrival was <7 minutes, in 50 of 360 (14%) when EMS arrival time was 7 to 9 minutes, and in 25 of 338 (7%) when EMS arrival time was >9 minutes. Survival to hospital discharge occurred in 54 of 191 patients (28%) who gasped and in 80 of 1027 (8%) who did not (adjusted odds ratio, 3.4; 95% confidence interval, 2.2 to 5.2). Among the 481 patients who received bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation, survival to hospital discharge occurred among 30 of 77 patients who gasped (39%) versus only 38 of 404 among those who did not gasp (9%) (adjusted odds ratio, 5.1; 95% confidence interval, 2.7 to 9.4).

CONCLUSIONS

Gasping or abnormal breathing is common after cardiac arrest but decreases rapidly with time. Gasping is associated with increased survival. These results suggest that the recognition and importance of gasping should be taught to bystanders and emergency medical dispatchers so as not to dissuade them from initiating prompt resuscitation efforts when appropriate.

International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation. 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.

Alternative ventilation strategies in cardiopulmonary resuscitation

The introduction of the 2000 Guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation emphasizes a new, evidence-based approach to the science of ventilation during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). New laboratory and clinical science underemphasizes the role of ventilation immediately after a dysrhythmic cardiac arrest (arrest primarily resulting from a cardiovascular event, such as ventricular defibrillation or asystole). However, the classic airway patency, breathing, and circulation (ABC) CPR sequence remains a fundamental factor for the immediate survival and neurologic outcome of patients after asphyxial cardiac arrest (cardiac arrest primarily resulting from respiratory arrest). The hidden danger of ventilation of the unprotected airway during cardiac arrest either by mouth-to-mouth or by mask can be minimized by applying ventilation techniques that decrease stomach gas insufflation. This goal can be achieved by decreasing peak inspiratory flow rate, increasing inspiratory time, and decreasing tidal volume to approximately 5 to 7 mL/kg, if oxygen is available. Laboratory and clinical evidence recently supported the important role of alternative airway devices to mask ventilation and endotracheal intubation in the chain of survival. In particular, the laryngeal mask airway and esophageal Combitube proved to be effective alternatives in providing oxygenation and ventilation to the patient in cardiac arrest in the prehospital arena in North America. Prompt recognition of supraglottic obstruction of the airway is fundamental for the management of patients in cardiac arrest when ventilation and oxygenation cannot be provided by conventional methods. "Minimally invasive" cricothyroidotomy devices are now available for the professional health care provider who is not proficient or comfortable with performing an emergency surgical tracheotomy or cricothyroidotomy. Finally, a recent device that affects the relative influence of positive pressure ventilation on the hemodynamics during cardiac arrest has been introduced, the inspiratory impedance threshold valve, with the goal of maximizing coronary and cerebral perfusion while performing CPR. Although the role of this alternative ventilatory methodology in CPR is rapidly being established, we cannot overemphasize the need for proper training to minimize complications and maximize the efficacy of these new devices.

Community attitudes towards performing cardiopulmonary resuscitation in Western Australia

OBJECTIVE

to determine the attitudes of the Western Australian community towards performing cardiopulmonary resuscitation, and the factors affecting these attitudes.

METHODS

telephone survey of a randomly selected sample of people from suburban Perth and rural Western Australia; practical assessment of a sub-sample of volunteers from those surveyed, to correlate survey answers with practical skills.

RESULTS

of 803 people surveyed, the majority (90.7%) definitely would give mouth-to-mouth ventilation to a friend or relative, but less than half (47.2%) would to a stranger. The reluctance was mostly (56%) because of health and safety concerns, particularly related to HIV infection. Higher percentages of people would definitely provide cardiac massage for a friend or relative (91.4%) or stranger (78.1%). People were more likely to give mouth-to-mouth and cardiac massage if they had been trained in cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), trained several times, trained recently, and used their CPR skills in real life. There were no significant differences between city and country people in whether they would provide CPR, but older people were less willing to provide mouth-to-mouth or cardiac massage. On practical assessment of 100 volunteers, there were significant errors and omissions in airway assessment, mouth-to-mouth resuscitation and cardiac massage. Volunteers with better practical scores were more prepared to provide CPR.

DISCUSSION

our results indicate a significant reluctance of the Western Australia public to perform mouth-to-mouth, except to a friend or relative. Earlier CPR training, practice and use seemed to diminish this reluctance. Practical CPR skills were not well executed. Those with better skills were less reluctant to use them. We recommend increasing CPR training in the community, greater frequency of refresher courses and public education on the risks of CPR to improve rates of bystander CPR.

EMS provider reluctance to perform mouth-to-mouth resuscitation

OBJECTIVES

To assess the willingness of EMS providers to perform mouth-to-mouth resuscitation (MMR) both with and without a barrier device (e.g., face shield), while not on duty; and to determine the providers' perceived risk from performing MMR and the frequency with which they carry a barrier device.

METHODS

A survey was mailed to 543 EMS providers presenting four scenarios describing a patient in respiratory arrest. The respondents were asked whether they would perform MMR in each scenario both with and without a barrier device.

RESULTS

Of those surveyed, 342 (64%) responded. Strikingly few (< or =5%) of the respondents would perform MMR without a barrier on each of the cases, except for the case of a pediatric drowning (52%). The respondents were least likely to perform MMR on a patient with AIDS (< 1%). The respondents were much more likely to perform MMR in each case if a barrier device was available. The respondents were very concerned about the risk of contagion from MMR, yet 44% of the respondents rarely or never carried a barrier device with them.

CONCLUSION

Emergency medical services providers are quite reluctant to perform MMR, and this is likely related to their perception of a high risk of contagion. The availability of barrier devices greatly decreases this reluctance, but EMS personnel carry such devices infrequently.