2022 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations

An updated, comprehensive review and guideline for basic and advanced cardiopulmonary resuscitation of neonates, infants, children, and adults developed by an international consensus panel. James W. Mold, MD, MPH

Free full text

View

This is the sixth annual summary of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations. This summary addresses the most recently published resuscitation evidence reviewed by International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation Task Force science experts. Topics covered by systematic reviews include cardiopulmonary resuscitation during transport; approach to resuscitation after drowning; passive ventilation; minimizing pauses during cardiopulmonary resuscitation; temperature management after cardiac arrest; use of diagnostic point-of-care ultrasound during cardiac arrest; use of vasopressin and corticosteroids during cardiac arrest; coronary angiography after cardiac arrest; public-access defibrillation devices for children; pediatric early warning systems; maintaining normal temperature immediately after birth; suctioning of amniotic fluid at birth; tactile stimulation for resuscitation immediately after birth; use of continuous positive airway pressure for respiratory distress at term birth; respiratory and heart rate monitoring in the delivery room; supraglottic airway use in neonates; prearrest prediction of in-hospital cardiac arrest mortality; basic life support training for likely rescuers of high-risk populations; effect of resuscitation team training; blended learning for life support training; training and recertification for resuscitation instructors; and recovery position for maintenance of breathing and prevention of cardiac arrest. Members from 6 task forces have assessed, discussed, and debated the quality of the evidence using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria and generated consensus treatment recommendations. Insights into the deliberations of the task forces are provided in the Justification and Evidence-to-Decision Framework Highlights sections, and priority knowledge gaps for future research are listed.

Author/s:

Wyckoff, M. H., Greif, R., Morely, P. T., Ng, K., Olasveengen, T. M., Singletary, E. M., Soar, J., Cheng, A., Drennan, I. R., Liley, H. G., Scholefield, B. R., Smyth, M. A., Welsford, M., Zideman, D. A., Acworth, J., Aickin, R., Andersen, L. W., Atkins, D., Berry, D. C., Bhanji, F., Bierens, J., Borra, V., Böttiger, B. W., Bradley, R. N., Bray, J. E., Breckwoldt, J., Callaway, C. W., Carlson, J. N., Cassan, P., Castrén, M., Chang, W., Charlton, N. P., Chung, S. P., Considine, J., Costa-Nobre, D. T., Couper, K., Couto, T. B., Dainty, K. N., Davis, P. G., Fernanda de Almeida, M., R. de Caen, A., Deakin, C. D., Djärv, T., Donnino, M. W., Douma, M. J., Duff, J. P., Dunne, C. L., Eastwood, K., El-Naggar, W., Fabres, J. G., Fawke, J., Finn, J., Fogila, E. E., Folke, F., Gilfoyle, E., Goolsby, C. A., Granfeldt, A., Guerguerian, A., Guinsburg, R., Hirsch, K. G., Holmberg, M. J., Hosono, S., Hsieh, M., Hsu, C. H., Ikeyama, T., Isayama, T., Johnson, N. J., Kapadia, V. S., Kawakami, M. D., Kim, H., Kleinman, M., Kloeck, D. A., Kudenchuk, P. J., Lagina, A. T., Lauridsen, K. G., Lavonas, E. J., Lee, H. C., Lin, Y. J., Lockey, A. S., Maconochie, I. K., Madar, R. J., Hansen, C. M., Masterson, S., Matsuyama, T., McKinlay, C. J. D., Meyran, D., Morgan, P., Morrison, L. J., Nadkarni, V., Nakwa, F. L., Nation, K. J., Nehme, Z., Nemeth, M., Neumar, R. W., Nicholson, T., Nikolaou, N., Nishiyama, C., Norii, T., Nuthall, G. A., O'Neill, B. J., Ong, Y. G., Orkin, A. M., Paiva, E. F., Parr, M. J., Patocka, C., Pellegrino, J. F., Perkins, G. D., Perlman, J. M., Rabi, Y., Reis, A. G., Reynolds, J. C., Ristagno, G., Rodriguez-Nunez, A., Roehr, C. C., Rüdiger, M., Sakamota, T., Sandroni, C., Sawyer, T. L., Schexnayder, S. M., Schmölzer, G. M., Schnaubelt, S., Semeraro, F., Skrifvars, M. B., Smith, C. M., Sugiura, T., Tijssen, J. A., Trevisanuto, D., Van de Voorde, P., Wang, T., Weiner, G. M., Wyllie, J. P., Yang, C., Yeung, J., Nolan, J. P., Berg, K. M.

Randomized Controlled Trial of Iron-Fortified versus Low-Iron Infant Formula: Developmental Outcomes at 16 Years

Brian Desmarais — Mon, 19 Aug 2019 15:00:24 +0000

Date Added:

August 19, 2019

Journal/Publication:

Journal of Pediatrics

Publication Date:

June 25, 2019

URL:

Randomized Controlled Trial of Iron-Fortified versus Low-Iron Infant Formula: Developmental Outcomes at 16 Years

Type:

Clinical Research Results

Format:

Article

Keywords

MeSH

Anemia, Iron-Deficiency

infants

Perhaps we are overprescribing iron fortified formulas for infants without iron deficiency anemia. James W. Mold, MD, MPH

Free full text

View

OBJECTIVES:

To test differences in cognitive outcomes among adolescents randomly assigned previously as infants to iron-fortified formulaor low-iron formula as part of an iron deficiency anemia prevention trial.

STUDY DESIGN:

Infants were recruited from community clinics in low- to middle-income neighborhoods in Santiago, Chile. Entrance criteria included term, singleton infants; birth weight of ≥3.0 kg; and no major congenital anomalies, perinatal complications, phototherapy, hospitalization >5 days, chronic illness, or iron deficiency anemia at 6 months. Six-month-old infants were randomized to iron-fortified(12 mg/L) or low-iron (2.3 mg/L) formula for 6 months. At 16 years of age, cognitive ability, visual perceptual ability, visual memory, and achievement in math, vocabulary, and comprehension were assessed, using standardized measures. We compared differences in developmental test scores according to randomization group.

RESULTS:

At the follow-up assessment, the 405 participants averaged 16.2 years of age and 46% were male. Those randomized to iron-fortified formula had lower scores than those randomized to low-iron formula for visual memory, arithmetic achievement, and reading comprehension achievement. For visual motor integration, there was an interaction with baseline infancy hemoglobin, such that the iron-fortified group outperformed the low-iron group when 6-month hemoglobin was low and underperformed when 6-month hemoglobin was high.

CONCLUSIONS:

Adolescents who received iron-fortified formula as infants from 6 to 12 months of age at levels recommended in the US had poorer cognitive outcomes compared with those who received a low-iron formula. The prevention of iron deficiency anemia in infancy is important for brain development. However, the optimal level of iron supplementation in infancy is unclear.

TRIAL REGISTRATION:

Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01166451.

Author/s:

Gahagan, S., Delker, E., Blanco, E., Burrows, R., Lozoff, B.