Questions to be addressed (using the PICO [population, intervention, comparator, outcome] format) 3 were prioritized by ALS Task Force members (by voting). Prioritization criteria included awareness of significant new data and new controversies or questions about practice. Questions about topics no longer relevant to contemporary practice or where little new research has occurred were given lower priority. The ALS Task Force prioritized 42 PICO questions for review. With the assistance of information specialists, a detailed search for relevant articles was performed in each of 3 online databases (PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library).By using detailed inclusion and exclusion criteria, articles were screened for further evaluation. The reviewers for each question created a reconciled risk of bias assessment for each of the included studies, using state-of-the-art tools: Cochrane for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 4 Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS)-2 for studies of diagnostic accuracy, 5 and GRADE for observational studies that inform both therapy and prognosis questions. 6 GRADE evidence profile tables 7 were then created to facilitate an evaluation of the evidence in support of each of the critical and important outcomes. The quality of the evidence (or confidence in the estimate of the effect) was categorized as high, moderate, low, or very low, 8 based on the study methodologies and the 5 core GRADE domains of risk of bias, inconsistency, indirectness, imprecision, and other considerations (including publication bias). 9 These evidence profile tables were then used to create a written summary of evidence for each outcome (the consensus on science statements). Whenever possible, consensus-based treatment recommendations were then created. These recommendations (designated as strong or weak) were accompanied by an overall assessment of the evidence and a statement from the task force about the values, preferences, and task force insights that underlie the recommendations. Further details of the methodology that underpinned the evidence evaluation process are found in "Part 2: Evidence Evaluation and Management of Conflicts of Interest."The task force preselected and ranked outcome measures that were used as consistently as possible for all PICO questions. Longer-term, patient-centered outcomes were considered more important than process variables and shorter-term outcomes. For most questions, we used the following hierarchy starting with the most important: long-term survival with neurologically favorable survival, long-term survival, short-term survival, and process variable. In general, longterm was defined as from hospital discharge to 180 days or longer, and short-term was defined as shorter than to hospital discharge. For certain questions (eg, related to defibrillation or confirmation of tracheal tube position), process variables such as termination of fibrillation and correct tube placement were important. A few questions (eg, organ donation) required unique outcomes....

Abstract-This is the first scientific statement from the American Heart Association on maternal resuscitation. This document will provide readers with up-to-date and comprehensive information, guidelines, and recommendations for all aspects of maternal resuscitation. Maternal resuscitation is an acute event that involves many subspecialties and allied health providers; this document will be relevant to all healthcare providers who are involved in resuscitation and specifically maternal resuscitation. Key Words: AHA Scientific Statements ■ cardiopulmonary resuscitation ■ heart arrest ■ pregnancy © 2015 American Heart Association, Inc.Circulation is available at http://circ.ahajournals.org DOI: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000300The American Heart Association makes every effort to avoid any actual or potential conflicts of interest that may arise as a result of an outside relationship or a personal, professional, or business interest of a member of the writing panel. Specifically, all members of the writing group are required to complete and submit a Disclosure Questionnaire showing all such relationships that might be perceived as real or potential conflicts of interest.This statement was approved by the American Heart Association Science Advisory and Coordinating Committee on July 6, 2015, and the American Heart Association Executive Committee on August 24, 2015. A copy of the document is available at http://my.americanheart.org/statements by selecting either the "By Topic" link or the "By Publication Date" link. To purchase additional reprints, call 843-216-2533 or e-mail kelle.ramsay@wolterskluwer.com.The online-only Data Supplement is available with this article at http://circ.ahajournals.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1161/CIR.0000000000000300/-/DC1. The American Heart Association requests that this document be cited as follows: Jeejeebhoy FM, Zelop CM, Lipman S, Carvalho B, Joglar J, Mhyre JM, Katz VL, Lapinsky SE, Einav S, Warnes CA, Page RL, Griffin RE, Jain A, Dainty KN, Arafeh J, Windrim R, Koren G, Callaway CW; on behalf of the American Heart Association Emergency Cardiovascular Care Committee, Council on Cardiopulmonary, Critical Care, Perioperative and Resuscitation, Council on Cardiovascular Diseases in the Young, and Council on Clinical Cardiology. Cardiac arrest in pregnancy: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2015;132:1747-1773 Expert peer review of AHA Scientific Statements is conducted by the AHA Office of Science Operations. For more on AHA statements and guidelines development, visit http://my.americanheart.org/statements and select the "Policies and Development" link.Permissions: Multiple copies, modification, alteration, enhancement, and/or distribution of this document are not permitted without the express permission of the American Heart Association. Instructions for obtaining permission are located at http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/General/CopyrightPermission-Guidelines_UCM_300404_Article.jsp. A link to the "Copyright Permissions Request Form" appears on the right ...

No abstract

ABSTRACT:Cardiac arrest in patients on mechanical support is a new phenomenon brought about by the increased use of this therapy in patients with end-stage heart failure. This American Heart Association scientific statement highlights the recognition and treatment of cardiovascular collapse or cardiopulmonary arrest in an adult or pediatric patient who has a ventricular assist device or total artificial heart. Specific, expert consensus recommendations are provided for the role of external chest compressions in such patients. Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) has evolved from a rarely used therapy reserved for the most critically ill hospitalized patients to an accepted longterm outpatient therapy for treating patients with advanced heart failure. This growth is attributable to improved technology, improved survival, reduced adverse event profiles, greater reliability and mechanical durability, and limited numbers of organs available for donation. With the number of patients supported by durable MCS systems increasing in the community, so too is the need for emergency care providers to receive specific guidance on how to assess and treat a patient with MCS who is unresponsive or hypotensive.No evidence-based or consensus recommendations currently exist for the evaluation and treatment of cardiovascular emergencies in patients with MCS. Because of the unique characteristics of mechanical support, these patients have physical findings that cannot be interpreted the same as for patients without MCS. For example, stable patients supported by a durable, continuous-flow ventricular assist device (VAD) often do not have a palpable pulse. Unfortunately, different and sometimes conflicting instructions are given by hospital providers and emergency medical services (EMS) directors to EMS and other healthcare personnel on core resuscitative practices such as the role of external chest compressions in such a patient who suddenly becomes or is found unresponsive. PURPOSEThe purpose of this scientific statement is to describe the common types of MCS devices that emergency healthcare providers may encounter and to present expert, consensus-based recommendations for the evaluation and resuscitation of adult and pediatric patients with MCS with suspected cardiovascular collapse or cardiac arrest. These recommendations focus initially on emergency first-response providers, whether outside or inside the hospital, with additional sections on advanced care that may be provided in the emergency department or in-hospital settings. CONSENSUS PROCESSThe need for standardized recommendations for the emergency treatment of acutely unstable patients with MCS was identified during the 2014 meeting of the American Heart Association (AHA) Science Subcommittee. A writing group was commissioned to review the current literature and to develop consensus-derived recommendations for the initial treatment of these patients. Members of the writing group were chosen for their combined expertise in MCS, cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), emergenc...

No abstract