Executive Summary: 2020 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations.

The International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR) was formed in 1992 as an international council of councils and currently includes representatives from the American Heart Association (AHA), the European Resuscitation Council, the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, the Australian and New Zealand Committee on Resuscitation, the Resuscitation Council of Southern Africa, the InterAmerican Heart Foundation, and the Resuscitation Council of Asia.1Perkins G.D. Neumar R. Monsieurs K.G. et al.The International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation-review of the last 25 years and vision for the future.Resuscitation. 2017; 121: 104-116https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resuscitation.2017.09.029Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (23) Google Scholar The ILCOR mission is to promote, disseminate, and advocate international implementation of evidence-informed resuscitation and first aid by using transparent evaluation and consensus summary of scientific data. Resuscitation includes all responses necessary to treat sudden life-threatening events affecting the cardiovascular and respiratory systems, with a focus on sudden cardiac arrest. As in 2015, this 2020 consensus publication also includes first aid topics as part of the international review and consensus recommendations. There are 6 ILCOR Task Forces: (adult) Basic Life Support (BLS); (adult) Advanced Life Support (ALS); Pediatric (basic and advanced) Life Support (PLS); Neonatal Life Support (NLS); Education, Implementation, and Teams (EIT); and First Aid. This 2020 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) and Emergency Cardiovascular Care (ECC) Science With Treatment Recommendations (CoSTR) includes a separate publication from each of the 6 task forces as well as this Executive Summary and a publication detailing the evidence evaluation process and management of potential conflicts of interest. In this publication, the separate sections for each task force highlights the “hot” topics and the new CoSTRs developed. Not all relevant references are cited here; refer to each task force publication in this supplement for details of each of the reviews and task force deliberations. In addition, each task force publication summarizes additional reviews that are not highlighted in this Executive Summary. ILCOR is committed to a rigorous and continuous review of scientific literature focused on resuscitation, cardiac arrest, relevant conditions requiring first aid, related education and implementation strategies, and systems of care. After the publication of the 2015 International Consensus on CPR and ECC Science With Treatment Recommendations, ILCOR also committed to sponsoring a continuous evidence-evaluation process, with topics prioritized for review by the task forces and with CoSTR updates published annually. For this 2020 CoSTR, the 6 ILCOR task forces performed structured reviews of 184 topics, completing the most ambitious evidence review that ILCOR has attempted to date. The ILCOR systematic review process continues to be based on the methodological principles published by the National Academy of Health and Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine)2Institute of Medicine (US) Committee of Standards for Systematic Reviews of Comparative Effectiveness Research Eden J. Levit L. Berg A. Morton S. Finding What Works in Health Care: Standards for Systematic Reviews. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC2011Google Scholar; Cochrane3Cochrane Training. Introducing systematic reviews of prognosis studies to Cochrane: what and how? https://training.cochrane.org/resource/introducing-systematic-reviews-prognosis-studies-cochrane-what-and-how. Accessed March 17, 2020.Google Scholar, 4Cochrane Methods Screening and Diagnostic Tests. Handbook for DTA reviews. https://methods.cochrane.org/sdt/handbook-dta-reviews. Accessed March 17, 2020.Google Scholar; Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE)5Schünemann H. Brożek J. Guyatt G. Oxman A. GRADE Handbook.2013https://gdt.gradepro.org/app/handbook/handbook.htmlGoogle Scholar; and the reporting guidelines based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses recommendations.6PRISMA. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) website. http://www.prisma-statement.org/. Accessed December 31, 2019.Google Scholar, 7Moher D. Liberati A. Tetzlaff J. Altman D.G. PRISMA Group Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement.BMJ. 2009; 339: b2535https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b2535Crossref PubMed Scopus (9507) Google Scholar Three types of evidence evaluation provided the basis for this 2020 CoSTR: the systematic review, the scoping review, and the evidence update. Based on recommendations from the ILCOR Scientific Affairs Committee and agreement of the task forces, only systematic reviews could result in new or modified treatment recommendations. The systematic review (SysRev) represents the most structured and detailed of the reviews. It requires a rigorous process following strict methodology to answer a specific question, and each SysRev resulted in the generation of the task force CoSTR included in this publication. For this 2020 CoSTR process, ILCOR member councils agreed that treatment recommendations could be changed only as the result of a SysRev. The SysRevs were performed by a knowledge synthesis unit (groups of well-respected researchers with methodological expertise in performing SysRevs), an expert systematic reviewer (an individual with methodological expertise and a track record of publications), or the task force. Many of the reviews resulted in separate published SysRevs. To begin the SysRev, the task force and reviewers phrased the question to be answered in terms of the PICOST (population, intervention, comparator, outcome, study design, time) format. The literature searches were developed and conducted by information specialists who used, at a minimum, the MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases. The clinical experts for the SysRev reviewed all identified studies and selected those that met inclusion criteria. The reviewers rated the risk of bias for each study, analysed the data, and performed meta-analyses as appropriate. The reviewers used the GRADE framework to rate the certainty/confidence in the estimates of the effect of an intervention or assessment across a body of evidence for each of the predefined outcomes; certainty, or confidence, was rated as high, moderate, low, or very low. Evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) generally began the analysis as high-certainty evidence, and evidence from observational studies generally began the analysis as low-certainty evidence; examination of the evidence using the GRADE approach could result in either downgrading or upgrading the certainty of evidence. For additional information, refer to “2020 Evidence Evaluation Process and Management of Potential Conflicts of Interest” in this supplement.8Morley P.T. Atkins D.L. Finn J.C. et al.Evidence evaluation process and management of potential conflicts of interest: 2020 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations.Circulation. 2020; 142: S28-S40https://doi.org/10.1161/CIR.0000000000000891Crossref PubMed Scopus (9) Google ScholarMorley P. Atkins D.L. Finn J.M. et al.Evidence evaluation process and management of potential conflicts of interest : 2020 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations.Resuscitation. 2020; 156: A23-A33Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (0) Google Scholar The data analysis was presented to the task force, and the task force drafted the summary consensus on science as well as the treatment recommendations. Each treatment recommendation indicates the strength of the recommendation (recommends = strong, suggests = weak) and the certainty of the evidence. The structured deliberations that the task force completed are highlighted in an evidence-to-decision table, with a table for each new, completed CoSTR included in Appendix A of each task force publication in this supplement. Draft 2020 CoSTRs were posted on the ILCOR website9International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation website. https://www.ilcor.org. Accessed August 3, 2020.Google Scholar for a 2-week comment period. The task forces reviewed the comments and modified the CoSTR content as needed. Each task force publication in this supplement contains the final wording of the CoSTR statements as approved by the ILCOR task forces and by the ILCOR member councils. Scoping reviews (ScopRevs) are designed to identify the extent, range, and nature of evidence on a topic or a question. They follow a rigorous process but use a broader search strategy and were performed by topic experts in consultation with the task forces. The ScopRev produces a narrative summary of evidence, with tables presenting key data from the studies identified but with no risk of bias analysis for each study. The task force analysed the identified evidence and determined its value and implications for resuscitation practice or research. The rationale for each ScopRev, the summary of evidence, and task force insights are all highlighted in the body of each task force publication. If a ScopRev identified substantive evidence that may result in a future change in ILCOR treatment recommendations, the task force recommended that a new SysRev be performed. Draft ScopRevs were posted for a 2-week comment period on the ILCOR website, and the task forces revised text as needed in response to the public comments. All ScopRevs are included in their entirety in Appendix B of each task force publication in this supplement. Evidence updates (EvUps) were performed to identify evidence published after the most recent ILCOR review of the topic. The EvUps were performed by volunteer members of the task forces or ILCOR member councils, who used the same search strategy that was used for the previous review. If the search strategy failed to identify new evidence, the search strategy was broadened to capture any relevant published studies. The task forces reviewed the EvUps to determine if sufficient evidence was identified to suggest the need for a new SysRev. All EvUps cited can be viewed in Appendix C of each task force publication in this supplement. The CoSTR reviews were all completed by early February 2020. As a result, this document does not address the topic of the potential influence of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on resuscitation practice. An ILCOR writing group was assembled in the spring of 2020 to identify and evaluate the published evidence regarding risks of aerosol generation and infection transmission during attempted resuscitation of adults, children, and infants. This group developed a consensus on science with treatment recommendations and task force insights. This statement is published as a separate document.10Perkins G.D. Morley P.T. Nolan J.P. et al.International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation: COVID-19 consensus on science, treatment recommendations and task force insights.Resuscitation. 2020; 151: 145-147https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resuscitation.2020.04.035Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (27) Google Scholar As new evidence emerges, the ILCOR task forces will review and update this statement, so the reader is referred to the ILCOR website9International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation website. https://www.ilcor.org. Accessed August 3, 2020.Google Scholar for the most up-to-date recommendations. ILCOR followed the rigorous conflict-of-interest (COI) policies that have been used successfully in previous years. Anyone involved in any part of the process was required to disclose all commercial relationships and other potential conflicts by using the standard AHA online COI disclosure process. Task force members as well as reviewers and collaborators all completed this online disclosure process before they were allowed to perform reviews and take part in discussions. Participants were asked to be sensitive to commercial conflicts as well as to any potential intellectual conflicts, such as having authored key studies related to a topic or being involved in ongoing studies related to a topic. AHA staff reviewed the disclosures before appointment to ensure that no disclosures were significant enough to preclude participation. Disclosure information for writing group members is listed in Appendix 1. Disclosure information for peer reviewers is listed in Appendix 2. During in-person meetings, each participant was assigned a COI number, and a full list of disclosures was available to all participants throughout the meeting. Participants were required to state any relevant conflicts during in-person meetings as well as on webinars and conference calls and were required to abstain from voting on any wording of the consensus on science or treatment recommendations for any topics related to their potential conflicts. AHA staff members assisted the task force chairs in monitoring compliance. Any COI-related issues were brought to the attention of the task force chairs and the COI co-chairs. At each meeting, participants were notified of a toll-free telephone number to call to anonymously report any COI issues; no calls were received. The question of whether to transport a cardiac arrest victim to the hospital or complete CPR on the scene continues to be controversial. This topic has not been reviewed since 2005, and the BLS Task Force chose to undertake a ScopRev to determine if there was sufficient new evidence to warrant a SysRev. Eight nonrandomized studies reported that among patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) transported with CPR in progress, return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) was achieved in the emergency department in approximately 9.5%, with 2.9% surviving to hospital discharge. Manikin studies consistently document poorer CPR quality during transport while clinical studies evaluating the quality of CPR during transport report conflicting results. Three RCTs comparing manual CPR with mechanical CPR during transport showed no benefit from mechanical CPR with respect to ROSC or survival to discharge. Manikin studies indicate that mechanical CPR provided consistent CPR whereas the quality of manual CPR declined during transport. Nonrandomized studies showed that duration of transport with CPR and distance transported with CPR does not adversely impact patient outcomes. There are many facets to this question, and on the basis of the evidence identified, the task force concluded that there was a need for more than 1 SysRev. Several questions remain unanswered, such as whether clinical outcomes are affected by the decision to transport with CPR in progress and when the decision to transport with ongoing CPR should be made. The use of feedback devices could improve the quality of CPR during transport. However, an important consideration is the risk of harm to personnel who perform manual CPR during transport—there is little evidence for this, but many anecdotal reports attest to the potential risk to unrestrained personnel in the back of a moving ambulance. The question of whether to first start CPR or call for help for adults with OHCA is likely to be influenced by the wide availability of mobile phones with a hands-free option, which makes it possible to call emergency medical services (EMS) and start CPR simultaneously. The SysRev identified just 1 cohort study including 17 461 adults with OHCA from a national registry of 925 288 cases.11Kamikura T. Iwasaki H. Myojo Y. Sakagami S. Takei Y. Inaba H. Advantage of CPR-first over call-first actions for out-of-hospital cardiac arrests in nonelderly patients and of noncardiac aetiology.Resuscitation. 2015; 96: 37-45https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resuscitation.2015.06.027Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (5) Google Scholar Analysis was limited to cases in which lay rescuers witnessed the adult cardiac arrest and performed CPR without the need for dispatcher assistance. The groups differed in many respects, and despite adjustment, residual confounding was likely. The 3 groups (call and CPR first, call first, and CPR first) all had similar rates of survival with favourable outcome. The BLS Task Force chose to make a discordant recommendation (a strong recommendation despite very low-certainty evidence) that for an adult with OHCA, a lone bystander with a mobile phone should phone EMS, activate the speaker or other hands-free option on the mobile phone, and immediately begin CPR, with dispatcher assistance if required. If a lone rescuer must leave an adult victim to phone EMS, the priority should be prompt activation of EMS before returning to the victim to initiate CPR as soon as possible. Deaths from opioid overdose are increasing substantially, particularly in the United States. This topic was reviewed in 2015, but no treatment recommendation was made.12Travers A.H. Perkins G.D. Berg R.A. et al.Part 3: adult basic life support and automated external defibrillation: 2015 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations.Circulation. 2015; 132: S51-S83https://doi.org/10.1161/CIR.0000000000000272Crossref PubMed Scopus (113) Google ScholarPerkins G.D. Travers A.H. Berg R.A. et al.Basic Life Support Chapter Collaborators. Part 3: adult basic life support and automated external defibrillation: 2015 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations.Resuscitation. 2015; 95: e43-e69https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resuscitation.2015.07.041Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (144) Google Scholar An updated SysRev on this topic was considered essential to inform best-practice guidelines for bystander resuscitation for suspected opioid-induced emergencies. No studies were identified that compared bystander-administered naloxone (intramuscular or intranasal) plus conventional CPR with conventional CPR only. As a response to the growing opioid epidemic, naloxone has been widely distributed by healthcare authorities to laypeople in various opioid-overdose prevention schemes. A recent SysRev identified 22 observational studies evaluating the effect of overdose education and naloxone distribution and found an association between implementation of these programs and decreased mortality rates.13McDonald R. Strang J. Are take-home naloxone programmes effective? Systematic review utilizing application of the Bradford Hill criteria.Addiction. 2016; 111: 1177-1187https://doi.org/10.1111/add.13326Crossref PubMed Scopus (154) Google Scholar On the basis of expert opinion, the BLS Task Force suggested that CPR be started without delay on any unresponsive person who is not breathing normally and that naloxone be used by lay rescuers in suspected opioid-related respiratory or circulatory arrest. CPR feedback or prompt devices are intended to improve CPR quality, the probability of ROSC, and survival from cardiac arrest. Real-time CPR guidance devices can be categorized as (1) digital audiovisual feedback, including corrective audio prompts; (2) analogue audio and tactile clicker feedback for chest compression depth and release; and (3) metronome guidance for chest compression rate. Several additional studies were identified in this updated SysRev. This topic proved particularly controversial. Most higher-certainty data did not demonstrate a clinically or statistically significant association between real-time feedback and improved patient outcomes; furthermore, these devices require resources to purchase and implement. On the other hand, several studies demonstrated clinically important improvements in outcomes associated with the use of feedback devices. A permissive recommendation was considered appropriate because of the role that these devices play in CPR quality monitoring, benchmarking, and quality-improvement programs. The BLS Task Force agreed on a weak recommendation for healthcare systems to consider CPR feedback devices, given the evidence that they improve the quality of CPR and there was no signal of patient harm in the data reviewed. The task force highlighted that there was no consistent signal indicating that the real-time feedback function of these devices has a significant effect on individual cardiac arrest patient outcomes, suggesting that the devices should not be implemented for this reason alone outside of a comprehensive quality-assurance program. Artifact-filtering algorithms for the analysis of electrocardiographic rhythms during CPR have been proposed as a method to reduce pauses in chest compressions and thereby increase the quality of CPR. Most of the 14 studies included in this SysRev used previously collected electrocardiograms, electric impedance, and/or accelerometer signals recorded during CPR to evaluate the ability of algorithms or machine learning to detect shockable rhythms during chest compressions. None of these studies evaluated the effect of the artifact-filtering algorithms on any critical or important outcomes, but they provide insights into the potential benefits of this technology. The BLS Task Force prioritized avoiding the costs of introducing a new technology when its effects on patient outcomes and the risk of harm remain to be determined; thus, the task force suggested against the routine use of artifact-filtering algorithms for analysis of ECG rhythms during CPR. The task force made a weak recommendation for further research because (a) there is currently insufficient evidence to support a decision for or against routine use, (b) further research may reduce uncertainty about the effects, and (c) further research is thought to be of good value for the anticipated costs. It is not known if there are specific call characteristics that impact the ability of emergency medical dispatchers to recognize cardiac arrest. This SysRev identified a wide variety of algorithms and criteria used by dispatch centres to identify cardiac arrest and other medical emergencies. There was great variability in the accuracy of these algorithms and the criteria for recognizing OHCA in adults. The BLS Task Force recognized that minimizing the frequency of missed cardiac arrest events may increase the frequency of false-positive cases. Effect on treatment recommendations: The task force recommended that dispatch centres implement a standardized algorithm and/or standardized criteria to immediately determine if a patient is in cardiac arrest at the time of an emergency call. It was also recommended that dispatch centres monitor and track diagnostic capability. This topic was last reviewed by the BLS Task Force in 2010.14Sayre M.R. Koster R.W. Botha M. et al.Part 5: adult basic life support: 2010 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations.Circulation. 2010; 122: S298-S324https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.110.970996Crossref PubMed Scopus (125) Google ScholarKoster R.W. Sayre M.R. Botha M. et al.Part 5: adult basic life support: 2010 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations.Resuscitation. 2010; 81: e48-e70https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resuscitation.2010.08.005Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (97) Google Scholar The evidence identified in this latest SysRev was grouped under the subheadings of mattress type, floor compared with bed, and backboard. The task force noted that effective manual compression depths can be achieved even on a soft surface if the CPR provider increases overall compression depth to compensate for mattress compression. Manikin studies indicate a marginal benefit to manual chest compression depth from the use of a backboard but use of these may cause significant interruption in chest compressions, and they have significant cost and training implications. Effect on treatment recommendations: The treatment recommendations have been updated from 2010; they are all weak recommendations based on very low-certainty evidence. The BLS Task Force suggests performing manual chest compressions on a firm surface when possible; this includes activation of a bed’s CPR mode if it has this feature. During in-hospital cardiac arrest, the task force suggests against moving a patient from a bed to the floor to improve chest compression depth. The task force was unable to make a recommendation about the use of backboards because the confidence in effect estimates was so low. Although most adult BLS guidelines recommend commencing chest compressions before giving rescue breaths, there is still considerable debate about this sequence. This SysRev did not identify any additional studies published after the 2015 ILCOR review.12Travers A.H. Perkins G.D. Berg R.A. et al.Part 3: adult basic life support and automated external defibrillation: 2015 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations.Circulation. 2015; 132: S51-S83https://doi.org/10.1161/CIR.0000000000000272Crossref PubMed Scopus (113) Google ScholarPerkins G.D. Travers A.H. Berg R.A. et al.Basic Life Support Chapter Collaborators. Part 3: adult basic life support and automated external defibrillation: 2015 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations.Resuscitation. 2015; 95: e43-e69https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resuscitation.2015.07.041Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (144) Google Scholar Effect on treatment recommendations: The treatment recommendation is unchanged from 2015.12Travers A.H. Perkins G.D. Berg R.A. et al.Part 3: adult basic life support and automated external defibrillation: 2015 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations.Circulation. 2015; 132: S51-S83https://doi.org/10.1161/CIR.0000000000000272Crossref PubMed Scopus (113) Google ScholarPerkins G.D. Travers A.H. Berg R.A. et al.Basic Life Support Chapter Collaborators. Part 3: adult basic life support and automated external defibrillation: 2015 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations.Resuscitation. 2015; 95: e43-e69https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resuscitation.2015.07.041Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (144) Google Scholar This topic is discussed in more detail in the BLS Hot Topics section earlier in this publication. The SysRev identified just 1 cohort study on which to base the treatment recommendation. Effect on treatment recommendations: Despite very low-certainty evidence, for adults with OHCA, the BLS Task Force made a strong recommendation that a lone bystander with a mobile phone should dial EMS, activate the speaker or other hands-free option on the mobile phone, and immediately begin CPR, with dispatcher assistance if required. This topic had not been updated since 201512Travers A.H. Perkins G.D. Berg R.A. et al.Part 3: adult basic life support and automated external defibrillation: 2015 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations.Circulation. 2015; 132: S51-S83https://doi.org/10.1161/CIR.0000000000000272Crossref PubMed Scopus (113) Google ScholarPerkins G.D. Travers A.H. Berg R.A. et al.Basic Life Support Chapter Collaborators. Part 3: adult basic life support and automated external defibrillation: 2015 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations.Resuscitation. 2015; 95: e43-e69https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resuscitation.2015.07.041Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (144) Google Scholar The current SysRev identified 2 older studies that included comparisons of groups with different CPR durations between rhythm checks, but both studies were designed to address the question of CPR first compared with defibrillation first. Consequently, the certainty of evidence supporting the optimal duration of CPR is low. Effect on treatment recommendations: The treatment recommendation is unchanged from 2015.12Travers A.H. Perkins G.D. Berg R.A. et al.Part 3: adult basic life support and automated external defibrillation: 2015 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations.Circulation. 2015; 132: S51-S83https://doi.org/10.1161/CIR.0000000000000272Crossref PubMed Scopus (113) Google ScholarPerkins G.D. Travers A.H. Berg R.A. et al.Basic Life Support Chapter Collaborators. Part 3: adult basic life support and automated external defibrillation: 2015 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations.Resuscitation. 2015; 95: e43-e69https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resuscitation.2015.07.041Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (144) Google Scholar This topic was last reviewed in 2015.12Travers A.H. Perkins G.D. Berg R.A. et al.Part 3: adult basic life support and automated external defibrillation: 2015 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations.Circulation. 2015; 132: S51-S83https://doi.org/10.1161/CIR.0000000000000272Crossref PubMed Scopus (113) Google ScholarPerkins G.D. Travers A.H. Berg R.A. et al.Basic Life Support Chapter Collaborators. Part 3: adult basic life support and automated exter