Article Text

Download PDFPDF
  1. Robin Roop,
  2. Jonathan Wyatt

    Statistics from

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    2000 VS 2005 ALS GUIDELINES

    The introduction of new advanced life support (ALS) guidelines requires resuscitation teams to expend a considerable amount of effort to ensure that resuscitation efforts are synchronised. Understandably, resuscitation team members often question the need for changes. An interesting pig study compared resuscitation between two groups of pigs, who were resuscitated according to the old and new guidelines respectively. Ventricular fibrillation was induced with the use of a transvenous pacing wire inserted into the right ventricle. Nineteen pigs were randomised to receive treatment according to either the 2000 or 2005 Resuscitation Council guidelines. Both algorithms recorded similar successful resuscitation rates, but animals treated with the 2000 guidelines restored a rhythm compatible with a pulse more quickly. Neurological outcome and long-term survival were not evaluated (

    ) .


    It is a cause of continuing frustration that there are often significant delays before patients who are suffering from acute myocardial infarction receive treatment. Patients themselves are responsible for some important delays, by failing to promptly seek …

    View Full Text