THE GUIDELINES for the treatment of patients in cardiac arrest are probably the most successful clinical guidelines in medicine today. These include guidelines for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), advanced cardiac life support (ACLS), and pediatric advanced life support that are developed through a consensus process by the American Heart Association in cooperation with other organizations.1 These guidelines are widely used and successful because the optimal treatment for a patient in cardiac arrest requires an interdisciplinary team response with time to treatment being a key factor. In the setting of cardiac arrest, decisions must be made instantaneously and there is no time to look up the appropriate treatment. Although the body of recommendations in ACLS and pediatric advanced life support are rich and full of nuances encouraging clinicians to assess the patient for cause of the arrest and individualize the treatment based on clinical circumstances, the treatment is often reduced to a series of algorithms based on the electrocardiographic monitor rhythm. Clinicians are comfortable with the algorithms because they provide them with ready access to an accepted form of treatment without having to make complicated clinical decisions. The disadvantage of the algorithmic approach to patients in cardiac arrest is the loss of individualized treatment. Cardiac arrest is not a disease but a complex syndrome with diverse causes and prognoses based on the underlying disease factors, pathophysiological conditions of the arrest, and the resuscitation response.
Thank you for submitting a comment on this article. It will be reviewed by JAMA Internal Medicine editors. You will be notified when your comment has been published. Comments should not exceed 500 words of text and 10 references.
Do not submit personal medical questions or information that could identify a specific patient, questions about a particular case, or general inquiries to an author. Only content that has not been published, posted, or submitted elsewhere should be submitted. By submitting this Comment, you and any coauthors transfer copyright to the journal if your Comment is posted.
* = Required Field
Disclosure of Any Conflicts of Interest*
Indicate all relevant conflicts of interest of each author below, including all relevant financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including, but not limited to, employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speakers’ bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued. If all authors have none, check "No potential conflicts or relevant financial interests" in the box below. Please also indicate any funding received in support of this work. The information will be posted with your response.
Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.
Download citation file:
Web of Science® Times Cited: 4
Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.
More Listings atJAMACareerCenter.com >
The Rational Clinical Examination: Evidence-Based Clinical Diagnosis
All results at
Enter your username and email address. We'll send you a link to reset your password.
Enter your username and email address. We'll send instructions on how to reset your password to the email address we have on record.
Athens and Shibboleth are access management services that provide single sign-on to protected resources. They replace the multiple user names and passwords necessary to access subscription-based content with a single user name and password that can be entered once per session. It operates independently of a user's location or IP address. If your institution uses Athens or Shibboleth authentication, please contact your site administrator to receive your user name and password.