This Article Free upon publication Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Hazinski, M. F. Articles by Steen, P. A. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Hazinski, M. F. Articles by Steen, P. A.

(Circulation. 2005;112:III-133 – III-136.)
© 2005 American Heart Association, Inc.

Editorial

Controversial Topics From the 2005 International Consensus Conference on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations

Mary Fran Hazinski, RN, MSN; Jerry P. Nolan, MD; Lance B. Becker, MD; Petter A. Steen, MD

From the 2005 International Consensus Conference on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations, hosted by the American Heart Association in Dallas, Tex, January 23–30, 2005.

An extract of the first 250 words of the full text is provided, because this article has no abstract.

	Introduction

 
Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and emergency cardiovascular care (ECC) constitute a relatively young field of medicine concerned literally with issues of life and death. The scientific evidence is scant and opinions are strong. It is difficult to perform clinical intervention studies with sufficient power, and this has been compounded by the severe restrictions on research created by consent legislation in North America¹ and Europe.² There is very little high-level evidence for resuscitation therapies, and many traditional treatment recommendations such as the use of epinephrine/adrenaline, are based on animal studies and reluctance to change an existing treatment recommendation until it is proven ineffective or less effective than a novel therapy.

A rigorous evidence evaluation worksheet process,³ full disclosure and management of potential conflicts of interest,⁴ and focus on science rather than treatment guidelines enabled the 380 international participants at the 2005 Consensus Conference ultimately to achieve consensus constructively and transparently. Participants agreed to focus on the few factors known to have the greatest impact on outcome, specifically recommendations most likely to improve survival rates without adding to the complexity of rescuer training. It was feared that complexity of training could have a negative impact by reducing attention to the most important factors.

There was unanimity about the need for increased emphasis on the quality of CPR, particularly the quality and number of chest compressions provided and the need to minimize interruptions in chest compressions. Participants also considered the need for altering the sequence of actions (ie, compression first or shock delivery first) . . . [Full Text of this Article]

This article has been cited by other articles:

				J. Kattwinkel, C. Stewart, B. Walsh, M. Gurka, and A. Paget-Brown Responding to Compliance Changes in a Lung Model During Manual Ventilation: Perhaps Volume, Rather Than Pressure, Should be Displayed Pediatrics, March 1, 2009; 123(3): e465 - e470. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]