Background— Utstein-style guidelines use an established consensus process, endorsed by the international resuscitation community, to facilitate and structure resuscitation research and publication. The first “Guidelines for Uniform Reporting of Data From Drowning” were published over a decade ago. During the intervening years, resuscitation science has advanced considerably, thus making revision of the guidelines timely. In particular, measurement of cardiopulmonary resuscitation elements and neurological outcomes reporting have advanced substantially. The purpose of this report is to provide updated guidelines for reporting data from studies of resuscitation from drowning. Methods— An international group with scientific expertise in the fields of drowning research, resuscitation research, emergency medical services, public health, and development of guidelines met in Potsdam, Germany, to determine the data that should be reported in scientific articles on the subject of resuscitation from drowning. At the Utstein-style meeting, participants discussed data elements in detail, defined the data, determined data priority, and decided how data should be reported, including scoring methods and category details. Results— The template for reporting data from drowning research was revised extensively, with new emphasis on measurement of quality of resuscitation, neurological outcomes, and deletion of data that have proved to be less relevant or difficult to capture. Conclusions— The report describes the consensus process, rationale for selecting data elements to be reported, definitions and priority of data, and scoring methods. These guidelines are intended to improve the clarity of scientific communication and the comparability of scientific investigations. (Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2017;10:e000024. DOI: 10.1161/HCQ.0000000000000024.)

The report describes the consensus process, rationale for selecting data elements to be reported, definitions and priority of data, and scoring methods. These guidelines are intended to improve the clarity of scientific communication and the comparability of scientific investigations.

We found that the antiemetic effect of propofol was considerable in the early postoperative period. The higher cost of propofol as compared to other induction agents can be covered by not using nitrous oxide for maintenance of anaesthesia and by the decreased need for antiemetic drugs postoperatively. According to the calculations of our clinical pharmacy, the costs of the propofol infusion regimen exceeded those of balanced anaesthesia by 8.50 DM/h; the need for antiemetics was one-half that of the non-propofol group. Considering a cost of 16 DM for cleaning the bed after vomiting, improvement of the patient's condition during the postoperative period can be achieved without additional expense.

The use of a thin pencil point needle (Whitacre G27) enables the application of a spinal anaesthesia to young people with a low risk of moderate PDPH. Pregnancy is not a contraindication. Early mobilisation does not increase the risk of PDPH even in young patients nor is this the case in outpatients. In outpatients older than 60 years a G26 Quinke needle, which is easier to handle and cheaper, is suitable for spinal anaesthesia without a risk of PDPH. Better post-operative vigilance may be a further benefit of the method. Young people especially appreciated the option to pursue their own video-endoscopic surgery. In a comparable group where an epidural was performed we found more side-effects.