Recent discussions

  • Federico Zaglia

    Agree. Good job indeed.
    In following article:
  • Jacqueline Greenidge-Payne

    I feel that the parents should be there in a resuscitation efforts, it help them to bring closure, with them seeing all the efforts given to saving their childs life. Being a EMS provider to 30 year at time parents feel that more could have been done , but seeing it gets to there affective domain
    In following article:
  • Trevor Cresp

    As a health professional, Its a difficult situation, but where a newborn was 'not expected' to have problems and to see the team working to support the newborn through that event good or bad perhaps allows for the 'grieving' process to begin. Where's an 'expected' event Medical Emergency and newborn is taken away for support can be a difficult process for families - mother etc... We are always learning and hence why training -SIMS etc.. put us in a situation where mother, family is present. Thanks
    In following article:
  • Kitty Bach

    Important to add. I agree with the balance struck given the low quality of evidence; however, embracing this is important in order to start thinking about advancements in this area of research.
    In following article:
  • Tomasz Darocha

    The HOPE score ( www.hypothermiascore.org) was developed to provide clinicians with a specific prognostic decision tool to guide extracorporeal life support (ECLS) rewarming decision. The HOPE score consists of six variables available at hospital admission, and outputs the survival probability at hospital discharge after ECLS rewarming (1). These variables include the mechanisms for hypothermia which was defined as non-asphyxia-related (e.g. immersion, outdoor or indoor exposure to cold) or asphyxia-related (i.e., submersion, avalanche with burial of the head under the snow). The HOPE score provides a prediction of the survival probability in hypothermic cardiac arrest patients undergoing ECLS rewarming. The score ranges from 0% to 100% chance of survival to hospital discharge. A cutoff of 10% to decide which hypothermic patients in cardiac arrest would benefit or not from ECLS rewarming was evaluated in an external validation study (2). The negative predictive value of a HOPE score <10% was of 97%, and the AUC under the ROC curve was of 0.825 which suggest excellent discrimination. The HOPE score is a tool that may help clinicians when deciding to propose ECLS rewarming using ECMO for hypothermic patients following drowning. We suggest this should be incorporated/mentionned in the ILCOR guidelines. Best regards, Mathieu Pasquier, Emergency Department, Lausanne University Hospital, BH 09, CHUV, 1011 Lausanne, Switzerland; e-mail: mathieu.pasquier@chuv.ch Tomasz Darocha, Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, Medical University of Silesia, Katowice, Medyków 16, Poland; e-mail: tomekdarocha@wp.pl References 1. Pasquier M, Hugli O, Paal P, et al. Hypothermia outcome prediction after extracorporeal life support for hypothermic cardiac arrest patients: The HOPE score. Resuscitation. 2018; 126:58-64. 2. Pasquier M, Rousson V, Darocha T, et al. Hypothermia outcome prediction after extracorporeal life support for hypothermic cardiac arrest patients: An external validation of the HOPE score. Resuscitation. 2019; 139:321-328.
    In following article:
  • Kabunga Richard

    First we need to train lifeguards and encourage beaches and hotels to use qualified lifeguards and also to train people on how to identify a drowning person and how to call for help immediately
    In following article:
  • Emily Oliver

    Thank you for this rapid and important review. The British Red Cross is providing this response in the context of eventually using the recommendations to shape its own communications, clinically and educationally, to lay responders and first aid volunteers. The paper addresses questions asked on the assumption that cardiac arrest is already confirmed. It does not refer to earlier aspects of the BLS algorithm of safety, checking for response, opening the airway and checking breathing which we understand could present the greatest risk to the lay rescuer given the proximity to the patient's nose and mouth. These aspects also have COVID-19 related considerations. Whilst recognising that this was not the focus of the paper, acknowledgement of considerations regarding infection risk at the assessment stage of the process from the lay rescuer perspective would be helpful, particularly with regard to moving the patient to their back, exposing their chest etc. It is also important to note that considerations regarding both touching the patient and use of PPE are necessarily different for lay responders living with the patient requiring CPR (and therefore already exposed to coronavirus if it is present amongst inhabitants), versus professional responders, particularly regarding the skill set involved in recognising the need for CPR and having adequate PPE available. The writing group has done a laudable job in acknowledging the circumstances of likely need for lay responder CPR (i.e. in the home, with members of a household who are necessarily occupying the same space already during this pandemic). However, it would be helpful if advice which is more specific for lay versus professional responders could be explicit. Messaging which implies a similar level of danger to both lay responders living with the patient and incoming professional responders could be misconstrued. Re-enforcement of the role that compression-only CPR can play in reducing infection risk during adult CPR to the lay responder is helpful. Acknowledgement that retention of ventilations for child CPR appears justified based on the stated consideration of the writing group
    In following article:
  • Daniel Jost

    I can contribute by bringing our experience as professional first responders (firefighters) to our homes. When they arrive at the bedside of an unconscious patient, to validate the absence of ventilation and, therefore the cardiac arrest, they use of the "Hands-on belly" method (Derkenne et al. 2020) that we use systematically since several years for OHCA detections by telephone by lay rescuers. The Firefighters put their hands on the chest or stomach to detect any movement. If this movement (eventually gasp) is more than 7 seconds apart, they start chest compressions and put the defibrillator on. They do not need to approach the victim's face to recognize the cardiac arrest formally.
    In following article:
  • Andy Davies Resuscitation Coordinator

    New , current New Zealand guidelines are as follows If you have access to personal protective equipment (PPE) (e.g. appropriate face mask, disposable gloves, eye protection), these should be worn. Lay a piece of clothing or a towel over the person’s mouth. The cloth is not PPE but may prevent some droplets/cough spray. Check for Response Check to see if the person is responding. Call for Help Call for an Ambulance. Advise operators if the person is in isolation because of possible COVID- 19. Remember, the Ambulance personnel responding will be wearing PPE. Recognise Cardiac Arrest Open the person’s airway with a head tilt, chin lift. Look for the absence of normal breathing. Do not listen or feel for breathing by placing your face next to theirs. If in doubt, commence compressions. Commence Chest Compressions Push in the centre of the chest, hard and fast Adults and Children Mouth-to-Mouth In many cases the person in cardiac arrest is a loved one or known to you. In that situation you may be willing to do mouth-to-mouth. This gives the best chance of survival, particularly for children. Without treatment, people in cardiac arrest will die. Defibrillators Get a defibrillator as quickly as possible. Follow the instructions to defibrillate shockable rhythms rapidly. The early restoration of circulation may prevent the need for airway and ventilatory support. We know that MOST people who have COVID , under the age of 60, don't die, but everyone in cardiac arrest- without intervention, does. The risk of contracting COVID from a CA victim without symptoms would be low, and the risk of a rescuer under 60 dying, also low. We should try to avoid mixing layperson CPR with guidelines for Health professionals. There needs to be 3 clear parthways 1- Chart for CPR on the street (Non-symptomatic ) 2- COVID 19 +ve or suspected at home. 3-COVID 19 +ve or suspected in hospital . Most COVID19 deaths we assume are PEA and end of life events .
    In following article:
  • Justin Morgenstern

    I made a previous comment after completely misreading the recommendations being made here. I think the key point in my comment that we need to be asking whether there is evidence that it is safe to do procedures, rather than asking whether there is evidence that such procedures are clearly dangerous, is correct. However, the criticism of the guideline was entirely unfounded and based entirely on my misinterpretation. I apologize for any confusion. I think this is tremendous work and appreciate everything your group does trying to make this complex literature usable for all of us. (I don't see the comment yet, so maybe it never even made it through, and I will be saved the embarrassment.)
    In following article:
Next Page