Talk:Cardiac arrest

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cardiac arrest article.
Article policies
WikiProject Medicine This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess.
B This page has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance assessment scale

Contents

[edit] 2005-2006

Is the picture of the ambulance really necessary to the article? It doesn't really have a huge deal to do with the topic.

I think there is a slight difference between "clinical death" and "cardiac arrest".
Cardiac arrest inevitably leads to clinical death but clinical death is the period when circulation ceases and oxygen etc supply is cut from vitally important tissues, namely brain and heart muscle. The consequence is shift into anaerobic metabolism, acidosis and cell disintegraton.
This period is variable and depends on many factors for instance age and surroundings temperature.
There have been examples of successful resuscitation of people drowned for half and hour in ice-cold water.

I agree.


Anyone care to have a look at the "Ethical Issues" section? While the author seems to have tried to advance a possibly valid point (that of terminal patients not willing to prolonge their suffering), the way it is currently written kind of seems to imply that one should not provide emergency care to an arrested patient because of the risk of (non-serious, given the circumstances) injury or pain.--81.42.163.238 01:14, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Make it simple

Isn't this basically when the heart stops beating? If so, please include that in the intro sentence. Twilight Realm 00:00, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Ah, if but it were! A cessation of heartbeat is a type of cardiac arrest (known as asystole or PEA), but there are other types of cardiac arrest where the heart doesn't stop (VFib/VTach). In all cases of cardiac arrest, the carotid pulse is absent, but there are other conditions (hypovolaemia being one) where the pulse may be absent but the heart beating. The best definition is of an inneffective heart beat, but even that produces problems - sinus rhythm is the only heart rhythm which is optimally effective, so where do you draw the line? Atrial Fibrillation is not a totally effective heart beat, but neither is it a cardiac arrest. I think that medically, the definition given on the page is about as good as we're likely to get, even if it is a little long winded. --John24601 16:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Causes of arrest

I don't know why it was changed from 4H/4Ts... that is the commonly accepted list in the UK at least, and is published by the UK resuscitation council. Acidosis from Hydrogen ions comes under hypo/hyper metabolic causes; and the two thromboses are dealt with together. I've changed the article back to reflect this. --John24601 12:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cardiogenic Shock

Have reverted edits by User:Nescio which deleted the page and reverted it to cardiogenic shock. Please don't do it again - alot of us have put alot of hard work into this page, we don't want to see it subsumed into another (irrelevant) topic without even so much as a discussion. Cardiac Arrest is not the same thing as cardiogenic shock.--John24601 07:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Although I appreciate many have done alot of work, and I should have discussed this, much of what is mentioned is chaotic, incorrect, or irrelevant. Cardiac arrest means no circulation, and that is what cardiogenic shock is. It is not equivalent to sinus arrest: the lack of electrical activity from the sinus node. Furthermore, all causes that are mentioned in the article you want to preserve, describe shock. Maybe you could point out the difference between cardiac arrest and cardiogenic shock. Technically (semantics) arrest rapidly (sec-min) transforms into shock. However, that is no reason not to discuss the conditions in the same article, i.e. merge.
As the two terms describe the same situation, rapid depletion of oxygen in vital organs due to inadequate cardiac function, I'll have to revert.Holland Nomen Nescio 12:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Errr... no. Cardiac arrest is not cardiogenic shock. Cardiac Arrest is a cessation of any circulation (although not nescessarily a stoppage of the heart); Cardiogenic shock is one condition where there may be a undereffective circulation. Cardiogenic shock may lead to cardiac arrest, but so may alot of other things. Comments anyone? --John24601 14:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Elaborate please:

Cardiac Arrest is a cessation of any circulation. This is circulatory arrest is it not?

Cardiogenic shock is one condition where there may be a undereffective circulation. From Irwin and Rippe:

In cardiogenic shock, the underlying defect is primary pump failure. The causes ... include: (a) myocardial infarction .... (b) .... cardiomyopathy (c) ventricular outflow obstruction [AoS, aortic dissection] (d) ventricular filling anomalies (atrial myxoma, mitral stenosis) (e) acute valvular failure ...(f) cardiac dysrhythmias (g) ventriculoseptal defects.

This constitutes circulatory arrest and insufficient circulation does it not?

As I pointed out semantics-wise there is a difference but they are very similar and the current form I think explains that. At least it does not warrant two articles.Holland Nomen Nescio 15:11, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


I think I see where we're getting wires crossed here - you're not a native english speaker. In english, Cardiac Arrest is what you are referring to as Circulatory arrest (I guess). It's not the same thing as cardiogenic shock. If others are in agrrement I'll revert again. --John24601 15:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Before reverting, could you please read the current article to see if what you are saying is not already addressed? IMHO, we have two articles discussing the same. In other words, could you explain the difference between arrest and shock to a non-native?Holland Nomen Nescio 15:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Cardiogenic Shock = shock which is cardiac in origin (eg/ could be a result of cardiomyopathy, left ventricular failure, large accute MI). Shock (of which there are many types - the most common being cardiogenic and hypovolemic [diminished circulating volume ie/ after bleeding or burn]) is a condition where there is inneffective perfusion of the tissues, resulting in a mechanism to try and raise the blood pressure. A Cardiac arrest is a sudden cessation of cardiac function (ie/ it either stops [Asystole or PEA] or it goes but fails to pump blood because of its speed/rhythm [VF/VT]), which is treated with (amongst other things) CPR, Intubation, Defibrillation, and consideration of the reversible causes (Which were listed on the page - Hypoxia, Hypovolaemia, Hypothermia, Hypo/Hyper-metabolics, Toxins, Tension Pneumothorax, Tamponade or Thrombosis). They are most definitely not the same thing (although of course cardiogenic shock has the potential to degenerate into cardiac arrest).—Preceding unsigned comment added by John24601 (talk • contribs)
At the risk of being stubborn, Irwin and Rippe is my guide and I quoted it above. You'll notice that Asystole or PEA (dysrhythmias) are mentioned as cause of cardiogenic shock. Furthermore, inneffective perfusion of the tissues is seen in shock and in cardiac arrest. Please read the well-referenced shock for a better understanding of all the conditions you name as cause of cardiac arrest.
Regarding, although of course cardiogenic shock has the potential to degenerate into cardiac arrest, shock through hypoperfusion may cause cardiac arrest but cardiac arrest may lead to shock as well. SincerelyHolland Nomen Nescio 18:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but you're simply wrong - I don't know how else I can put it. Yes they share some of the same pathological end-points, but they are not the same thing. Can somebody back me up here?!--John24601 20:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm a layperson, not a health care professional, but here's my 2 cents. I don't personally care whether cardiac arrest and cardiogenic shock are one page or two, and leave that up to people in the medical project. As a reader, though, I would like someone to clear up the following questions, either on the current cardiogenic shock page or on the combination of the two pages:

    • What are the formal definitions of cardiogenic shock and cardiac arrest?
    • Given that they have different diagnosis codes, under what circumstances should a HCP diagnose one, the other or both.
    • How are they related? Is it possible to experience cardiogenic shock but not cardiac arrest? Is it possible to experience cardiac arrest but not cardiogenic shock?

If someone could expand the article(s) to answer those questions for a lay reader like me, I think it would clarify the article(s) somewhat, and maybe resolve the debate here. TheronJ 21:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Definition:

  • Cardiac arrest: Abrupt cessation of cardiac pump function which may be reversible by a prompt intervention but will lead to death in its absence. From Harrison's.
  • Cardiogenic shock: the underlying defect is primary pump failure. The causes ... include: (a) myocardial infarction .... (b) .... cardiomyopathy (c) ventricular outflow obstruction [AoS, aortic dissection] (d) ventricular filling anomalies (atrial myxoma, mitral stenosis) (e) acute valvular failure ...(f) cardiac dysrhythmias (g) ventriculoseptal defects. From Irwin and Rippe.

Diagnosis:

  • In the acute setting it is not always possible to differentiate between the two. As in most cases, diagnosis is seldom black and white.

Related:

Holland Nomen Nescio 18:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I have only one clarification to make to that - it is eminently possible to distinguish between the two - most easily by noting that somebody in cardiogenic shock has a pulse (and heart sounds on auscultation), and somebody in cardiac arrest does not.--John24601 18:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Too BOLD

Realize I was a bit too enthousiastic, therefore I will revert awaiting this discussion. Ans added tag because it needs at least a rewrite.Holland Nomen Nescio 18:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

To explain my edits there are several problems:

  • Hypoxia - A lack of oxygen to the brain and other vital organs. This is treated by providing the patient with oxygen, either through a bag-valve-mask device, or by inserting an endotracheal tube (intubation)
This is myocardial infarction
  • Hypovolemia - A lack of circulating body fluids, principally blood. This is usually (though not exclusively) caused by some form of bleeding. Peri-arrest treatment includes giving IV fluids and blood transfusions, and controlling the source of any bleeding - direct pressure for external bleeding, or emergency surgery (usually an immediate emergency thoracotomy on the ward, to clamp off the descending aorta and achieve haemostasis, the bleed is then repaired properly once the patient has regained circulation) for internal bleeding.
This of course is shock
  • Hypo/Hyper-metabolic disorders - An abnormally high or low level of electrolytes such as potassium and calcium circulating the body. An arterial blood gas and blood electrolyte test are performed to find the problem, then IV crystalloids are given to correct it.
This refers to arrhytmia (asystole, VT, et cetera) and potassium, magnesium or calcium disturnances may warrant more than IV crystalloids.
  • Hypothermia - A low core body temperature, defined clinically as a temperature of less than 35 degrees celsius. The patient is re-warmed either by using a cardiac bypass or by irrigation of the body cavities (such as thorax, peritoneum, bladder) with warm fluids; or warmed IV fluids. CPR only is given until the core body temperature reached 30 degrees celsius, as defibrillation is ineffective at lower temperatures. Patients have been known to be successfully resuscitated after periods of hours in hypothermia and cardiac arrest, and this has given rise to the often-quoted medical truism, "You're not dead until you're warm and dead."
I have been told that no sensible thing can be said before the patient has normal temperature. But indeed the heart has stopped.
  • Tension pneumothorax - A rush of air into one of the pleural cavities which is not able to escape compresses the lungs and causes the trachea to deviate away from the mid-line, often putting pressure on the heart so it is not able to beat effectively. This is relieved in an emergency by inserting a needle into the 2nd intercostal space at the mid-clavicular line, releasing the air and the pressure on the thoracic organs.
This is obstructive shock
  • Tamponade (Cardiac) - Blood or other fluids building up in the pericardium can put pressure on the heart so that it is not able to beat. This is treated in an emergency by inserting a needle into the pericardium to drain the fluid (pericardiocentesis), or if the fluid is too thick then an emergency thoracotomy is performed to cut the pericardium and release the fluid.
This is obstructive shock.
  • Toxins - Toxic substances which have been ingested or injected into the body can lead to cardiac arrest. This can be evidenced by items found on or around the patient, checking the medical records to make sure no interacting drugs were prescribed, or sending blood and urine samples to the toxicology lab for report. Treatment is mainly supportive, unless there is an antidote which can be administered.
This refers to arrhytmia (asystole, VT, et cetera) and certain drugs require aggressive treatment.
  • Thrombosis - Blood clots in the heart (myocardial infarction) or lungs (pulmonary embolism) are both well known causes of cardiac arrest. Treatment includes thrombolysis, and possibly surgical interventions such as angioplasty] or surgical embolectomy.
This is obstructive shock, or myocardial infarction.

IMHO, listing types of shock and arrhythmias as different causes is inaccurate. Beyond that anemia is a cause of infarction I missed in the list.Holland Nomen Nescio 19:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

It may be innacurate in your opinion, but it is an integral feature of the UK Resuscitation Council's guidelines for Advanced Life Suppport. They are the people who set the standards for resuscitation throughout the UK, based closely on evidence and recommendations from the European Resuscitation Council and the International Liason Committee on Resuscitation; and therefore it is astonishing, considering that you claim to be a doctor in internal medicine, that not only can you not distinguish between cardiac arrest and cardiogenic shock, but that you have not heard of the 4Hs and 4Ts. Thank goodness that you're not likely to be treating me any time soon! For your information, the guidelines can be found at [1], and if you look on page 48 you will see the section pertaining to reversible causes of arrest, which is almost exactly what is written in the article. --John24601 09:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Edited to add - just incase you think it's still just us crazy brits who do it this way, take a look at the European Resuscitation Council standards (which, as you are in the Netherlands, I assume you work by!), which also mention it - [2] --John24601 09:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
I thought I reverted the page in light of your concerns, to react this way is at least rather harsh if not uncalled for. Thank you for those links. And unfortunately the FCCS does not use that classification and still have to do the ACLS, my mistake. Regarding your comments: pulse in shock may also be absent, to state that that is the difference is not correct. At least not always. Although I do not disagree with your list, they all boil down to 1 arrhythmia, 2 circulatory arrest diue to obstruction, 3 infarction (following 2?). On top of that I still miss anemia as cause, you must agree this can elicit myocardial infarction and arrest and should be listed.Holland Nomen Nescio 13:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Added references and additional info. Hope you allow me to redeem myself.Holland Nomen Nescio 15:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

So you have accepted now that cardiac arrest exists as a seperate condition from cardiogenic shock? Good. Updates/referencing is much appreciated, thankyou. I have taken onboard some of your concerns re/ the style of the article, and am doing some work on this myself - for instance I've expanded and referenced the prognosis section. --John24601 16:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Definitely separate. I agree with John24601 that these are two clearly distinct (although related) conditions that should not be combined. The Cardiac arrest page looks good to me (and the U.S. teaching is similar to U.K.). The Cardiogenic shock page is a tad muddled...I wonder if in fact it should just be merged into Shock, since it is useful to compare it to the other forms of shock. -- JVinocur 22:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peri-arrest arrythmias

MI does not show itself on the ECG of someone who is actually in arrest. It may reveal itself after the arrest, or be present before, but during arrest only VF/VT/PEA/asystole can be seen. Someone who has had an arrest secondary to MI usually develops a tachyarrythmia then goes into VT, then VF, then asystole. Resuscitation Council (UK) guidance on peri-arrest arrythmias --John24601 19:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Wouldn't you think that if a 2nd infarction causes a total occlusion of the LCA there still is rhythm but no output? In other words, why can't the PEA be having signs of ischemia?Holland Nomen Nescio
Hmmmm, you make a good point. I've been treating Cardiac arrest for over 15 years, and teaching about it for the last 8, and have never, ever come across a situation like you describe; but I guess it could be possible. Do you have a reference for it anywhere? Still though, if we listed everything which PEA might reveal.... maybe that (if you do have a reference for it) has its place on the PEA or MI pages, but not on here...--John24601 19:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why?

Why are these more recent studies deleted and your much older studies from BMJ (certainly not superior to the NEJM) are not?

The out of hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) has a worse suvival rate (2-8% at discharge and 8-22% on admission), than an in-hospital cardiac arrest (15% at discharge). The principal determining factor is the initially documented rhythm. Patients with VF/VT have 10-15 times more chance of surviving than those suffering from asystole or PEA (as they are sensitive to defibrillation, whereas asystole and PEA are not).[1] Since mortality in case of OHCA is high programs were developed to improve survival rate. A study by Bunch et al showed that although mortality in case of ventricular fibrillation is high, rapid intervention with a defribrillator increases survival rate to that of patients that did not have a cardiac arrest.[2][3]

Furthermore, it now says that figures are not known. That is not what this text says. IMHO there is no reason to leave this out while it is better sourced and provides figures to the survival rate.Holland Nomen Nescio 13:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

In the absence of reasons for deleting this I will restore the clearly well-sourced part on survival rate.Holland Nomen Nescio 16:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

True survival rate is not really known, as it depends on an almost infinite number of factors (the patient, their age, their location, underlying cause, co-morbidities, response time, local protocols for treatment, skills of medical staff blah blah...). There are hundreds of studies about, and whilst they all broadly agree qualititavely(ie/ in-hospital is better than out-of-hospital, younger is better than older etc etc etc), none of them have anything like the same quantitative results. For that reason, your studies were probably just as mine, I agree - was actually planning to incorporate them more into the flow of the text (the studies I cited were arranged into in-hospital and out-of-hospital, which is the biggest determinant of survival; whereas yours were just plonked at the beginning) rather than totally delete them, sorry about that - I got a little sidetracked, will get back to it sometime over the next couple of days. --John24601 19:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] cardiac embarrassment

Bold text Dear sir/madam, I am searching the topic 'cardiac embarrassment',which is connected to something like mediastinal shifting after a pulmonary surgery.I have searched many sites but could not get the topic in detail & in a better manner.It seems the topic is not an highlighted one,but my curiosity for this search topic is increasing.I would like you to include this topic on your site,as your site shows detailed and thorough information about any topic. Kindly do look into this matter.Looking forward to see this topic on your site. Thanking you in anticipation. Yours truly, site member.

[edit] Recent reversion.

I've just reverted a recent series of edits, as they generally added nothing and in some cases were misinformed to say the least. A few points:

  • There is no contraction during diastole, so you can't say that the heart is not contracting properly in this phase
  • "The single most treatable cause to prevent cardiac arrests is the early diagnosis and management of acute coronary syndromes (ACS) (also commonly called coronary heart disease) which includes all types of heart attacks and angina. By having ACS signs and symptoms recognised and treated early most cardiac arrests could be prevented." I don't necessarily disagree with the thrust of what is being said here, but it needs to have better grammar and referencing. Furthermore, ACS includes myocardial infarction and unstable angina, but not stable angina.
  • "Other less common causes, most often associated with one particular classification of cardiac arrest called pulseless electrical activity (PEA), are known as the 5 H's and the 5 T's." There are 4Hs and 4Ts in all published literature, not 5. These describe ALL the causes of cardiac arrest (ACS/CHD comes under Thrombosis), and they can just about all lead to any rhythm (not just PEA)
  • Lay rescuers are taught to commence CPR in the presence of abnormal breathing under the 2005 ILCOR guidelines, movement of skeletal muscle (or any other signs for that matter) doesn't come into it.
  • "(a study end point of no value is the return of a pulse and admission alive to the hospial, the only good end point is the patient surviving to leave the hospital functioning and intact- "survivability to discharge")" Not sure that adds anything useful. Especially as that is not an end point of the study. It is for the readers to make up their own mind which figures they give value to. Other little comments throughout the article also add nothing.--John24601 09:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oxford textbook of medicine as a reference

The wording of the following section is confusing and the reference is difficult to verify:

The out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) has a worse survival rate (2-8% at discharge and 8-22% on admission), than an in-hospital cardiac arrest (15% at discharge). The principal determining factor is the initially documented rhythm. Patients with VF/VT have 10-15 times more chance of surviving than those suffering from Pulseless electrical activity or Asystole (as they are sensitive to defibrillation, whereas asystole and PEA are not).[1]

The exact numbers 2-8%, 8-22% and 15% imply statistics generated by one or more academic publications. The Oxford Textbook of Medicine is a good summary of the literature, but is difficult to verify; the book is expensive and likely found only by going to a large library with the book in it's collection. It would be far more useful to directly reference the article the results are derived from. Direct journal references are easy to verify by users with online journal access; users without online journal access can visit a library to access the journal article. Dlodge 18:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2007

[edit] Hs and Ts

Per ECC 2005, there are 6 Hs and 5 Ts. [3]. I reverted it back to 6 Hs and 5 Ts, included a citation, and expanded the explanation of the 6 Hs and 5 Ts. If you want to discuss it, please do so here on the talk page. It's proper Wiki etiquette. See: help:reverting. MoodyGroove 22:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

Not sure who exactly wrote those, but it's certainly a deviation from the consensus reached by ILCOR, which as I'm sure you know is the international standard.
If you're interested in ILCOR, you should recognize the American Heart Association, since they are a member of ILCOR. Your claim that 6 Hs and 5 Ts is a deviation from the consensus reached by ILCOR is spurious. ILCOR does not create resuscitation guidelines. The function of the 2005 CoSTR Conference was to evaluate and interpret the peer reviewed evidence that formed the basis for each resuscitation council member (e.g., American Heart Association, European Resuscitation Council) to create resuscitation guidelines, and that's exactly what happened. The 2005 AHA ECC Resuscitation Guidelines are 100% ILCOR compliant. In fact, the 2005 CoSTR Conference was held in Dallax, TX (world headquarters for the AHA). MoodyGroove 16:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove
As we're an international, and not regional, encyclopaedia, I think it's reasonable to follow ILCOR's guidance rather than choose a regional variation and highlight that as the standard.
Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia by virtue of being a multilingual encyclopedia. This is the English Wikipedia. Of the estimated 400,000,000 people on Earth who speak English as their primary language, more of them live in the United States than the rest of the World combined. That hardly constitutes a radical fringe group. Regardless, science is universal. There is no cultural bias here. Are you aware of any treatment modalities recommended by the AHA that are not based on the consensus reached by ILCOR? We're arguing about the best way to remember potentially reversible causes of asystole and PEA. If you don't think of it, you can't treat it. MoodyGroove 16:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove
All of the things in the 6H5T are just expansions of what is in 4H4T (e.g. hypoglycaemia & hydrogen both fall into the collective heading "hypo/hyper-kalaemia and other metabolites") --John24601 08:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
This is your best argument. Let's concentrate on which of the two methods of organizing the information is best, and leave appeals to authority out of it, since both can be backed up by peer reviewed journals. What's the point of having Hs and Ts? It's to jog your memory at 0300 when you're tired and placed in a high stress situation. The more reversible causes you can turn into Hs and Ts, the greater the chance you will think of it during the actual resuscitation. It's the functionality that's important here, moreso than the logic. We're talking about a last ditch effort to save a patient with a very poor prognosis. MoodyGroove 16:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove
I noticed that the ACLS Reference Textbook - Principles and Practices (and Experienced Provider Manual) separates Thrombosis into Myocardial infarction and Pulmonary embolism and specifically calls them the '6 Hs and 6 Ts' so I changed the page to reflect that. I think that's easier than remembering '6 Hs and 5 Ts'. MoodyGroove 16:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

This page still needs a lot of work, but I made some significant changes today. The most common cause of PEA is hypovolemia, but I must take issue with the statement that blood loss is the most common cause. In my experience, things like distributive shock or diarrhea are just as common as the GI bleed. I did not change it because I don't have a citation, but I will review the topic in more detail when I get home (I'm on duty right now). MoodyGroove 00:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

I restored content to the 'treatable causes' section that was relevant and factual. The most important treatable cause of cardiopulmonary arrest is VF, and the chain of survival is of paramount importance. That's not controversial. As for the Hs and Ts, two points. First, it's mainly for asystole and PEA. Second, I had hoped by eliminating the numbers we could avoid a content dispute. There is no international consensus that it's 5 Hs and 5 Ts, so removing three high quality references for the sake of changing it back is quite arbitrary. That's not the way to solve the issue. MoodyGroove 17:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

Sorry, I should have explained what I'm doing - at the moment there are big overlaps between sections, and the article is rather muddled. The information on the chain of survival, as you quite rightly say, belongs in the article, but not in the causes section which is where I took it out of. VF is an important type of arrest, but not a cause of arrest, and so it needs more mention in the diagnosis and treatment sections, and so on. I'm planning a series of large edits to the article over the next couple of days to make sure all these things remain included, but in the proper place.--John24601 17:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable to me. MoodyGroove 17:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

[edit] Removed image

I removed an image of an ambulance that had the caption 'People experiencing cardiac arrest are often transported to a hospital via ambulance'. It seemed trivial and barely relevant to the article, more just a case of "we've got this image, lets use it!". --Darksun 15:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disagree

This edit is entirely incorrect. Clinical death is not synonymous with cardiac arrest. To be declared clinnically dead we use another organ: the brain. Please consider undoing this edit. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 15:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Clinical death refers to a cessation of the heartbeat, and is the traditional criterion for diagnosing death. However, largely due to the advent of effective resuscitation making it potentially reversible, you are quite right we look at irreversible cessation of brain function (as evidenced by brain death, or prolonged cardiac arrest) as true death, rather than the old view of clinical death. --John24601 15:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I think we could look at rewording it. Certainly clinical death is usually diagnosed by ECG (asystole for over 2 minutes) where i am, so death is fundamentally linked to cardiac arrest, but i agree that it's potentially misleading. Maybe something along the lines of "Uncorrected cardiac arrest will lead to certain clinical death"? Owain.davies 18:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I think we're probably confusing terms. Clinical death (at least in my part of the world) is used to refer to those patients who are "traditionally" dead i.e. in cardiac arrest. Left as it is, this is of course actual death, but the initial phase is potentially treatable. All people who are dying go through this phase before they become truly, irreversibly dead. However, it does appear to be causing some confusion - the basic point I'm trying to get across in that paragraph is that any medical condition which has the potential to kill somebody is a potential cause of cardiac arrest. Perhaps somebody can word that better --John24601 18:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Epidemiology

I'd quite like to start an epidemiology section (e.g. numbers affected worldwide, prevalence in different areas etc.). I can probably get hold of some UK stats, but do any of you from other parts of the world have a clue where else we can info? Do the WHO keep tabs on this kind of thing? --John24601 18:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cardiopulmonary arrest

I've just discovered we have another article at Cardiopulmonary arrest which contains much of the info on here (albeit in less detail). I've tagged both articles suggesting a merge, please add your comments at Talk:Cardiopulmonary_arrest#Cardiac_arrest_vs._Cardiopulmonary_arrest_-_comments_please. Cheers. --John24601 21:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rating article

Hello. I am not a doctor and I have no medical training. I rated this article stub because my guess is that describing medical conditions in part by amateurs is probably not in anyone's best interest (at least mine when I wondered about pain I was experiencing). I could easily be in error. Thank you. -Susanlesch 20:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Code?

I've seen the word Code used a lot in medical discussions and I wanted to look it up on my trusy Wikipedia. And surely enough the page [[4]] links to this article. But apart from the word "code team" the term Code is never mentioned on this page. If it is a widely used word for cardiac arrest, then this should probably be mentioned somewhere in this article. I'd rather have someone else add it, since I'm in no way sure, that it's a realy synonym. Rentar (talk) 09:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Technically, it's a short form of "code blue" which is a generic code word used in many hospitals to indicate a resuscitation situation exists in a particular location. It's typically given as part of a triple-page. "Code blue, ICU, bed 7. Code blue, ICU, bed 7. Code blue, ICU, bed 7." This lets the "code team" know they need to respond, since multiple trained rescuers will be needed. At our receiving hospital, a "code blue" doen't necessarily imply a full arrest, although most people perceive it to mean a full arrest. From my perspective, it's a trivial, conventional term, that may or may not reflect a world-wide view, and would not contribute much to the article. Best, MoodyGroove (talk) 16:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove
Another problem with the term "code" in an encyclopedia article is that it is used in numerous different contexts. Code team [code blue team], "the patient coded [cardiac arrest]," the patient is a full code or a no code or a partial code [Do No Resuscitate status], or, in prehospital care, the patient was transported code" [transported using lights and sirens, i.e. "Code 3"]. As such, the sentence where a stand alone term "code" is used gives as much, if not more, meaning than the actual term "code."JPINFV (talk) 22:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Frequency rate?

I dont see any information in the article about how frequently / what the rate of this medical condition is. Did I just miss it in the article or is some important information missing that someone could add. Lasalle202 (talk) 23:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I presume you mean frequency of occurence? If so, that's easy - it occurs in 100% of people, mostly around the time of their death! OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 09:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)