Verification of changes in the time taken to initiate chest compressions according to modified basic life support guidelines

Sekiguchi, Hiroshi; Kondo, Yutaka; Kukita, Ichiro

doi:10.1016/j.ajem.2013.02.047

Cited by 41 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…89,90 Compared with the previous review in 2010, this review also identified 3 new studies that were included for analysis. 87,88,90 Overall, the reviewers had serious concerns for trial methodology of included studies. The nature of comparing 2 different resuscitation protocols meant that all studies suffered from performance and detection bias because healthcare professionals were not blinded to the intervention (C-A-B versus A-B-C).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Part 3: Adult Basic Life Support and Automated External Defibrillation

Travers¹,

Perkins²,

Berg³

et al. 2015

Circulation

235

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction This Part of the 2015 International Consensus on Cardiopul monary Resuscitation (CPR) and Emergency Cardiovascular Care (ECC) Science With Treatment Recommendations (CoSTR) presents the consensus on science and treatment recommendations for adult basic life support (BLS) and automated external defibrillation (AED). After the publication of the 2010 CoSTR, the Adult BLS Task Force developed review questions in PICO (population, intervention, comparator, outcome) format.1 This resulted in the generation of 36 PICO questions for systematic reviews. The task force discussed the topics and then voted to prioritize the most important questions to be tackled in 2015. From the pool of 36 questions, 14 were rated low priority and were deferred from this round of evidence evaluation. Two new questions were submitted by task force members, and 1 was submitted via the public portal. Two of these (BLS 856 and BLS 891) were taken forward for evidence review. The third question (368: ForeignBody Airway Obstruction) was deferred after a preliminary review of the evidence failed to identify compelling evidence that would alter the treatment recommendations made when the topic was last reviewed in 2005. 2 Each task force performed a systematic review using detailed inclusion and exclusion criteria, based on the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies.3 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).Reviewers were unable to identify any relevant evidence for 3 questions (BLS 811, BLS 373, and BLS 348), and the evidence review was not completed in time for a further question (BLS 370). A revised PICO question was developed for the opioid question (BLS 891). The task force reviewed 23 PICO questions for the 2015 consensus on science and treatment recommendations, including BLS 811, BLS 373, and BLS 348. The PICO flow is summarized in Figure 1.Using the methodological approach proposed by the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group, 4 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), 5 Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS)-2 for studies of diagnostic accuracy, 6 and GRADE for observational studies that inform both therapy and prognosis questions.7 GRADE evidence profile tables 8 were then created to facilitate an evaluation of the evidence in support of each of the critical and important outcomes. Critical outcomes were defined as neurologically favorable outcome (level 9), survival (level 8), and return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC; level 7). Given the heterogeneity of time points evaluated in the studies related to BLS/AED, time intervals were pooled across outcomes. For neurologic outcome and survival, we considered the outcomes at discharge,...

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Part 3: Adult Basic Life Support and Automated External Defibrillation

Travers¹,

Perkins²,

Berg³

et al. 2015

Circulation

235

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…İlk olarak göğüs basılarıyla başlanmasının A-B-C ile canlandırmaya başlanmasına göre etkisi halen değerlendirilmektedir. Buna yönelik olarak erişkinde yapılan iki 29,30 ve çocukluk yaş grubunda yapılan bir maket çalışmasının 31 sonuçlarına göre A-B-C ile karşılaştırıldığında, C-A-B uygulanan maketlerde göğüs basılarına başlama süresinin anlamlı olarak erken olduğu gösterilmiştir. Bu üç çalışmanın ikisinde 29,31 C-A-B uygulananlarda ilk solutmaya başlama süresinin A-B-C uygulananlardan yaklaşık olarak sadece 6 saniye geciktiği gösterilmiştir.…”

Section: Canlandırmada Sadece Göğüs Basısının Kullanılması-sadece Göğunclassified

“…Sekiguchi ve ark. 30 A-B-C ve C-A-B döngülerini karşı-laştırdıkları simülasyon çalışmasında A-B-C uygulayanların göğüs basılarına 19,8 saniye daha geç başladıklarını, solutmanın ise C-A-B uygulayan grupta 15,9 saniye daha geç uygulandığını göstermişlerdir . Canlandırmaya erken başlama ve ilk döngüyü daha erken bitirme şeklindeki yararları nedeniyle, ilk solutmanın ortalama 6 sn kadar geç uygulanmasının önemli bir olumsuz etki yaratmayabileceği dikkate alınarak C-A-B sıralaması daha yararlı görülmektedir.…”

Section: Canlandırmada Sadece Göğüs Basısının Kullanılması-sadece Göğunclassified

What brings the 2015 updates about the pediatric basic life support that published by American Heart Association?

Söğütlü¹,

Turan²,

Biçer³

2015

Turk J Ped Em Int Care Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The impact of time to first chest compression for C-A-B versus A-B-C sequence has been evaluated. Adult 12,13 and pediatric 14 manikin studies showed a significantly reduced time to first chest compression with the use of a C-A-B approach compared with an A-B-C approach. Data from 2 of these 3 studies demonstrated that time to first ventilation is delayed by only approximately 6 seconds when using a C-A-B sequence compared with an A-B-C sequence.…”

Section: Evidence Summarymentioning

confidence: 99%