《心肺复苏指南》参考资料（英文版）Part 1：Introduction

Circulation Atmegiso tmO Learn and live JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN HEART ASSOCIATION Part 1: Introduction Circulation 2005; 112; 1-5 originally published online Nov 28, 2005 DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA 105. 166550 Circulation is published by the American Heart Association. 7272 Greenville Avenue, Dallas, Tx 72514 Copyright o 2005 American Heart Association. All rights reserved. Print ISSN: 0009-7322. Online ISSN:15244539 The online version of this article, along with updated information and services, is located on the World wide Web at http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/full/112/24suppl/iv-1 Subscriptions: Information about subscribing to Circulation is online at http://circ.ahajournals.org/subsriptions/ Permissions: Permissions Rights Desk, Lippincott Williams Wilkins, 351 West Cam Street. Baltimore MD 21202-2436 Phone 410-5280-4050. Fax: 410-528-8550 En journalpermissions@lww.com Reprints: Information about reprints can be found online at http://www.Iww.com/static/html/reprints.html Downloaded from circ. ahajournals. org by on February 21, 2006

ISSN: 1524-4539 Copyright © 2005 American Heart Association. All rights reserved. Print ISSN: 0009-7322. Online 72514 Circulation is published by the American Heart Association. 7272 Greenville Avenue, Dallas, TX DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.105.166550 Circulation 2005;112;1-5; originally published online Nov 28, 2005; Part 1: Introduction http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/full/112/24_suppl/IV-1 located on the World Wide Web at: The online version of this article, along with updated information and services, is http://www.lww.com/static/html/reprints.html Reprints: Information about reprints can be found online at journalpermissions@lww.com Street, Baltimore, MD 21202-2436. Phone 410-5280-4050. Fax: 410-528-8550. Email: Permissions: Permissions & Rights Desk, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 351 West Camden http://circ.ahajournals.org/subsriptions/ Subscriptions: Information about subscribing to Circulation is online at Downloaded from circ.ahajournals.org by on February 21, 2006

Part 1: Introduction This publication presents the 2005 American Heart Asso- the evidence review, and (3)draft treatment recommenda- ciation(AHA)guidelines for cardiopulmonary resusci- tions. They then completed worksheets that provided the tation( CPR)and emergency cardiovascular care(ECC). The format for a structured literature review (Table 1).The guidelines are based on the evidence evaluation from the worksheet authors identified key research studies, recorded 2005 International Consensus Conference on Cardiopulmo- the levels of evidence(Table 2)of the studies, and drafted nary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Sci- recommendations. When possible, two worksheet authors ence With Treatment Recommendations, hosted by the Amer- one from the United States and one from outside the United ican Heart Association in Dallas, Texas, January 23-30, States, were recruited to complete independent reviews of 2005. These guidelines supersede the Guidelines 2000 for each topic. This process is described in detail in the 2005 Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiova International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation ular Care. 2 and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treat As with all versions of the ECC guidelines published since ment Recommendations' and the accompanying editorial. 7 1974,2-6 the 2005 AHA Guidelines for CPR and ECC contain A total of 281 worksheet authors completed 403 work- recommendations designed to improve survival from sudden sheets on 276 topics. To obtain feedback from the resuscita- cardiac arrest and acute life-threatening cardiopulmonary on sc ience community, in December 2004 the workshe problems. These guidelines, however, differ from previous and worksheet author conflict of interest disclosures were versions in several ways. First, they are based on the most postedontheInternetathttp://www.C2005.org.JOurnal extensive evidence review of CPR yet published. Second, advertisements and emails invited comment from healthcare these guidelines were developed under a new structured and professionals and the resuscitation community. The com- transparent process for ongoing disclosure and management ments were then referred to the task forces and worksheet of potential conflicts of interest. Third, the guidelines have authors for consideration. Worksheets are available through been streamlined to reduce the amount of information that http://www.c2005.org. rescuers need to learn and remember and to clarify the most Expert reviews began in 2002, and individual topics were important skills that rescuers need to perform. presented and discussed at 6 international meetings, culmi- Evidence evaluation process nating in the 2005 Consensus Conference. The evidence was presented, discussed, and debated, with task forces an The evidence evaluation process that was the basis for these resuscitation councils meeting daily to draft summaries. The guidelines was accomplished in collaboration with the Inter consensus statements on the science of resuscitation devel- national Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR). international consortium of representatives from many of the oped at the conference were incorporated into the ILCOR 2005 CPR Consensus, published simultaneously in Circula- world's resuscitation councils. ILCOR was formed to system- tion and Resuscitation in November 2005 suscitation s cience and develop an evidence-based consensus to guide resuscitation pract Guidelines and treatment recommendations worldwide. The evidence evaluation process for these guide- During the evidence evaluation process the ILCOR task lines was built on the international efforts that produced the ECC Guidelines 2000.2 rces weighed the evidence and developed consensus state To begin the process, ILCOR representatives established 6 ments on the interpretation of the scientific findings. If the task forces agreed on common treatment recommendations ask forces: basic life support, advanced life support, acute the recommendations were included with the science state coronary syndromes, pediatric life support, neonatal life support,and an interdisciplinary task force to address over. ments in the ILCOR 2005 CPR Consensus. 'The consensu ping topics such as education. The AHA established 2 document was designed to serve as the science foundation for additional task forces-on stroke and first aid the 8 task the guidelines to be ed by many ILCOR councils in 2005-2006 forces identified topics requiring evidence evaluation. They rces Classes of Recommendation appointed international experts as worksheet authors for each Following the 2005 Consensus Conference, AHA ECC ex thesis. The worksheet authors were asked to (1) search for and perts adapted the ILCOR scientific statements and expanded the treatment recommendations to construct these new guide- ritically evaluate evidence on the hypothesis,(2)summarize lines. In developing these guidelines, the ECC experts used a recommendation classification system that is consistent with ( Circulation. 2005: 112: IV-1-IV-5) that used by the American Heart Association-American o 2005 American Heart Association College of Cardiology collaboration on evidence-based This special supplement to Circulation is freely available at http://www.circulationaha.org The classes of recommendation used in this document are DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA 105. 166550 listed in Table 3. These classes represent the integration of the ⅣVI

Part 1: Introduction This publication presents the 2005 American Heart Asso￾ciation (AHA) guidelines for cardiopulmonary resusci￾tation (CPR) and emergency cardiovascular care (ECC). The guidelines are based on the evidence evaluation from the 2005 International Consensus Conference on Cardiopulmo￾nary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Sci￾ence With Treatment Recommendations, hosted by the Amer￾ican Heart Association in Dallas, Texas, January 23–30, 2005.1 These guidelines supersede the Guidelines 2000 for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovas￾cular Care. 2 As with all versions of the ECC guidelines published since 1974,2– 6 the 2005 AHA Guidelines for CPR and ECC contain recommendations designed to improve survival from sudden cardiac arrest and acute life-threatening cardiopulmonary problems. These guidelines, however, differ from previous versions in several ways. First, they are based on the most extensive evidence review of CPR yet published.1 Second, these guidelines were developed under a new structured and transparent process for ongoing disclosure and management of potential conflicts of interest. Third, the guidelines have been streamlined to reduce the amount of information that rescuers need to learn and remember and to clarify the most important skills that rescuers need to perform. Evidence Evaluation Process The evidence evaluation process that was the basis for these guidelines was accomplished in collaboration with the Inter￾national Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR),1 an international consortium of representatives from many of the world’s resuscitation councils. ILCOR was formed to system￾atically review resuscitation science and develop an evidence-based consensus to guide resuscitation practice worldwide. The evidence evaluation process for these guide￾lines was built on the international efforts that produced the ECC Guidelines 2000.2 To begin the process, ILCOR representatives established 6 task forces: basic life support, advanced life support, acute coronary syndromes, pediatric life support, neonatal life support, and an interdisciplinary task force to address over￾lapping topics such as education. The AHA established 2 additional task forces— on stroke and first aid. The 8 task forces identified topics requiring evidence evaluation. They formulated hypotheses on these topics, and the task forces appointed international experts as worksheet authors for each hypothesis. The worksheet authors were asked to (1) search for and critically evaluate evidence on the hypothesis, (2) summarize the evidence review, and (3) draft treatment recommenda￾tions. They then completed worksheets that provided the format for a structured literature review (Table 1). The worksheet authors identified key research studies, recorded the levels of evidence (Table 2) of the studies, and drafted recommendations. When possible, two worksheet authors, one from the United States and one from outside the United States, were recruited to complete independent reviews of each topic. This process is described in detail in the 2005 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treat￾ment Recommendations1 and the accompanying editorial.7 A total of 281 worksheet authors completed 403 work￾sheets on 276 topics. To obtain feedback from the resuscita￾tion science community, in December 2004 the worksheets and worksheet author conflict of interest disclosures were posted on the Internet at http://www.C2005.org. Journal advertisements and emails invited comment from healthcare professionals and the resuscitation community. The com￾ments were then referred to the task forces and worksheet authors for consideration. Worksheets are available through http://www.C2005.org. Expert reviews began in 2002, and individual topics were presented and discussed at 6 international meetings, culmi￾nating in the 2005 Consensus Conference. The evidence was presented, discussed, and debated, with task forces and resuscitation councils meeting daily to draft summaries. The consensus statements on the science of resuscitation devel￾oped at the conference were incorporated into the ILCOR 2005 CPR Consensus, published simultaneously in Circula￾tion and Resuscitation in November 2005.1 Guidelines and Treatment Recommendations During the evidence evaluation process the ILCOR task forces weighed the evidence and developed consensus state￾ments on the interpretation of the scientific findings. If the task forces agreed on common treatment recommendations, the recommendations were included with the science state￾ments in the ILCOR 2005 CPR Consensus. 1 The consensus document was designed to serve as the science foundation for the guidelines to be published by many ILCOR member councils in 2005–2006. Classes of Recommendation Following the 2005 Consensus Conference, AHA ECC ex￾perts adapted the ILCOR scientific statements and expanded the treatment recommendations to construct these new guide￾lines. In developing these guidelines, the ECC experts used a recommendation classification system that is consistent with that used by the American Heart Association–American College of Cardiology collaboration on evidence-based guidelines. The classes of recommendation used in this document are listed in Table 3. These classes represent the integration of the (Circulation. 2005;112:IV-1-IV-5.) © 2005 American Heart Association. This special supplement to Circulation is freely available at http://www.circulationaha.org DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.105.166550 IV-1

IV-2 Circulation December 13. 2005 TABLE 1. Steps in Evidence Integration TABlE 2. Levels of Evidence Integrate all evidence following these steps Evidence efinition 1. Perform literature review and record search terms and databases Level 1 Randomized clinical trials or meta-analyses of multiple clinical trials with substantial treatment effects Level 2 Randomized clinical trials with smaller or less significant 3. Determine level of evidence based on methodology (see Table 2) 4. Perform critical appraisal (poor to excellent) Level 3 Prospective, controlled, nonrandomized cohort studies 5. Integrate evidence into a science summary and possible treatment Level 4 Historic nonrandomized cohort or case-control studies recommendation Level 5 Case series; patients compiled in serial fashion, control group Experts must develop consensus based on scientific evidence. Steps used Level 6 Animal studies or mechanical model studies Level 7 Extrapolations from existing data collected for other purpose 2005 Consensus Conference presentations and discussions ILCOR Task Force discussions and development of 2005 Level 8 Rational conjecture (common sense); common practices onsensus on Cpr and Ecc science with Treatment accepted before evidence-based guidelines Review and discussions by AHA ECC Committee and Subcommittees with development of specific recommendations and algorithms with ized or retrospective observational studies, animal models, or classes of recommendations extrapolations. Recommendations were generally labeled Class IIb when the evidence documented only short-term Final editorial review and approval by AHA ECC Committee and benefits from erapy (eg, amiodarone for pulseles Blinded peer review were documented with lower levels of evidence Review and approval by AHA Science Advisory and Coordinat Class IIb recommendations fall into 2 categories:(1) ptional and(2) recommended by the experts despite the absence of high-level supporting evidence. Optional interven- tions are identified by terms such as"can be considered"or "may be useful. "Interventions that the experts believe should weight of scientific evidence with contextual factors such as be carried out are identified with terms such as"we expert assessment of the magnitude of benefit, usefulness,or efficacy; cost; educational and training challenges; and diffi- culties in implementation. For Class I recommendations, algorith high-level prospective studies support the action or therapy, The 12 AHA CPR and ECC algorithms contained in these and the risk substantially outweighs the potential for harm. guidelines highlight essential assessments and interventions For Class Ila recommendations, the weight of evidenc recommended to treat cardiac arrest or a life-threatening supports the action or therapy, and the therapy is considered condition. These algorithms have been developed using a acceptable and useful template with specific box shapes and colors. Memorizing the Ideally all CPR and ECC recommendations should be box colors and shapes is not recommended, nor is it necessary based on large prospective randomized controlled clinical for use of the algorithms. But in response to requests from the trials that find substantial treatment effects on long-term AHA training network and from clinicians, we briefly de- survival and carry a Class I or Class Ila label. In reality few scribe the template used. clinical resuscitation trials have sufficient power to demon- Box shape distinguishes action boxes from assessment strate an effect on intact survival to hospital discharge. As a boxes. Boxes with square corners represent interventions or result the experts were often confronted with the need therapies(ie, actions): rose-colored boxes with round corners make recommendations on the basis of results from human represent assessment steps that typically create a decision trials that reported only intermediate outcomes, nonrandom point in care. TABLE 3. Applying Classification of Recommendations and Level of Evidence Class b ClassⅢ Benefit>>>Risk Benefit>Risk BenefiteRisk Procedure/treatment or diagnostic test/assessment it is reasonable to perform Procedure/treatment or diagnostic rocedure/treatment or diagnostic should be performed/administered ster test/assessment may be considered. test/assessment should not be eatment or perform diagnostic test/ It is not helpful and may be assessment Class Indeterminate Research just getting started Continuing area of research No recommendations until further research(eg, cannot recommend for or against)

weight of scientific evidence with contextual factors such as expert assessment of the magnitude of benefit, usefulness, or efficacy; cost; educational and training challenges; and diffi￾culties in implementation. For Class I recommendations, high-level prospective studies support the action or therapy, and the risk substantially outweighs the potential for harm. For Class IIa recommendations, the weight of evidence supports the action or therapy, and the therapy is considered acceptable and useful. Ideally all CPR and ECC recommendations should be based on large prospective randomized controlled clinical trials that find substantial treatment effects on long-term survival and carry a Class I or Class IIa label. In reality few clinical resuscitation trials have sufficient power to demon￾strate an effect on intact survival to hospital discharge. As a result the experts were often confronted with the need to make recommendations on the basis of results from human trials that reported only intermediate outcomes, nonrandom￾ized or retrospective observational studies, animal models, or extrapolations. Recommendations were generally labeled Class IIb when the evidence documented only short-term benefits from the therapy (eg, amiodarone for pulseless ventricular fibrillation cardiac arrest) or when positive results were documented with lower levels of evidence. Class IIb recommendations fall into 2 categories: (1) optional and (2) recommended by the experts despite the absence of high-level supporting evidence. Optional interven￾tions are identified by terms such as “can be considered” or “may be useful.” Interventions that the experts believe should be carried out are identified with terms such as “we recommend.” Algorithms The 12 AHA CPR and ECC algorithms contained in these guidelines highlight essential assessments and interventions recommended to treat cardiac arrest or a life-threatening condition. These algorithms have been developed using a template with specific box shapes and colors. Memorizing the box colors and shapes is not recommended, nor is it necessary for use of the algorithms. But in response to requests from the AHA training network and from clinicians, we briefly de￾scribe the template used. Box shape distinguishes action boxes from assessment boxes. Boxes with square corners represent interventions or therapies (ie, actions); rose-colored boxes with round corners represent assessment steps that typically create a decision point in care. TABLE 2. Levels of Evidence Evidence Definition Level 1 Randomized clinical trials or meta-analyses of multiple clinical trials with substantial treatment effects Level 2 Randomized clinical trials with smaller or less significant treatment effects Level 3 Prospective, controlled, nonrandomized cohort studies Level 4 Historic, nonrandomized cohort or case-control studies Level 5 Case series; patients compiled in serial fashion, control group lacking Level 6 Animal studies or mechanical model studies Level 7 Extrapolations from existing data collected for other purposes, theoretical analyses Level 8 Rational conjecture (common sense); common practices accepted before evidence-based guidelines TABLE 1. Steps in Evidence Integration Integrate all evidence following these steps: 1. Perform literature review and record search terms and databases searched. 2. Select studies relevant to hypothesis. 3. Determine level of evidence based on methodology (see Table 2). 4. Perform critical appraisal (poor to excellent). 5. Integrate evidence into a science summary and possible treatment recommendation. Experts must develop consensus based on scientific evidence. Steps used include: Evidence evaluation and worksheet preparation by experts, plus 2005 Consensus Conference presentations and discussions ILCOR Task Force discussions and development of 2005 International Consensus on CPR and ECC Science With Treatment Recommendations publication1 Review and discussions by AHA ECC Committee and Subcommittees with development of specific recommendations and algorithms with classes of recommendations Final editorial review and approval by AHA ECC Committee and Subcommittees Blinded peer review Review and approval by AHA Science Advisory and Coordinating Committee Publication TABLE 3. Applying Classification of Recommendations and Level of Evidence Class I Class IIa Class IIb Class III Benefit


Risk Benefit

Risk Benefit
Risk Risk
Benefit Procedure/treatment or diagnostic test/assessment should be performed/administered. It is reasonable to perform procedure/administer treatment or perform diagnostic test/ assessment. Procedure/treatment or diagnostic test/assessment may be considered. Procedure/treatment or diagnostic test/assessment should not be performed/administered. It is not helpful and may be harmful. Class Indeterminate. ● Research just getting started ● Continuing area of research ● No recommendations until further research (eg, cannot recommend for or against) IV-2 Circulation December 13, 2005

Part 1: Introduction / V-3 Colors of the boxes distinguish types of actions. As noted ECC Committee and subcommittees who wrote and re- above, the rose boxes indicate assessment steps. In general, viewed this document are listed online as a COI treatments that involve electrical therapy or drugs are place ment(availablethroughhttp://www.C2005.org) in blue boxes, and simple action steps are placed in tan boxes. sheet authors potential conflicts of interest are In order to emphasize the fundamental importance of good on each worksheet, which can be accessed through basicCprinallEccalgorithmsactionstepsinvolvinghttp://www.c2005.org support of airway, breathing, and circulation are placed in green boxes. In addition, all advanced cardiovascular life New Developments support(ACLS)and pediatric advanced life support(PALS) The most significant changes in these guidelines were made gorithms contain a green "reminder"box to assist the to simplify CPR instruction and increase the number of chest clinician in recalling helpful information, including funda- ns delivered per minute and reduce interruptions mentals of CPR. The algorithm box color-coding is not in chest compressions during CPR. Following are some of the absolute because some boxes contain combinations of several most significant new recommendations in these guideline types of actions. Three algorithms have unique features. In the basic life Elimination of lay rescuer assessment of signs of circula support(BLS) healthcare provider adult and pediatric algo- tion before beginning chest compressions: the lay rescuer rithms, the actions that are completed by only healthcare will be taught to begin chest compressions immediately providers are bordered with a dotted line. In the ACLs after delivering 2 rescue breaths to the unresponsive victim who is not breathing(Parts 4 and Il) screening(the text contained in screened boxes appears Simplification of instructions for rescue breaths: all breaths lighter than regular text). These screened boxes include actions that are intended to be accomplished in the in-hospi mask, or bag-to-advanced airway) should be given over 1 setting or with expert consultation readily available. Informa- second with sufficient volume to achieve visible chest rise tion in non-screened boxes is intended to apply to the (Parts 4 and 11). out-of-hospital or the in-hospital setting. In the ACLs Elimination of lay rescuer training in rescue breathin Tachycardia Algorithm, to create visual separation between without chest compressions(Parts 4 and 11) actions for wide-complex versus narrow-complex Recommendation of a single(universal) compression-to- tachycardia, boxes containing therapy for wide-complex ventilation ratio of 30: 2 for single rescuers of victims of all tachycardia are shadowed with yellow, and boxes with ages(except newborn infants). This recommendation is treatment for narrow-complex tachycardia are shadowed with designed to simplify teaching and provide longer periods of interrupted chest compressions(Parts 4 and Il) Modification of the definition of"pediatric victim"to Management of Conflict of Interest preadolescent (prepubescent) victim for application of The world's leading experts in resuscitation science have pediatric BLS guidelines for healthcare providers(Parts 3 established their expertise by undertaking and publishin and ID), but no change to lay rescuer application of child research and related scholarly work. Some investigators CPR guidelines(I to 8 activities are supported by industry, thereby creating the Increased emphasis on the importance of chest compres potential for conflicts of interest. 8.9 Grants and other support sions: rescuers will be taught to "push hard, push fast"(at for scientific research, speaker fees, and honoraria can also a rate of 100 compressions per minute), allow complete create potential financial conflicts of interest. Nonfinancial chest recoil, and minimize interruptions in chest compres conflicts of interest include in-kind support, intellectual sions(Parts 3,4, and ID) collaboration or intellectual investment in personal ideas, and Recommendation that Emergency Medical Services(EMS) long-term research as Ho endas in which investigators have providers may consider provision of about 5 cycles(or invested a substantial amount of time about 2 minutes) of CPr before defibrillation for unwit To protect the objectivity and credibility of the evidence nessed arrest, particularly when the interval from the call to evaluation and consensus development process, the AHA the ems dispatcher to response at the scene is more than 4 ECC Conflict of Interest( COI) policy was revised before the to 5 minutes(Part 5) 2005 Consensus Conference to ensure full disclosure and Recommendation for provision of about 5 cycles(or about comprehensive management of potential conflicts. A proces 2 minutes) of CPR between rhythm checks during treat was developed for managing potential conflicts of interest ment of pulseless arrest(Parts 5, 7. 2, and 12). Rescuers during the evidence evaluation process and the 2005 Consen- should not check the rhythm or a pulse immediately after sus Conference. Each speaker's COI statement was projected shock delivery--they should immediately resume CPR, on a dedicated screen during every presentation, question, beginning with chest compressions, and should check the and discussion period. The COI policy is described in detail rhythm after 5 cycles(or about 2 minutes)of CPR in an editorial in this supplement1o and the corresponding . Recommendation that all rescue efforts, including insertion editorial in the Ilcor 2005 CPr Consensus. ll potential con of an advanced airway(eg, endotracheal tube, esophageal- flicts of interest disclosed by the editors and science volunteers tracheal combitube [Combitube], or laryngeal mask airway of this document are listed in this supplement(page B4) [LMAD, administration of medications, and reassessment Potential conflicts of interest disclosed by members of the of the patient be performed in a way that minimizes

Colors of the boxes distinguish types of actions. As noted above, the rose boxes indicate assessment steps. In general, treatments that involve electrical therapy or drugs are placed in blue boxes, and simple action steps are placed in tan boxes. In order to emphasize the fundamental importance of good basic CPR in all ECC algorithms, action steps involving support of airway, breathing, and circulation are placed in green boxes. In addition, all advanced cardiovascular life support (ACLS) and pediatric advanced life support (PALS) algorithms contain a green “reminder” box to assist the clinician in recalling helpful information, including funda￾mentals of CPR. The algorithm box color-coding is not absolute because some boxes contain combinations of several types of actions. Three algorithms have unique features. In the basic life support (BLS) healthcare provider adult and pediatric algo￾rithms, the actions that are completed by only healthcare providers are bordered with a dotted line. In the ACLS Tachycardia Algorithm, several boxes are printed with screening (the text contained in screened boxes appears lighter than regular text). These screened boxes include actions that are intended to be accomplished in the in-hospital setting or with expert consultation readily available. Informa￾tion in non-screened boxes is intended to apply to the out-of-hospital or the in-hospital setting. In the ACLS Tachycardia Algorithm, to create visual separation between actions for wide-complex versus narrow-complex tachycardia, boxes containing therapy for wide-complex tachycardia are shadowed with yellow, and boxes with treatment for narrow-complex tachycardia are shadowed with blue. Management of Conflict of Interest The world’s leading experts in resuscitation science have established their expertise by undertaking and publishing research and related scholarly work. Some investigators’ activities are supported by industry, thereby creating the potential for conflicts of interest.8,9 Grants and other support for scientific research, speaker fees, and honoraria can also create potential financial conflicts of interest. Nonfinancial conflicts of interest include in-kind support, intellectual collaboration or intellectual investment in personal ideas, and long-term research agendas in which investigators have invested a substantial amount of time. To protect the objectivity and credibility of the evidence evaluation and consensus development process, the AHA ECC Conflict of Interest (COI) policy was revised before the 2005 Consensus Conference to ensure full disclosure and comprehensive management of potential conflicts. A process was developed for managing potential conflicts of interest during the evidence evaluation process and the 2005 Consen￾sus Conference. Each speaker’s COI statement was projected on a dedicated screen during every presentation, question, and discussion period. The COI policy is described in detail in an editorial in this supplement10 and the corresponding editorial in the ILCOR 2005 CPR Consensus. 11 Potential con￾flicts of interest disclosed by the editors and science volunteers of this document are listed in this supplement (page B4). Potential conflicts of interest disclosed by members of the ECC Committee and subcommittees who wrote and re￾viewed this document are listed online as a COI supple￾ment (available through http://www.C2005.org). Work￾sheet authors’ potential conflicts of interest are included on each worksheet, which can be accessed through http://www.C2005.org. New Developments The most significant changes in these guidelines were made to simplify CPR instruction and increase the number of chest compressions delivered per minute and reduce interruptions in chest compressions during CPR. Following are some of the most significant new recommendations in these guidelines: ● Elimination of lay rescuer assessment of signs of circula￾tion before beginning chest compressions: the lay rescuer will be taught to begin chest compressions immediately after delivering 2 rescue breaths to the unresponsive victim who is not breathing (Parts 4 and 11). ● Simplification of instructions for rescue breaths: all breaths (whether delivered mouth-to-mouth, mouth-to-mask, bag￾mask, or bag-to–advanced airway) should be given over 1 second with sufficient volume to achieve visible chest rise (Parts 4 and 11). ● Elimination of lay rescuer training in rescue breathing without chest compressions (Parts 4 and 11). ● Recommendation of a single (universal) compression-to￾ventilation ratio of 30:2 for single rescuers of victims of all ages (except newborn infants). This recommendation is designed to simplify teaching and provide longer periods of uninterrupted chest compressions (Parts 4 and 11). ● Modification of the definition of “pediatric victim” to preadolescent (prepubescent) victim for application of pediatric BLS guidelines for healthcare providers (Parts 3 and 11), but no change to lay rescuer application of child CPR guidelines (1 to 8 years). ● Increased emphasis on the importance of chest compres￾sions: rescuers will be taught to “push hard, push fast” (at a rate of 100 compressions per minute), allow complete chest recoil, and minimize interruptions in chest compres￾sions (Parts 3, 4, and 11). ● Recommendation that Emergency Medical Services (EMS) providers may consider provision of about 5 cycles (or about 2 minutes) of CPR before defibrillation for unwit￾nessed arrest, particularly when the interval from the call to the EMS dispatcher to response at the scene is more than 4 to 5 minutes (Part 5). ● Recommendation for provision of about 5 cycles (or about 2 minutes) of CPR between rhythm checks during treat￾ment of pulseless arrest (Parts 5, 7.2, and 12). Rescuers should not check the rhythm or a pulse immediately after shock delivery—they should immediately resume CPR, beginning with chest compressions, and should check the rhythm after 5 cycles (or about 2 minutes) of CPR. ● Recommendation that all rescue efforts, including insertion of an advanced airway (eg, endotracheal tube, esophageal￾tracheal combitube [Combitube], or laryngeal mask airway [LMA]), administration of medications, and reassessment of the patient be performed in a way that minimizes Part 1: Introduction IV-3

IV-4 Circulation December 13. 2005 interruption of chest compressions. Recommendations for quality improvement to reduce time to CPR and shock pulse checks are during the treatment of pulseless delivery and to improve the quality of CPR provided 23.24 arrest(Parts 4. 5 The AHA and collaborating organizations will use these Recommendation I shock followed immediately by guidelines as the basis for developing comprehensive training CPR(beginning with chest compressions)instead of 3 materials. Once the training materials are available, the most stacked shocks for treatment of ventricular fibrillation/ important step will be to get them into the hands of rescuers pulseless ventricular tachycardia: this change is based on who will learn, remember, and perform CPR and ECC skills. the high first-shock success rate of new defibrillators and the knowledge that if the first shock fails, intervening che References compressions may improve oxygen and substrate delivery 1. Intemational liaison committee on resuscitation. 2005 Internat to the myocardium, making the subsequent shock more Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardio- kely to result in defibrillation(Parts 5, 7. 2, and 12) ascular Care Science with Treatment Recommendations. Circulation 005:112Il-1-l-136 Increased emphasis on the importance of ventilation and 2. American Heart Association in collaboration with International Liaison de-emphasis on the importance of using high concentra- Committee on Resuscitation. Guidelines 2000 for Cardiopulmonary tions of oxygen for resuscitation of the newly born infant Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care. Circulation. 2000; 102(suppl): Il-1384. (Part 13) 3. Standards for cardiopulmonary resuscitation(CPR) and Reaffirmation that intravenous administration of fibrinolyt- cardiac care(ECC). 3. Advanced life support. JAMA. 1974: 227: (suppl): ics(tPA) to patients with acute ischemic stroke who meet 852-860 4. Standards and guid ary resuscitation(CPR) and the NINDs eligibility criteria can improve outcome. The emergency cardiac care (ECC). JAMA. 1980: 244: 453-509. Pa should be administered by physicians in the setting of 5. Standards and guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation(CPR)and a clearly defined protocol, a knowledgeable team, and mergency Cardiac Care (ECC). National Academy of Sciences- institutional commitment to stroke care(Part 9) 256:1727JAMA.1986;255:2905-2989 New first aid recommendations(Part 14) 6. Guidelines for cardiopulmonary resuscitation(CPR) and emergency cardiac care(ECC). JAMA. 1992: 286: 2135-2302 For further information about these and other new devel- Zaritsky A, Morley P. The evidence evaluation process for the 200 opments in these guidelines, see the editorial"The Major nternational consensus on cardiopulmonary resuscitation and emergency ardiovascular care science with treatment recommendations. Circu- Changes in the 2005 AHA Guidelines for Cardiopulmonary lation.2005:112:IIl-128-I-130 Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care"12 in this 8. Davidoff F, DeAngelis CD, Drazen JM, Hoey J, Hojgaard L, Horton R, pplement and the guidelines sections noted. Kotzin S, Nicholls MG, Nylenna M, Overbeke AJ, Sox HC, Van Der The recommendations in the 2005 AHA Guidelines for Weyden MB. Wilkes MS. Sponsorship, authorship, and accountability Lancet.2001358:854-856 CPR and ECC confirm the safety and effectiveness of many 9. Choudhry NK, Stelfox HT, Detsky AS Relationships between authors of approaches, acknowledge that other approaches may not be clinical practice guidelines and the pharmaceutical industry. JAMA. 2002, optimal, and recommend new treatments that have undergone 287:612-617 10. Billi JE, Eigel B, Montgomery WH. Nadkami V, Hazinski MF. Man- evidence evaluation. These new recommendations do not agement of conflict of interest issues in the American Heart Association ly that care involving the use of earlier guidelines is ergency cardiovascular care committee activities 2000-2005. Circu- safe. In addition, it is important to note that these guide- lation.2005;112IV-204-V-205 lines will not apply to all rescuers and all victims in all Il. Billi JE, Zideman D, Eigel B, Nolan J, Montgomery WH, Nadkarni situations. The leader of a resuscitation attempt may need to American Heart Association (AHA). Conflict of adapt application of the guidelines to unique circumstances. before, during, and after the 2005 international consensus conference on cardiopulmonary resuscitation and emergency cardiovascular care science with treat recommendations. Circulation. 2005: 112.III Future directions 13l-II-132. The most important determinant of survival from sudden 12. Hazinski MF, Nadkami VM. Hickey RW, O'Connor R, Becker LW, cardiac arrest is the presence of a trained rescuer who is Zaritsy A The major changes in the 2005 AHA guidelines for cardiopul- ready, willing, able, and equipped to act. Although hypother nd emergency cardiovascular care. Circulatio la has recently been shown to improve survival to hospital 13. Hypothermia After Cardiac Arrest Study Group. Mild therapeutic hypo- discharge for selected victims of VF SCA, 3 most advanced hermia to improve the neurologic outcome after cardiac arrest. N Engl life support techniques have failed to improve outcome from JMed.2002:346:549-556 14. Stiell IG, Wells GA, Field B, Spaite Dw. Nesbitt LP, De Maio vJ, Nichol SCA4 or have only been shown to improve short-term G, Cousineau D, Blackburn J, Munkley D, Luinstra-Toohey L, Campeat survival(eg, to hospital admission). 5, I6 Any improvements resulting from advanced life support therapies are less sub- cardiac arrest. N Eng! Med. 2004: 351: 647-656PPont in oul-of-hospital stantial than the increases in survival rate reported from 15. Dorian P, Cass D, Schwartz B, Cooper R, Gelaznikas R, Barr A. Ami- odarone as compared with lidocaine for shock-resistant ventricular fibril- successful deployment of lay rescuer CPR and automated lation. N Engl J Med. 2002: 346: 884-890 external defibrillation programs in the community. 7-21 16. Kudenchu MK, Cummins RO, Doherty AM, Thus, our greatest challenge continues to be the improve- Fahrenbruch CE, Hallstrom AP, Murray WA, Olsufka M, Walsh T. Amiodarone for resuscitation after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest due to ment of lay rescuer education. We must increase access ventricular fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 1999: 341: 871-878. CPR education, increase effectiveness and efficiency of 17. Holmberg M, Holmberg S, Herlitz J Effect of bystander cardiopulmonary instruction, improve skills retention, and reduce barriers to suscitation in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients in Sweden. Resus action for basic and advanced life support providers. 22 Re- cornton.200047:59-70. 8. Caffrey SL, Willoughby PJ, Pepe PE, Becker LB. Public use of suscitation programs must establish processes for continuous automated external defibrillators. N Engl J Med. 2002: 347: 1242-124

interruption of chest compressions. Recommendations for pulse checks are limited during the treatment of pulseless arrest (Parts 4, 5, 7.2, 11, and 12). ● Recommendation of only 1 shock followed immediately by CPR (beginning with chest compressions) instead of 3 stacked shocks for treatment of ventricular fibrillation/ pulseless ventricular tachycardia: this change is based on the high first-shock success rate of new defibrillators and the knowledge that if the first shock fails, intervening chest compressions may improve oxygen and substrate delivery to the myocardium, making the subsequent shock more likely to result in defibrillation (Parts 5, 7.2, and 12). ● Increased emphasis on the importance of ventilation and de-emphasis on the importance of using high concentra￾tions of oxygen for resuscitation of the newly born infant (Part 13). ● Reaffirmation that intravenous administration of fibrinolyt￾ics (tPA) to patients with acute ischemic stroke who meet the NINDS eligibility criteria can improve outcome. The tPA should be administered by physicians in the setting of a clearly defined protocol, a knowledgeable team, and institutional commitment to stroke care (Part 9). ● New first aid recommendations (Part 14). For further information about these and other new devel￾opments in these guidelines, see the editorial “The Major Changes in the 2005 AHA Guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care”12 in this supplement and the guidelines sections noted. The recommendations in the 2005 AHA Guidelines for CPR and ECC confirm the safety and effectiveness of many approaches, acknowledge that other approaches may not be optimal, and recommend new treatments that have undergone evidence evaluation. These new recommendations do not imply that care involving the use of earlier guidelines is unsafe. In addition, it is important to note that these guide￾lines will not apply to all rescuers and all victims in all situations. The leader of a resuscitation attempt may need to adapt application of the guidelines to unique circumstances. Future Directions The most important determinant of survival from sudden cardiac arrest is the presence of a trained rescuer who is ready, willing, able, and equipped to act. Although hypother￾mia has recently been shown to improve survival to hospital discharge for selected victims of VF SCA,13 most advanced life support techniques have failed to improve outcome from SCA14 or have only been shown to improve short-term survival (eg, to hospital admission).15,16 Any improvements resulting from advanced life support therapies are less sub￾stantial than the increases in survival rate reported from successful deployment of lay rescuer CPR and automated external defibrillation programs in the community.17–21 Thus, our greatest challenge continues to be the improve￾ment of lay rescuer education. We must increase access to CPR education, increase effectiveness and efficiency of instruction, improve skills retention, and reduce barriers to action for basic and advanced life support providers.22 Re￾suscitation programs must establish processes for continuous quality improvement to reduce time to CPR and shock delivery and to improve the quality of CPR provided.23,24 The AHA and collaborating organizations will use these guidelines as the basis for developing comprehensive training materials. Once the training materials are available, the most important step will be to get them into the hands of rescuers who will learn, remember, and perform CPR and ECC skills. References 1. International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation. 2005 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardio￾vascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations. Circulation. 2005;112:III-1–III-136. 2. American Heart Association in collaboration with International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation. Guidelines 2000 for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care. Circulation. 2000; 102(suppl):I1–I384. 3. Standards for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and emergency cardiac care (ECC). 3. Advanced life support. JAMA. 1974;227:(suppl): 852– 860. 4. Standards and guidelines for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and emergency cardiac care (ECC). JAMA. 1980;244:453–509. 5. Standards and guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) and Emergency Cardiac Care (ECC). National Academy of Sciences— National Research Council [published correction appears in JAMA. 1986; 256:1727]. JAMA. 1986;255:2905–2989. 6. Guidelines for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and emergency cardiac care (ECC). JAMA. 1992;286:2135–2302. 7. Zaritsky A, Morley P. The evidence evaluation process for the 2005 international consensus on cardiopulmonary resuscitation and emergency cardiovascular care science with treatment recommendations. Circu￾lation. 2005;112:III-128 –III-130. 8. Davidoff F, DeAngelis CD, Drazen JM, Hoey J, Hojgaard L, Horton R, Kotzin S, Nicholls MG, Nylenna M, Overbeke AJ, Sox HC, Van Der Weyden MB, Wilkes MS. Sponsorship, authorship, and accountability. Lancet. 2001;358:854 – 856. 9. Choudhry NK, Stelfox HT, Detsky AS. Relationships between authors of clinical practice guidelines and the pharmaceutical industry. JAMA. 2002; 287:612– 617. 10. Billi JE, Eigel B, Montgomery WH, Nadkarni V, Hazinski MF. Man￾agement of conflict of interest issues in the American Heart Association emergency cardiovascular care committee activities 2000 –2005. Circu￾lation. 2005;112:IV-204 –IV-205. 11. Billi JE, Zideman D, Eigel B, Nolan J, Montgomery WH, Nadkarni V, from the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR) and American Heart Association (AHA). Conflict of interest management before, during, and after the 2005 international consensus conference on cardiopulmonary resuscitation and emergency cardiovascular care science with treatment recommendations. Circulation. 2005;112:III- 131–III-132. 12. Hazinski MF, Nadkarni VM, Hickey RW, O’Connor R, Becker LW, Zaritsy A. The major changes in the 2005 AHA guidelines for cardiopul￾monary resuscitation and emergency cardiovascular care. Circulation. 2005;112:IV-206 –IV-211. 13. Hypothermia After Cardiac Arrest Study Group. Mild therapeutic hypo￾thermia to improve the neurologic outcome after cardiac arrest. N Engl J Med. 2002;346:549 –556. 14. Stiell IG, Wells GA, Field B, Spaite DW, Nesbitt LP, De Maio VJ, Nichol G, Cousineau D, Blackburn J, Munkley D, Luinstra-Toohey L, Campeau T, Dagnone E, Lyver M. Advanced cardiac life support in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. N Engl J Med. 2004;351:647– 656. 15. Dorian P, Cass D, Schwartz B, Cooper R, Gelaznikas R, Barr A. Ami￾odarone as compared with lidocaine for shock-resistant ventricular fibril￾lation. N Engl J Med. 2002;346:884 – 890. 16. Kudenchuk PJ, Cobb LA, Copass MK, Cummins RO, Doherty AM, Fahrenbruch CE, Hallstrom AP, Murray WA, Olsufka M, Walsh T. Amiodarone for resuscitation after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest due to ventricular fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 1999;341:871– 878. 17. Holmberg M, Holmberg S, Herlitz J. Effect of bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients in Sweden. Resus￾citation. 2000;47:59 –70. 18. Caffrey SL, Willoughby PJ, Pepe PE, Becker LB. Public use of automated external defibrillators. N Engl J Med. 2002;347:1242–1247. IV-4 Circulation December 13, 2005

Part 1: Introduction IV-5 19. The Public Access Defibrillation Trial Investigators. Public-access defi lonsieurs K Montgomery w, Morley P, Nichol G, Nolan J, Okada K, brillation and survival after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. N Engl J Med. Perlman J. Shuster M. Steen PA. Sterz F, Tibballs J. Timerman S. Truitt 2004:351:637-64 T, Zideman D Cardiac arrest and cardiopulmonary resuscitation outcome 20. White RD. Bunch T]. Hankins DG. Evolution of eports: update and simplification of the Utstein templates for resusci- defibrillation n programme experience over 13 years tation registries. A statement for healthcare professionals from a task force of the international liaison committee on resuscitation(America Heart Association, European Resuscitation Council, Australian Resusci- nontraditional responders: the Casino Project. Acad Emerg Med. Foundation of Canada. Inter American Heart Foundation, Resuscitation 22. Chamberlain DA. Hazinski MF. Education in resuscitation: an ILCOR Council of Southern Africa). Resuscitation. 2004: 63: 233-249 symposium: Utstein Abbey: Stavanger, Norway: June 22-24, 2001. Cir- 24. Peberdy MA, Kaye w, Ornato JP, Larkin GL, Nadkami v. Mancini ME, culation.2003:108:2575-2594 erg RA, Nichol G, Lane-Trultt T. Cardiopulmonary resuscitation 23. Jacobs I. Nadkarmi V. Bahr J, Berg RA. Billi JE. Bossaert L. Cassan P, adults in the hospital: a report of 14720 cardiac arrests from the National Coovadia A, D'Este K, Finn J, Halperin H, Handley A, Herlitz J, Hickey Registry of Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation. Resuscitation. 2003 R. Idris A Kloeck w. Larkin GL. Mancini ME. Mason P. Mears G

19. The Public Access Defibrillation Trial Investigators. Public-access defi￾brillation and survival after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. N Engl J Med. 2004;351:637– 646. 20. White RD, Bunch TJ, Hankins DG. Evolution of a community-wide early defibrillation programme experience over 13 years using police/fire per￾sonnel and paramedics as responders. Resuscitation. 2005;65:279 –283. 21. Valenzuela TD, Bjerke HS, Clark LL, et al. Rapid defibrillation by nontraditional responders: the Casino Project. Acad Emerg Med. 1998;5: 414 – 415. 22. Chamberlain DA, Hazinski MF. Education in resuscitation: an ILCOR symposium: Utstein Abbey: Stavanger, Norway: June 22–24, 2001. Cir￾culation. 2003;108:2575–2594. 23. Jacobs I, Nadkarni V, Bahr J, Berg RA, Billi JE, Bossaert L, Cassan P, Coovadia A, D’Este K, Finn J, Halperin H, Handley A, Herlitz J, Hickey R, Idris A, Kloeck W, Larkin GL, Mancini ME, Mason P, Mears G, Monsieurs K, Montgomery W, Morley P, Nichol G, Nolan J, Okada K, Perlman J, Shuster M, Steen PA, Sterz F, Tibballs J, Timerman S, Truitt T, Zideman D. Cardiac arrest and cardiopulmonary resuscitation outcome reports: update and simplification of the Utstein templates for resusci￾tation registries. A statement for healthcare professionals from a task force of the international liaison committee on resuscitation (American Heart Association, European Resuscitation Council, Australian Resusci￾tation Council, New Zealand Resuscitation Council, Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, InterAmerican Heart Foundation, Resuscitation Council of Southern Africa). Resuscitation. 2004;63:233–249. 24. Peberdy MA, Kaye W, Ornato JP, Larkin GL, Nadkarni V, Mancini ME, Berg RA, Nichol G, Lane-Trultt T. Cardiopulmonary resuscitation of adults in the hospital: a report of 14720 cardiac arrests from the National Registry of Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation. Resuscitation. 2003;58: 297–308. Part 1: Introduction IV-5