Search

This2020 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendationsfor advanced life support includes updates on multiple advanced life support topics addressed with 3 different types of reviews. Topics were prioritized on the basis of both recent interest within the resuscitation community and the amount of new evidence available since any previous review. Systematic reviews addressed higher-priority topics, and included double-sequential defibrillation, intravenous versus intraosseous route for drug administration during cardiac arrest, point-of-care echocardiography for intra-arrest prognostication, cardiac arrest caused by pulmonary embolism, postresuscitation oxygenation and ventilation, prophylactic antibiotics after resuscitation, postresuscitation seizure prophylaxis and treatment, and neuroprognostication. New or updated treatment recommendations on these topics are presented. Scoping reviews were conducted for anticipatory charging and monitoring of physiological parameters during cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Topics for which systematic reviews and new Consensuses on Science With Treatment Recommendations were completed since 2015 are also summarized here. All remaining topics reviewed were addressed with evidence updates to identify any new evidence and to help determine which topics should be the highest priority for systematic reviews in the next 1 to 2 years.

Introduction: This study aimed to develop a valid and reliable TeamOBS-PPH tool for assessing clinical performance in the management of postpartum hemorrhage (PPH). The tool was evaluated using video-recordings of teams managing PPH in both real-life and simulated settings. Material and methods: A Delphi panel consisting of 12 obstetricians from the UK, Norway, Sweden, Iceland, and Denmark achieved consensus on (i) the elements to include in the assessment tool, (ii) the weighting of each element, and (iii) the final tool. The validity and reliability were evaluated according to Cook and Beckman. (Level 1) Four raters scored four video-recordings of in situ simulations of PPH. (Level 2) Two raters scored 85 video-recordings of real-life teams managing patients with PPH ≥1000 mL in two Danish hospitals. (Level 3) Two raters scored 15 video-recordings of in situ simulations of PPH from a US hospital. Results: The tool was designed with scores from 0 to 100. (Level 1) Teams of novices had a median score of 54 (95% CI 48–60), whereas experienced teams had a median score of 75 (95% CI 71–79; p < 0.001). (Level 2) The intra-rater [intra-class correlation (ICC) = 0.96] and inter-rater (ICC = 0.83) agreements for real-life PPH were strong. The tool was applicable in all cases: atony, retained placenta, and lacerations. (Level 3) The tool was easily adapted to in situ simulation settings in the USA (ICC = 0.86). Conclusion: The TeamOBS-PPH tool appears to be valid and reliable for assessing clinical performance in real-life and simulated settings. The tool will be shared as the free TeamOBS App.

Obstetric and neonatal care providers will rarely be required to carry out simultaneous maternal and neonatal resuscitation. However, if this event occurs, a perfect performance of basic life support, advanced cardiac life support with considerations for pregnancy, and neonatal resuscitation guidelines will afford the woman and her child the best chance for survival. Training for rare events with such high stakes is challenging. It is time to consider moving from a traditional life-support training format to one that is bundled with all of the life-support programs required for a specific unit. Organizing resuscitation training so that care providers from a specific unit train together allows them time to practice key nontechnical skills as a team. Team building in this manner supports the adoption of the cognitive, technical, and nontechnical skills required for this difficult event.

This consensus statement was commissioned in 2012 by the Board of Directors of the Society for Obstetric Anesthesia and Perinatology to improve maternal resuscitation by providing health care providers critical information (including point-of-care checklists) and operational strategies relevant to maternal cardiac arrest. The recommendations in this statement were designed to address the challenges of an actual event by emphasizing health care provider education, behavioral/communication strategies, latent systems errors, and periodic testing of performance. This statement also expands on, interprets, and discusses controversial aspects of material covered in the American Heart Association 2010 guidelines.

The purpose of this study was to compare cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) for simulated maternal cardiac arrest rendered during transport to the operating room with that rendered while stationary in the labor room. We hypothesized that the quality of CPR would deteriorate during transport.Twenty-six teams composed of 2 providers (obstetricians, nurses, or anesthesiologists) were randomized to perform CPR on the Laerdal Resusci Anne SkillReporter™ mannequin during transport or while stationary. The primary outcome measure was the percentage of correctly delivered compressions, defined as compression rate ≥100 beats per minute, correct sternal hand placement, compression depth ≥1.5 inches (3.8 cm), and proper release. Secondary outcomes included interruptions in compressions, position of providers relative to the mannequin during the transport phase, and ventilation tidal volume.The median (interquartile range) percentage of correctly rendered compressions during phase II was 32% (10%-63%) in the transport group and 93% (58%-100%) in the stationary group (P = 0.002, 95% confidence interval of mean difference = 22%-58%). The median (interquartile range) compression rates were 124 (110-140) beats per minute in the transport group and 123 (115-132) beats per minute in the stationary group (P = 0.531). Interruptions in CPR were observed in 92% of transport and 7% of stationary drills (P0.001, 95% confidence interval of difference = 61%-92%). During transport, 18 providers kneeled next to the mannequin, 2 straddled the mannequin, and 4 ran alongside the gurney. Median (interquartile range) tidal volume was 270 (166-430) mL in the transport group and 390 (232-513) mL in the stationary group (P = 0.03).Our data confirm our hypothesis and demonstrate that transport negatively affects the overall quality of resuscitation on a mannequin during simulated maternal arrest. These findings, together with previously published data on transport-related delays when moving from the labor room to the operating room further strengthen recommendations that perimortem cesarean delivery should be performed at the site of maternal cardiac arrest.

Obstetrical emergencies require the rapid formation of a team with clear communication, strong leadership, and appropriate decision-making to ensure a positive patient outcome. Obstetric teams can improve their emergency response capability and efficiency through team and simulation training. Postpartum hemorrhage is an ideal model for team and simulation training, as postpartum hemorrhage requires a multidisciplinary team with the capability to produce a protocol-driven, rapid response. This article provides an overview of team and simulation training and focuses on applications within obstetrics, particularly preparation for postpartum hemorrhage.

Objective Previous work suggests the potential for suboptimal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) in the parturient but did not directly assess actual performance. Study Design We evaluated 18 videotaped simulations of maternal amniotic fluid embolus and resultant cardiac arrest. A checklist containing 10 current American Heart Association recommendations for advanced cardiac life support (ACLS) in obstetric patients was utilized. We evaluated which tasks were completed correctly and the time required to perform key actions. Results Proper compressions were delivered by our teams 56% of the time and ventilations 50% of the time. Critical interventions such as left uterine displacement and placing a firm back support prior to compressions were frequently neglected (in 44% and 22% of cases, respectively). The mean ± SD overall composite score for the tasks was 45 ± 12% (range, 20–60%). The neonatal team was called in a median (interquartile range) of 1:42 (0:44-2:18) minutes:seconds; 15 of 18 (83%) teams called only after the patient was completely unresponsive. Fifty percent of teams did not provide basic information to the neonatal teams as required by neonatal resuscitation provider guidelines. Conclusion Multiple deficits were noted in the provision of CPR to parturients during simulated arrests, despite current ACLS certification for all participants. Current requirements for ACLS certification and training for obstetric staff may require revision.

As pioneers in the field of patient safety, anesthesiologists are uniquely suited to help develop and implement safety strategies to minimize preventable harm on the labor and delivery unit. Most existing obstetric safety strategies are not comprehensive, lack input from anesthesiologists, are designed with a relatively narrow focus, or lack implementation details to allow customization for different units. This article attempts to address these gaps and build more comprehensive strategies by discussing the available evidence and multidisciplinary authors' local experience with obstetric simulation drills and optimization of team communication.