These guidelines are intended to be a resource for lay responders and health care professionals to identify and treat infants and children in the prearrest, intra-arrest, and post-arrest states. These apply to infants and children in multiple settings: the community, prehospital, and the hospital environment. Prearrest, intra-arrest, and postarrest topics are reviewed, including cardiac arrest in special circumstances such as severe FBAO.

For pediatric BLS, guidelines apply as follows:

• Infant guidelines apply to infants younger than approximately 1 year of age (excluding newborn infants).
• Child guidelines apply to children approximately 1 year of age until puberty. For teaching purposes, puberty is defined as breast development in females and the presence of axillary hair in males.
• For those with signs of puberty and beyond, adult BLS guidelines should be followed.

Neither pediatric advanced nor basic life support guidelines address the resuscitation of newborn infants, who are transitioning from a fluid-filled to an air-filled environment. Resuscitation of the newborn infant is addressed in “Part 5: Neonatal Resuscitation”¹⁴. Although pediatric basic and advanced life support guidelines may be applied to newborn infants <28 days old based on pathophysiology and institutional practice, neonatal guidelines should be followed at birth to address unique aspects of transitional physiology.¹⁵ Infancy is considered the first year of life.

The Pediatric BLS Writing Group consisted of pediatric clinicians with representation from the American Heart Association (AHA) and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) including intensivists, cardiac intensivists, emergency medicine physicians, respiratory therapists, nurses, and nurse practitioners. A call for candidates was distributed to the AHA Emergency Cardiovascular Care Committee and AAP subject matter experts, and volunteers with recognized expertise in pediatric resuscitation were nominated by the writing group cochairs. Writing group members were selected by the AHA Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science Subcommittee and AAP Executive Committee and then approved by the AHA Manuscript Oversight Committee. The AHA and AAP have rigorous conflict of interest policies and procedures to minimize the risk of bias or improper influence during development of the guidelines.¹⁶ Prior to appointment, writing group members and peer reviewers disclosed all commercial relationships and other potential (including intellectual) conflicts. Writing group members whose research led to changes in guidelines were required to declare those conflicts during discussions and abstain from voting on those specific recommendations. This process is described more fully in “Part 2: Evidence Evaluation and Guidelines Development.”¹⁷ Comprehensive disclosure information for writing group members and peer reviewers is listed in Appendixes 1 and 2.

These pediatric guidelines are based on the extensive evidence evaluation performed in conjunction with the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation and affiliated 
International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation member councils. Three types of evidence reviews (systematic reviews, scoping reviews, and evidence updates) were used in the 2025 process.^18,19 This process is described more fully in “Part 2: Evidence Evaluation and Guidelines Development.”¹⁷

The writing group reviewed all relevant and current AHA Guidelines for CPR and Emergency Cardiovascular Care and all relevant International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation Consensus on CPR and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations from 2020, 2022, 2023, and 2024.^20-23 Evidence and recommendations were reviewed to determine if current guidelines should be reaffirmed, revised, or retired, or if new recommendations were needed. The writing group then drafted, reviewed, and approved recommendations, assigning a Class of Recommendation (COR; ie, strength) and Level of Evidence (LOE; ie, quality, certainty) to each. Criteria for each COR and LOE are described in Table 1.

The 2025 guidelines are organized in discrete modules of information on specific topics or management issues.²⁴ Each modular knowledge chunk includes a table of recommendations using standard AHA nomenclature of COR and LOE. Recommendations are presented in order of COR: most potential benefit (Class 1), followed by lesser certainty of benefit (Class 2), and finally potential for harm or no benefit (Class 3). Following the COR, recommendations are ordered by the certainty of supporting LOE: Level A (high-quality randomized controlled trials) to Level C-EO (expert opinion). This order does not reflect the order in which care should be provided.

In addition to the table of recommendations, the knowledge chunk includes a brief synopsis to put the recommendations into context with important background information and overarching management or treatment concepts. Recommendation-specific supportive text clarifies the rationale and key study data supporting the recommendations. When appropriate, illustrations are included. Hyperlinked references are provided to facilitate quick access and review.

The guideline was submitted for blinded peer review to 8 subject matter experts nominated by the AHA and AAP. Before appointment, all peer reviewers were required to disclose relationships with industry and any other conflicts of interest, and all disclosures were reviewed by AHA staff. The guideline was also reviewed and approved for publication by the AHA Science Advisory and Coordinating Committee, the AHA Executive Committee, and the AAP Board of Directors. Comprehensive disclosure information for peer reviewers is listed in Appendixes 1 and 2. These recommendations supersede the last full set of AHA recommendations for pediatric advanced life support, made in 2020.²⁵ The writing group consisting of AHA and AAP representatives voted on and approved all guideline recommendations.

Historically, cardiac arrest care has focused on the management of the cardiac arrest itself, highlighting high-quality CPR, early defibrillation, and effective teamwork. However, there are aspects of pre-arrest and post-arrest care that are critical to improve outcomes. As pediatric cardiac arrest survival rates have plateaued for pulseless cardiac arrest, the prevention of cardiac arrest becomes even more important. In the out-of-hospital environment, this includes safety initiatives (eg, bike helmet laws), sudden infant death syndrome prevention, lay rescuer CPR training, early recognition of the critically ill infant or child by the caregiver, and timely access to emergency care. When OHCA occurs, early lay responder CPR is critical in improving outcomes, as well as the availability of AEDs for shockable rhythms. In the in-hospital environment, cardiac arrest prevention focuses on the early recognition and treatment of patients at high risk, such as children undergoing cardiac surgery or children with acute fulminant myocarditis, acute decompensated heart failure, or pulmonary hypertension. Following resuscitation from cardiac arrest, management of the post–cardiac arrest syndrome (which may include brain dysfunction, myocardial dysfunction with low cardiac output, and ischemia or reperfusion injury) is important to avoid known contributors to secondary injury, such as hypotension.^13,14 Accurate neuroprognostication is important to guide caregiver discussions and decision-making. Finally, given the elevated risk of neurodevelopmental impairment in cardiac arrest survivors, early referral for rehabilitation assessment and intervention is key.

A single Chain of Survival that supports the paradigm of early recognition through recovery after cardiac arrest has now been standardized across infants, children, and adults (outside of neonatal care; Figure 1).

Ensuring a patent airway is crucial for effective ventilation and oxygenation. Although there is no definitive evidence favoring a particular technique related to creating/maintaining patency of the airway, it is important for rescuers to understand the benefits and limitations of each method and to remain skilled in their application. Multiple approaches may be necessary to open an airway, and continuous monitoring of the pediatric patient is essential to confirm and maintain airway patency to ensure sufficient ventilation and oxygenation. Research comparing airway management strategies in pediatric cardiac arrest patients is lacking, with most available data derived from radiographic studies obtained during elective surgeries. As observed in the 2020 Guidelines, there continues to be a lack of pediatric-specific clinical studies. Figure 2 demonstrates the head tilt–chin lift maneuver to open the airway in infants.

Recommendation-Specific Supportive Text

1. No data directly address the ideal method to achieve or maintain pediatric airway patency. One retrospective cohort study evaluated various head-tilt angles in neonates and young infants undergoing diagnostic magnetic resonance imaging and found that the highest proportion of patent airways was at a head-tilt angle of 144° to 150° based on a regression analysis.¹
2. While no pediatric studies evaluate jaw thrust versus head tilt to open the airway, jaw thrust is widely accepted as an effective way to open the airway, and this maneuver theoretically limits cervical motion compared with the chin lift.
3. There are no pediatric studies evaluating the impact of a head tilt–chin lift maneuver to open the airway in a trauma patient with suspected cervical spine injury. However, if rescuers are unable to open the airway and deliver effective ventilations using a jaw thrust, given the importance of a patent airway, using a head tilt–chin lift maneuver is recommended.

The priority in managing a seriously ill or injured child who is not in cardiac arrest is evaluating the airway and breathing. If the child demonstrates signs of inadequate or absent breathing, breaths should be initiated to restore adequate oxygenation and ventilation. Because respiratory conditions are a major cause of cardiac arrest in infants and children, it is important to begin appropriate interventions to support ventilation and oxygenation quickly.

Recommendation-Specific Supportive Text

1. and 2. Pediatric-specific clinical studies evaluating the effect of different ventilation rates on outcomes in patients who have inadequate breathing with a pulse are lacking. In 2020, the guidelines were updated to reflect new data from a multicenter observational study that found that ventilation rates of at least 30/min in infants and at least 25/min in children greater than 1 year of age during CPR with an advanced airway in place were associated with improved return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), survival to discharge, and survival with favorable neurological outcome. Excessive ventilation rates were associated with lower systolic blood pressures in older children, so care must be taken to avoid higher rates that could compromise hemodynamics.¹ For the ease of training, the recommended respiratory rate for the pediatric patient with inadequate breathing and a pulse continues to be 1 breath every 2 to 3 seconds.

Suffocation (eg, FBAO) is a leading cause of death in infants and children. Balloons, certain foods (eg, hot dogs, nuts, grapes), and small household objects are the most common causes of FBAO in children,^1-3 while liquids are common among infants.⁴ It is important to differentiate between mild FBAO (the patient is coughing and making sounds) and severe FBAO (the patient cannot make sounds). Patients with mild FBAO can attempt to clear the obstruction by coughing, but intervention is required in severe obstruction. There are no high-quality data to support recommendations regarding FBAO in children. Figures 3 and 4 demonstrate chest thrusts and back blows in an infant with severe FBAO, and Figure 5 demonstrates abdominal thrusts in a child with severe FBAO. Figures 6 and 7 are the algorithms for infant and child FBAO.

Recommendation-Specific Supportive Text

1 and 3. Many FBAOs are relieved by allowing the patient to cough or, if severe, are treated by bystanders using chest thrusts or abdominal thrusts.^4-8 A recent observational study of adult and pediatric FBAO suggests improved clearance of a foreign body with the use of back blows over abdominal thrusts⁸. To create consistency for instructional purposes, and in the absence of inferiority from pediatric data, management of severe FBAO in children now starts with a series of back blows instead of abdominal thrusts. Repeated cycles of 5 back blows followed by 5 abdominal thrusts are performed until the obstruction is cleared or the child becomes unresponsive.

2. Observational data primarily from case series support the use of back blows^4,5,9-11 or chest thrusts^7-9,12 for infants. Abdominal thrusts are not recommended for infants, given the potential to cause abdominal organ injury.¹³ The heel of hand technique for chest thrusts is now recommended for infants with severe FBAO, as current CPR literature suggests that it generates greater compression depth than the previously recommended 2-finger technique.¹⁴ While the heel of hand technique for chest thrusts resembles chest compressions that are used as part of CPR, there is no focus on the other components of high-quality CPR chest compressions (eg, rate, recoil) so the term chest compression is not used. If infants and children develop severe FBAO, emergency medical services should be promptly activated as they can rapidly deteriorate into cardiac arrest.

4. Once the infant or child is unconscious, observational data support immediate CPR with provision of chest compressions (do not perform a pulse check), followed by ventilations.^8,12 Note that these compressions are delivered with attention to the provision of high-quality chest compressions as part of CPR.

5 and 7. Observational data suggest that the risk of blind finger sweeps outweighs any potential benefit in the management of FBAO.^7,15-17

6. A solitary case series describes the use of portable non-powered suction devices for infants and children with severe FBAO.¹⁸ As the available evidence comes from voluntary reporting to an industry-sponsored registry, there is potential for significant confounding and bias, as well as incomplete case descriptions and patient outcomes reporting. The limited reported evidence also does not suggest superiority of these devices over standard techniques such as back blows or abdominal thrusts.

Rapid recognition of cardiac arrest, immediate initiation of high-quality chest compressions, and delivery of effective ventilations are critical to improve outcomes from pediatric cardiac arrest. Lay rescuers should not delay starting CPR in a child with no “signs of life.” Palpation for the presence or absence of a pulse is not reliable as the sole determinant of cardiac arrest and the need for chest compressions. In infants and children, asphyxial cardiac arrest is more common than cardiac arrest from a primary cardiac event; therefore, effective ventilation is paramount during resuscitation of children. When CPR is initiated, the compressions-airway-breathing sequence mirrors the adult sequence to enhance educational simplicity in training.

Recommendation-Specific Supportive Text

1. Lay rescuers are unable to reliably determine the presence or absence of a pulse and should not delay the initiation of CPR for any victim without signs of life.^1-15
2. No clinical trials have compared manual pulse checks with observations of “signs of life.” However, adult and pediatric studies have identified a high error rate, and harmful CPR pauses during manual pulse checks by health care professionals.^16-19 In one study, health care professionals’ pulse palpation accuracy was 78%¹⁶ compared with lay rescuer pulse palpation accuracy of 47% at 5 seconds and 73% at 10 seconds.¹
3. One pediatric study demonstrated only a small delay (5.74 seconds) in commencement of breaths with compressions-airway-breathing compared with airway-breathing-compressions.²⁰ Although the supporting evidence is minimal, continuing to recommend compressions-airway-breathing likely results in minimal delays in giving breaths and allows for a consistent approach to cardiac arrest treatment in adults and children.

High-quality CPR generates blood flow to vital organs and increases the likelihood of ROSC. The 5 main components of high-quality CPR are (1) adequate chest compression depth, (2) optimal chest compression rate, (3) minimizing interruptions in CPR (ie, maximizing chest compression fraction or the proportion of time that chest compressions are provided for cardiac arrest), (4) allowing complete chest recoil between compressions, and (5) avoiding excessive ventilation. Compressions of inadequate depth and rate,^1,2 incomplete chest recoil,³ and high ventilation rates^4,5 are common during pediatric resuscitation.

Recommendation-Specific Supportive Text

1. Despite increasing frequency of compression-only CPR in adults and children and mixed results when comparing conventional CPR (chest compressions and breaths) and compression-only CPR, large observational studies of children with OHCA show the best outcomes with conventional CPR.^1-12 A small observational study of school-aged children found similar outcomes between conventional and compression-only CPR.¹²
2. While 2 observational studies and a secondary analysis of a prospective multi-institutional randomized trial found that chest compression fraction (the percent of time during the CPR event where chest compressions were ongoing) of greater than 70% to 90% could be achieved in a majority of resuscitations, the association between a set chest compression fraction threshold to achieve best pediatric outcomes is unclear.^13-15 There are inadequate data to recommend a goal chest compression fraction threshold for high-quality CPR in infants and children. However, two studies from a multinational, multi-institutional observational cohort registry showed that increased frequency and duration of pauses in CPR were significantly associated with lower probability of ROSC.^16,17 Additionally, longer duration of pauses at the end of CPR prior to cannulation for extracorporeal life support were associated with poor neurologic outcomes and lower survival.¹⁷
3. Allowing complete chest re-expansion improves the flow of blood returning to the heart, and therefore by increasing preload, increases blood flow to the body during CPR. There are no pediatric studies evaluating the effect of incomplete re-expansion during CPR, although leaning during pediatric CPR is common.^18-20 In one observational study of invasively monitored and anesthetized children, leaning was associated with elevated cardiac filling pressures, leading to decreased coronary perfusion pressures during sinus rhythm.²¹
4. Large observational studies of children with OHCA show that compression-only CPR is superior to no-bystander CPR.^3-4,12,22
5. A small observational study found that a compression rate of at least 100/min was associated with improved systolic and diastolic blood pressures during CPR for pediatric IHCA.²³ One multicenter, observational study of pediatric IHCA demonstrated increased systolic blood pressures with chest compression rates between 100 and 120/min when compared with rates exceeding 120/min.²⁴ Rates <100/min were associated with improved survival compared to rates of 100 to 120/min; however, the median rate in this slower category was approximately 95/min (ie, very close to 100/min).²⁴
6. Three anthropometric studies have shown that the pediatric chest can be compressed to one-third of the anteroposterior chest diameter without damaging intrathoracic organs.^25-27 An observational study found an improvement in rates of ROSC and 24-hour survival, when at least 60% of 30-second epochs of CPR achieve an average chest compression depth >5 cm (about 2 inches) for pediatric IHCA in children.²⁹
7. Once an AED or monitor is available, a pause in chest compressions every 2 minutes allows for a brief rhythm check as well as allowing the change of personnel performing chest compressions to avoid fatigue.
8. There are no human studies addressing the effect of varying inhaled oxygen concentrations during CPR on outcomes in infants and children. Given that the etiology of pediatric cardiac arrest is respiratory in nature, the use of 100% oxygen is physiologically appropriate.
9. The optimum compression-to-ventilation ratio is uncertain. Large observational studies of children with OHCA demonstrated better outcomes with compression-ventilation CPR with ratios of either 15:2 or 30:2 compared with compression-only CPR.^1,2

In pediatric patients, due to the wide variation in the size of each patient, effective chest compression performance can be highly variable and depends on multiple factors, including the size and position of the rescuer as well as the hand position during CPR. Numerous studies have sought to determine optimal compression technique for each patient population.^1-4 Prior recommendations were based solely on manikin studies for the optimal compression technique in the various pediatric age groups. However, new evidence from patient registries has led to new outcome-based recommendations.⁵ See Figure 11 for the 1-hand technique and Figure 12 for the 2 thumb–encircling hands technique for infants, and see Figure 13 for the 2-hand technique for children.

Recommendation-Specific Supportive Text

1. In infants, systematic reviews and meta-analyses from simulation studies suggest that the 2 thumb–encircling hands technique is a superior technique when compared with 2-finger compressions, particularly for depth.^6-10 In a multicenter prospective observational registry study, the 1-hand technique resulted in greater compression depth than the 2 thumb–encircling hands technique in infants with no difference in chest compression rate between hand positions.⁵ The 2-finger technique was utilized rarely in this study but, when used, no chest compression segments were compliant with AHA guidelines. An earlier single-center study did not show differences in chest compression depth between 1-hand and 2 thumb–encircling hands technique but noted 1-hand chest compressions were associated with an inappropriately fast rate.¹¹

2. In children 1 to 8 years of age, the 2-hand compression technique resulted in greater compression depth than the 1-hand technique.⁵ A secondary study from the same prospective observational registry showed that the 1-hand technique had better compliance with guideline chest compression rates than the 2-hand technique.⁵ There are no clinical data to determine if the 1-hand or 2-hand technique is associated with better outcomes for children receiving CPR. In manikin studies, the 2-hand technique has been associated with improved compression depth¹² and compression force¹³ and less rescuer fatigue.^14,15 More vertical compression angle (i.e., force applied closer to 90° perpendicular to the chest) to improve depth and recoil,¹⁶ with an "elbow-lock" technique while delivering chest compressions to maintain consistent vertical force and minimize fatigue,¹⁷ and the use of a stepstool during CPR⁵ have been studied as modifications to improve compression depth and reduce rescuer fatigue.

Chest compression depth can be optimized by placing the child in a supine position on a hard, flat surface.¹ It is challenging to perform adequate chest compressions on soft surfaces, such as a mattress, because both the chest and the surface itself can be compressed. In manikin studies, up to 57% of the compression force may be absorbed by the mattress leading to inadequate compression depth and increased rescuer fatigue.^2–4 Backboard placement, use of the CPR mode on specially equipped hospital beds to return them to a flat position at a low height, and deflating air mattresses quickly or moving patients to the floor have been proposed to counter the impact of soft surfaces.⁵

Recommendation-Specific Supportive Text

1. Chest compression depth is overall inadequate with few studies reaching the recommended targeted depth.⁶ Use of a firm surface in meta-analyses of manikin studies and a single pediatric case series show that compression depth is increased on a firm surface.^7–9
2. Meta-analysis of 7 studies^4,10–15 showed a 2 mm (95% CI, 0.5–4 mm) increase in chest compression depth when CPR was performed on a manikin on a hospital mattress with a backboard in place.⁹

Shockable rhythms are rare in infants and children. The risk of shockable rhythms, VF and pVT, steadily increases throughout childhood and adolescence, but remains less frequent than in adults. Shockable rhythms may be the initial rhythm of the cardiac arrest (primary VF/pVT) or may develop during the resuscitation (secondary VF/pVT). Defibrillation is the definitive treatment for VF/pVT. The shorter the duration of VF/pVT, the more likely that the shock will result in a perfusing rhythm. Minimizing frequency and duration of pauses in CPR for shock delivery improves chances of favorable short- and long-term outcomes.

Recommendation-Specific Supportive Text

1. There are currently no pediatric data available regarding the optimal timing or duration of CPR prior to defibrillation. Adult studies show no benefit of a prolonged period of CPR before initial defibrillation.^1-4
2. Adult studies comparing a stacked shock (1-shock protocol versus a 3-shock protocol) for treatment of VF suggest a significant survival benefit with the single-shock protocol.^5,6 The effectiveness of single compared to sequential (stacked) shocks has not been evaluated in infants and children with a shockable rhythm⁷, and therefore it is reasonable to give a single defibrillation dose of monophasic or biphasic energy followed by immediate resumption of chest compressions.^6,8
3. Prolonged pauses in chest compressions before and after shock delivery decrease blood flow and oxygen delivery to vital organs, such as the brain and heart, and are associated with decreased survival.^9,10

Manual defibrillators and AEDs can both be used to treat VF/pVT in children. AEDs have high specificity in recognizing pediatric shockable rhythms.^1-4 Manual defibrillators, when used by health care professionals, can be used to titrate energy dose to a patient's weight. Their use also minimizes pauses for rhythm analysis. Use of monophasic defibrillators has fallen out of favor because biphasic defibrillators require less energy with fewer side effects. Many AEDs are equipped to attenuate (reduce) the energy dose to make them more suitable for infants and children.

Recommendation-Specific Supportive Text

1. Although there are no direct comparisons between pediatric attenuator and non-attenuator AED-delivered shocks, multiple studies document shock success with survival when a pediatric attenuator was used.^1-13 A retrospective cohort study in children less than 18 years of age with OHCA showed that return of an organized rhythm was more likely when lower energy dose was utilized.¹⁴
2. In adults, use of an AED in hospitals did not improve survival,¹⁵ and the peri-shock CPR pauses needed for rhythm analysis were prolonged.¹⁶ In children <18 years of age with IHCA, 1 well-designed retrospective multi-center cohort study, found that 30% of defibrillations were delivered for non-shockable rhythms with manual defibrillators,¹⁷ while previous studies suggest that AEDs misclassify pediatric shockable rhythms only 2% to 4% of the time. However, the adverse impact of shocking non-shockable rhythms in IHCA is unknown, and manual defibrillators allow for titration of energy dose to a patient’s weight while minimizing peri-shock CPR pauses compared to AED-associated CPR pauses.
3. AEDs without pediatric attenuation deliver 120 J to 360 J, exceeding the recommended dose for children weighing <25 kg. However, there are reports of safe and effective AED use in infants and young children when the dose exceeds 2 to 4 J/kg.^7-9,11,18,19 Because defibrillation is the only effective therapy for shockable rhythms, an AED without a dose attenuator may be lifesaving.

Incorrect defibrillator paddle or pad placement can lead to ineffective delivery of electric current to the heart and adversely impact return of a perfusing rhythm. The size of the defibrillator paddles or self-adhering pads depends on the age of the patient. Paddles or self-adhering pads of the largest size that can still be separated by at least 1 to 2 cm allow for appropriate current flow. When using paddles, an electrical conducting interface is needed to reduce skin and thoracic impedance. Figures 14 and 15 demonstrate placement of the pads in the anteroposterior position, and Figure 16 demonstrates placement of the pads in the anterolateral (AL) position).

Recommendation-Specific Supportive Text

1. Minimizing transthoracic impedance is important to optimize delivery of electric current. Studies comparing shocks delivered to children with pediatric to adult paddles showed that transthoracic impedance was significantly higher with pediatric paddles due to smaller size.^1-3
2.  One pediatric study demonstrated no difference in rates of ROSC with anteroposterior compared to anterolateral pad placement.⁴ Among adults, a prospective cohort study showed statistically higher adjusted odds of ROSC at any time with anteroposterior pad placement while another study showed no significant difference.^5,6
3. One simulation study demonstrated that the predominant factor to prompt defibrillation was rescuer familiarity with the defibrillator and the paddles/pads connections. There was no significant difference in median time to shock with use of paddles compared with self-adhering pads.⁷

• Benny L. Joyner, Jr., MD, MPH, Co-Chair
• Maya Dewan, MD, MPH
• Aarti Bavare, MD, MPH
• Allan de Caen, MD
• Kimberly DiMaria, DNP, CPNP-AC
• Joelle Donofrio-Odmann, DO
• Gwen Fosse, MSA, BSN, RN
• Sarah Haskell, DO
• Melissa Mahgoub, PhD
• Garth Meckler, MD, MSHS
• Jennifer Requist, BS, RRT-NPS
• Stephen M. Schexnayder, MD
• Michelle Olech Smith, DNP, MS, RN
• David Werho, MD
• Tia T. Raymond, MD, MBA, Co-Chair

The writing group would like to thank the Emergency Cardiovascular Care Pediatric Emphasis Group members for their contributions: Janice A. Tijssen, MD; Jonathan P. Duff, MD, MEd; Ryan W. Morgan, MD, MTR; Brian Jackson, MD; Candace N. Mannarino, MD, MS; Georg M. Schmölzer, MD, PhD; Javier J. Lasa, MD; Jennifer Hayes, RN, MSN; Jessica Fowler, MD, MPH; Katherine Remick, MD; Marc Auerbach, MD, MSc; Paul Mullan, MD; Todd Chang, MD; Tehnaz Boyle, MD, PhD; Vishal Kapadia, MD, MSCS; Farhan Bhanji, MD, MSc.