ReviewDer Anaesthesist2015
[Inhospital resuscitation : Decisive measures for the outcome].
Review in Der Anaesthesist, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Future of emergency medicine in Germany 2.0].Der Anaesthesist · 2017Review
- [Implementation of regularly performed resuscitation training at a hyperbaric treatment center].Der Anaesthesist · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundApproximately 18 million patients are treated in German hospitals annually. On the basis of internationally published data the number of in-hospital cardiac arrests can be estimated as 54,000 per year. A structured treatment of in-hospital resuscitation according to the current scientific evidence is essential.
aimIn-hospital resuscitation shows some special characteristics in comparison to resuscitation in emergency services, which are highlighted in this article. MATERIAL AND
methodsThis article is based on the international guidelines for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) first published in 1992 by the European Resuscitation Council (ERC) and the American Heart Association (AHA) as well as the amendments (current version 2010). Some current studies are also presented, which could not be taken into consideration for the guidelines from 2010.
resultsHigh quality chest compressions with as few interruptions as possible are of utmost importance. Patients with cardiac rhythms which can be defibrillated should be defibrillated within less than 2 min after the collapse. There is no evidence that equipping hospitals with automated external defibrillators is an advantage for survival after in-hospital cardiac arrest. Endotracheal intubation represents the gold standard of airway management during CPR. During in-hospital resuscitation experienced anesthesiologists are mostly involved; however, the use of supraglottic airway devices may help to minimize interruptions in chest compressions especially before the medical emergency team arrives at the scene. Feedback devices may improve the quality of manual chest compressions; however, most devices overestimate the compression depth if the patient is resuscitated when lying in bed. There is no evidence that mechanical chest compression devices improve the outcome after cardiac arrest. Mild therapeutic hypothermia is still recommended for neuroprotection after successful in-hospital resuscitation.
conclusionThe prevention of cardiac arrest is of special importance. Uniform and low threshold criteria for alarming the medical emergency team have to be defined to be able to identify and treat critically ill patients in time before cardiac arrest occurs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.