June 23/30, 2020 e933 Existing American Heart Association cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) guidelines do not address the challenges of providing resuscitation in the setting of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) global pandemic, wherein rescuers must continuously balance the immediate needs of the patients with their own safety. To address this gap, the American Heart Association, in collaboration with the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Association for Respiratory Care, American College of Emergency Physicians, The Society of Critical Care Anesthesiologists, and American Society of Anesthesiologists, and with the support of the American Association of Critical Care Nurses and National Association of EMS Physicians, has compiled interim guidance to help rescuers treat individuals with cardiac arrest with suspected or confirmed COVID-19.Over the past 2 decades, there has been a steady improvement in survival after cardiac arrest occurring both inside and outside the hospital. 1 That success has relied on initiating proven resuscitation interventions such as high-quality chest compressions and defibrillation within seconds to minutes. The evolving and expanding outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infections has created important challenges to such resuscitation efforts and requires potential modifications of established processes and practices. The challenge is to ensure that patients with or without COVID-19 who experience cardiac arrest get the best possible chance of survival without compromising the safety of rescuers, who will be needed to care for future patients. Complicating the emergency response to both out-of-hospital and in-hospital cardiac arrest is that COVID-19 is highly transmissible, particularly during resuscitation, and carries a high morbidity and mortality.Approximately 12% to 19% of COVID-positive patients require hospital admission, and 3% to 6% become critically ill. [2][3][4] Hypoxemic respiratory failure secondary to acute respiratory distress syndrome, myocardial injury, ventricular arrhythmias, and shock are common among critically ill patients and predispose them to cardiac arrest, [5][6][7][8] as do some of the proposed treatments such as hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin, which can prolong the QT. 9 With infections currently growing exponentially in the United States and internationally, the percentage of patients with cardiac arrests and COVID-19 is likely to increase.Healthcare workers are already the highest-risk profession for contracting the disease. 10 This risk is compounded by worldwide shortages of personal protective equipment (PPE). Resuscitations carry added risk to healthcare workers for many reasons. First, the administration of CPR involves performing numerous aerosol-generating procedures, including chest compressions, positive-pressure ventilation, and establishment of an advanced airway. During those procedures, viral particles can remain suspended in the air with a half-life of ≈1 hour and

Control of pain and stress for children is a vital component of emergency medical care. Timely administration of analgesia affects the entire emergency medical experience and can have a lasting effect on a child' s and family' s reaction to current and future medical care. A systematic approach to pain management and anxiolysis, including staff education and protocol development, can provide comfort to children in the emergency setting and improve staff and family satisfaction. Pediatrics 2012;130:e1391-e1405 BACKGROUND A systematic approach to pain management is required to ensure relief of pain and anxiety for children who enter into the emergency medical system, which includes all emergency medical services (EMS) agencies, interfacility critical care transport teams, and the emergency department (ED). 1 The administration of appropriate analgesia in children varies by age as well as by training of the ED team (which includes physicians, nurses, physician assistants, and nurse practitioners), however, and still lags behind analgesia provided for adults in similar situations. 2 Furthermore, neonates are at highest risk of receiving inadequate analgesia. 3,4 Encouragingly, improvements in the recognition and treatment of pain in children have led to changes in the approach to pain management for acutely ill and injured pediatric patients. 5 Studies have shown an increase in opiate use in children with fractures. [6][7][8] Recent advances in the approach and support for pediatric analgesia and sedation, as well as new products and devices, have improved the overall climate of the ED for patients and families in search of the "ouchless" ED. 5,9 Increased parental education regarding pain and sedation, physician comfort and desire to enhance patient satisfaction, and a quest to satisfy accreditation regulations have appropriately driven this effort. System-wide approaches for pain management awareness and strategies work best if they are woven into the fabric of the emergency medical system through education and protocol development. The purpose of this report was to provide information to optimize the comfort and minimize the distress of children and families as they are cared for in the emergency setting.

The Pediatric Task Force reviewed all questions submitted by the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR) member councils in 2010, reviewed all council training materials and resuscitation guidelines and algorithms, and conferred on recent areas of interest and controversy. We identified a few areas where there were key differences in council-specific guidelines based on historical recommendations, such as the A-B-C (Airway, Breathing, Circulation) versus C-A-B (Circulation, Airway, Breathing) sequence of provision of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), initial back blows versus abdominal thrusts for foreign-body airway obstruction, an upper limit for recommended chest compression rate, and initial defibrillation dose for shockable rhythms (2 versus 4 J/kg). We produced a working list of prioritized questions and topics, which was adjusted with the advent of new research evidence. This led to a prioritized palate of 21 PICO (population, intervention, comparator, outcome) questions for ILCOR task force focus.The 2015 process was supported by information specialists who performed in-depth systematic searches, liaising with pediatric content experts so that the most appropriate terms and outcomes and the most relevant publications were identified. Relevant adult literature was considered (extrapolated) in those PICO questions that overlapped with other task forces, or when there were insufficient pediatric data. In rare circumstances (in the absence of sufficient human data), appropriate animal studies were incorporated into reviews of the literature. However, these data were considered only when higher levels of evidence were not available and the topic was deemed critical.When formulating the PICO questions, the task force felt it important to evaluate patient outcomes that extend beyond return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) or discharge from the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU). In recognition that the measures must have meaning, not only to clinicians but also to parents and caregivers, longer-term outcomes at 30 days, 60 days, 180 days, and 1 year with favorable neurologic status were included in the relevant PICO questions.Each task force performed a detailed systematic review based on the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies 1 and using the methodological approach proposed by the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) working group.2 After identifying and prioritizing the questions to be addressed (by using the PICO format) 3 with the assistance of information specialists, a detailed search for relevant articles was performed in each of 3 online databases (PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library).By using detailed inclusion and exclusion criteria, articles were screened for further evaluation. The reviewers for each question created a reconciled risk-of-bias assessment for each of the included studies, using state-of-the-art tools: Cochrane for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 4 Quality Assessment of Diagnosti...

No abstract

Twenty-two adults with mild concussions were assessed 5 times during the first 3 months after injury. The initial tests were performed within 72 hours of injury. Each evaluation included a neurological examination and neuropsychological reaction time (RT) tests of simple and choice RT variations. The concussed subjects were compared with control subjects matched for age, sex, and education. The time of day of the testing was equated for the two groups. None of the concussed subjects had a significant neurological deficit and none was hospitalized. There was no significant difference in the number of errors by the two groups on the RT tests. On the simple RT test, requiring a predetermined response to a specific signal, there was no significant difference between the groups, although the concussed group was approximately 28 ms slower on the average than the control group. On the choice RT tests, however, which demand an increased amount of attention and information processing, the concussed subjects were significantly slower than the normal control group, especially during the 1st month after injury. Even after 3 months, the concussed subjects had not yet attained the skill of the control group. Analysis of the response curves over time suggested two processes: an improvement in the concussed group and a slowing in the control group. Within the concussed group, there was no correlation of RT with the severity of the concussion. Even mild concussions can cause significant attentional and information processing impairment in the absence of any apparent neurological problems. Specific neuropsychological tests are necessary to reveal the deficit. A significant impairment seems to last for several weeks.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)