Utstein-Style Guidelines for Uniform Reporting of Laboratory CPR Research A Statement for Healthcare Professionals From a Task Force of the American Heart Association, the American College of Emergency Physicians, the American College of Cardiology, the European Resuscitation Council, the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, the Institute of Critical Care Medicine, the Safar Center for Resuscitation Research, and the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine

摘要: Both laboratory and clinical investigators contribute to the multidisciplinary knowledge base of resuscitation science. While diversity can be a strength, it also hindrance because lack common language poor communication among investigators. Modern cardiopulmonary (CPR) research depends on use animal models that are designed simulate cardiac arrest in humans.1 2 Such used explore important new treatments refine protocols standard interventions, including doses drugs, chest compression techniques, defibrillation energies, cerebral resuscitation, before they applied humans.3 When favorable results reported models, or refined techniques often implemented soon afterward human victims arrest. Unfortunately, obtained one may not reproducible another trials. For example, high-dose epinephrine therapy significantly improves survival most but does improve humans.4 5 6 7 In addition, some studies have documented efficacy administering bicarbonate during arrest, while others shown ineffective deleterious.8 Some these differences expected an simulation is perfect model humans. However, likely conflicting due experimental methods design. Variations study design, such as quality compressions ventilation, definitions variables, time intervals between event beginning therapy, probably responsible for many inconsistencies contradictions reported. The standardization nonuniform terminology reports humans been described “Tower Babel.” …