Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

R O Cummins

Publications and source records attributed to R O Cummins.

At least 37 records · Page 2Linked to original sources
PubMed1997

Automatic external defibrillators for public access defibrillation: recommendations for specifying and reporting arrhythmia analysis algorithm performance, incorporating new waveforms, and enhancing safety. A statement for health professionals from the American Heart Association Task Force on Automatic External Defibrillation, Subcommittee on AED Safety and Efficacy.

These recommendations are presented to enhance the safety and efficacy of AEDs intended for public access. The task force recommends that manufacturers present developmental and validation data on their own devices, emphasizing high sensitivity for shockable rhythms and high specificity for nonshockable rhythms. Alternative defibrillation waveforms may reduce energy requirements, reducing the size and weight of the device. The highest levels of safety for public access defibrillation are needed. Safe and effective use of AEDs that are widely available and easily handled by nonmedical personnel has the potential to dramatically increase survival from cardiac arrest.

Algorithms↗
PubMed1997

Human research on cardiopulmonary resuscitation: current constraints on implementation.

Researchers face a number of constraints to human resuscitation research. To overcome these constraints we must first recognize them and then work to develop solutions. The constraints include history, which tends to create a standard-of-care aura around practices that have not been confirmed by valid research. Until recently, we have lacked uniform models, nomenclature, and definitions for resuscitation research, though the "Utstein style" movement is doing much to overcome this particular constraint. We have to face several barriers that emerge from the very nature of human cardiopulmonary emergencies, such as its relative rarity, the multifactorial causes and outcomes, and its sudden, unpredictable nature. Good research requires appropriate levels of funding. Currently, human resuscitation research does not rank high on the funding priority list of our major funding agencies. This requires an organized approach to generate funding support and requires strong, coherent research proposals. Despite these constraints, we face many opportunities to improve survival from cardiopulmonary emergencies.

Animals↗
PubMed1996

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. Writing Group.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Animals↗
PubMed1996

Utstein-style guidelines for uniform reporting of laboratory CPR research: a statement for health care 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.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Animals↗
PubMed1996

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.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Animals↗
PubMed1996

Funding resuscitation research.

The present trend in managed care has meant downsizing expectations concerning the availability of support for resuscitation research. This trend applies to funding possibilities from industry, governmental agencies, and nongovernmental agencies (Table 1). There will be increasing barriers to making innovations. Truth, science, and good patient care alone will not make potential donors give grants. Investigators must also understand the potential donors' expectations and be persuasive. "Delight your donor". Industries' concerns include intellectual property rights and publications. The National Institutes of Health, recently favoring molecular biology over lifesaving therapies or integrated physiologic research, is an anomaly. The current peer review system propagates itself without having advocates for resuscitation research. This system has become a self-fulfilling prophecy. The American Heart Association is only recently, after 30 yrs of educational activities concerning cardiopulmonary resuscitation, considering putting some basic research money into resuscitation research. In university hospitals, where clinical departments have made significant contributions to innovative, clinically relevant life-support research, funded with incomes from patient care, the sky is beginning to fall. Resuscitation researchers need persuasive advocates with clout and hard data to convince funding agencies to give support to multilevel research and development in areas of pathophysiology and reversibility of terminal states and clinical death--to give these topics a higher priority than is currently available.

American Heart Association↗
PubMed1995

Informed consent in emergency research. Consensus statement from the Coalition Conference of Acute Resuscitation and Critical Care Researchers.

OBJECTIVE: A coalition conference of acute resuscitation researchers was held to discuss the feasibility of applying current federal research regulations regarding informed consent to the emergency setting. This article presents consensus recommendations for regulatory changes for consent in emergency research. PARTICIPANTS: Representatives from the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine and the American Heart Association identified several professional organizations as stakeholders in this issue, including research, clinical, bioethics, legal, and patient advocacy groups. The Office for Protection From Research Risks (OPRR), the Food And Drug Administration (FDA), and staff from specific legislative offices were also invited to observe. Forty-three participants attended, including representatives from 12 professional organizations, five medical institutions, and the FDA and OPRR. This was a closed meeting. Participants were self-funded or sponsored by their professional organizations. EVIDENCE: Before the meeting, a draft of a position statement was developed by the conference organizers based on the current literature and discussions with experts in the field. This draft, copies of the current federal research regulations, and supporting articles were distributed before the conference. CONSENSUS PROCESS: Participants rotated through moderated discussion sessions to comment on subsections of the draft. Following discussion, a working draft was developed and distributed to each participant and represented organizational board for final review. All comments were considered in the final version of the document. CONCLUSIONS: We believe there are circumstances when it is not feasible to obtain prospective or proxy consent for enrollment into an emergency research protocol. In these circumstances, patients are vulnerable, not only to research risks, but also to being denied potentially beneficial therapy when there is no known effective treatment for their life-threatening condition. We offer recommendations that should be met when the critical nature of the illness or injury or the need to apply an investigational therapy rapidly precludes prospective consent for participation in emergency research.

Consensus↗