Principales recomendaciones de reanimación cardiopulmonar y atención cardiovascular de emergencia para el año 2020 / Best practice recommendations for cardiopulmonary resuscitation and emergency cardiovascular care for 2020

Las altas tasas de letalidad y mortalidad a causa del paro cardiorespiratorio por fibrilación ventricular son considerados un problema de salud pública, cobrando gran relevancia la posibilidad de que sean revertidos rápidamente con la presencia de profesionales capacitados o por personal "lego" actualizados en reanimación cardiopulmonar. El objetivo del presente artículo de revisión fue analizar las nuevas recomendaciones de la American Heart Association para reanimación cardiopulmonar y atención cardiovascular de emergencia para el año 2020.

High rates of lethality and mortality due to ventricular fibrillation cardiorespiratory arrest are considered a public health problem, Thus, the possibility of reversed quickly by trained professionals or updated "lego" staff in cardiopulmonary resuscitation is taking great relevance. The objective of this review article was to discuss the New Recommendations of the American Heart Association for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care for 2020.

Can course format influence the performance of students in an advanced cardiac life support (ACLS) program?

Advanced cardiac life support (ACLS) is a problem-based course that employs simulation techniques to teach the standard management techniques of cardiovascular emergencies. Its structure is periodically revised according to new versions of the American Heart Association guidelines. Since it was introduced in Brazil in 1996, the ACLS has been through two conceptual and structural changes. Detailed documented reports on the effect of these changes on student performance are limited. The objective of the present study was to evaluate the effect of conceptual and structural changes of the course on student ACLS performance at a Brazilian training center. This was a retrospective study of 3266 students divided into two groups according to the teaching model: Model 1 (N = 1181; 1999-2003) and Model 2 (N = 2085; 2003-2007). Model 2 increased practical skill activities to 75 percent of the total versus 60 percent in Model 1. Furthermore, the teaching material provided to the students before the course was more objective than that used for Model 1. Scores greater than 85 percent in the theoretical evaluation and approval in the evaluation of practice by the instructor were considered to be a positive outcome. Multiple logistic regression was used to adjust for potential confounders (specialty, residency, study time, opportunity to enhance practical skills during the course and location where the course was given). Compared to Model 1, Model 2 presented odds ratios (OR) indicating better performance in the theoretical (OR = 1.34; 95 percentCI = 1.10-1.64), practical (OR = 1.19; 95 percentCI = 0.90-1.57), and combined (OR = 1.38; 95 percentCI = 1.13-1.68) outcomes. Increasing the time devoted to practical skills did not improve the performance of ACLS students.