2024 RECOVER Guidelines: Updated treatment recommendations for CPR in dogs and cats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: After the 2012 Reassessment Campaign on Veterinary Resuscitation (RECOVER) CPR Guidelines, this is an update of evidence-based consensus guidelines for Basic Life Support (BLS), advanced life support (ALS), and periarrest monitoring. DESIGN: These RECOVER CPR Guidelines were generated using a modified version of the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system for evidence evaluation and translation of this evidence into clear and actionable clinical instructions. Prioritized clinical questions in the Population, Intervention, Comparator, and Outcome (PICO) format were used as the basis to conduct systematic literature searches by information specialists, to extract information from relevant publications, to assess this evidence for quality, and finally to translate the findings into treatment recommendations. These recommendations were reviewed by the RECOVER writing group and opened for comment by veterinary professionals for 4 weeks. SETTING: Transdisciplinary, international collaboration in university, specialty, and emergency practice. RESULTS: A total of 40 worksheets were prepared to evaluate questions across the 3 domains of BLS, ALS and Monitoring, resulting in 90 individual treatment recommendations. High-dose epinephrine is no longer recommended, and atropine, if used, is only administered once. Bag-mask ventilation is prioritized over mouth-to-nose ventilation in nonintubated animals. In addition, an algorithm for initial assessment, an updated CPR algorithm, a rhythm diagnosis tool, and an updated drug dosing table are provided. CONCLUSIONS: While the majority of the BLS and ALS recommendations remain unchanged, some noteworthy changes were made due to new evidence that emerged over the past 10 years. Indirectness of evidence remains the largest impediment to the certainty of guidelines formulation and underscores an urgent need for more studies in the target species of dogs and cats.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".