Operational Considerations. In the military context, cardiac arrest management must maintain operational credibility. Clear leadership, disciplined communication, visible escalation of appropriate care, and structured debriefing are essential to preserve trust, cohesion, and mission effectiveness. Clinicians should consider the impact of their care on the wider operation.
Advanced Life Support (ALS) is fundamentally an attempt to maintain cerebral and coronary perfusion long enough for defibrillation and correction of reversible causes to succeed. Decades of resuscitation science demonstrate that survival from cardiac arrest is driven primarily by the quality and continuity of chest compressions and timely defibrillation, with drugs and advanced technologies offering incremental benefit at best. This evidence base applies directly to military practice, but its operational implications are magnified when evacuation timelines are prolonged, critical care capability is constrained, and medical events unfold within high-risk environments.
At the centre of modern ALS is not only compression rate and depth, but the proportion of the arrest during which effective chest compressions are delivered. During cardiac arrest, blood flow exists only while the chest is being compressed. Each pause results in a rapid fall in coronary and cerebral perfusion pressure, and several compressions are required to rebuild that pressure. For this reason, the proportion of total arrest time spent actively delivering compressions is strongly associated with return of spontaneous circulation and survival, particularly in shockable rhythms.
In operational environments, whether maritime platforms, forward medical facilities, austere airfields, or during aeromedical evacuation, interruptions are more likely due to confined spaces, personal protective equipment, environmental hazards, platform movement, or limited personnel. The physiological cost of those interruptions is unchanged, but the margin for recovery may be smaller if definitive post-resuscitation care is delayed. Maintaining a high proportion of time delivering effective chest compressions therefore becomes even more critical in military settings.
Early defibrillation for ventricular fibrillation or pulseless ventricular tachycardia remains the most powerful intervention in ALS. Its effectiveness is closely linked to preceding CPR and minimisation of pauses around shock delivery. Modern evidence emphasises that defibrillation success depends less on technological escalation and more on disciplined execution: charging during ongoing compressions, limiting rhythm check pauses, and immediately resuming compressions after shock delivery. Operationally, this reinforces the importance of equipment accessibility, team rehearsal in constrained environments, and leadership that protects compression continuity.
The role of vasopressors, particularly adrenaline, is defined by large contemporary randomised evidence demonstrating increased return of spontaneous circulation and improved survival to 30 days, but no proportional increase in favourable neurological outcome. This distinction is clinically and operationally significant. Adrenaline improves the likelihood of survival, but not necessarily survival without severe neurological impairment. In deployed settings, where prolonged evacuation or limited intensive care capacity may increase the risk of survival with significant neurological disability, understanding what adrenaline does—and does not—achieve is essential. It remains part of ALS algorithms because it increases survival, but its effect size is modest and must be interpreted realistically.
Similarly, anti-arrhythmic drugs for shock-refractory ventricular fibrillation have not been shown to significantly improve survival to discharge or favourable neurological outcome compared with placebo in large trials. More recent evidence suggests that altering defibrillation strategy in refractory ventricular fibrillation, such as changing shock vectors or using Double Sequential External Defibrillation (DSED) may improve survival in selected systems. However, DSED is not recommended within the 2025 Resuscitation Council (UK) guidelines outside of research. Consultation with the council suggests this is due to limited evidence (early observational studies and a single well-conducted study, the 2022 DOSE-VF trial, having a smaller sample size than planned due to it being halted as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic) and the unknown impact on defibrillators being operating outside of their design. Both vector change and DSED should only be utilised in a well rehearsed team. Where feasible, in well-equipped military medical facility with experienced clinicians, these strategies may be considered, but their benefit depends entirely on preserving compression continuity and avoiding excessive pauses.
Airway management evidence further reinforces the primacy of uninterrupted CPR. Large pragmatic trials comparing supraglottic airway strategies with tracheal intubation have shown no meaningful difference in functional neurological outcomes. In operational contexts—where intubation may be complicated by darkness, noise, reduced manpower, or protective equipment—this evidence supports selecting the airway technique that can be delivered rapidly and reliably without degrading the proportion of time compressions are provided. The most technically advanced airway is of little value if it compromises perfusion by increasing interruptions.
Mechanical chest compression devices have similarly not demonstrated survival advantage when used routinely compared with high-quality manual CPR. Their value in military practice lies in specific logistical circumstances—such as prolonged transport, aeromedical evacuation, or situations with limited personnel—rather than intrinsic superiority. Again, their benefit depends on deployment without prolonged interruption.
Post-resuscitation care has evolved substantially. Large, randomised trials have demonstrated no benefit of routine therapeutic hypothermia compared with controlled normothermia and active fever prevention. The contemporary evidence base supports avoidance of hyperthermia and optimisation of oxygenation, ventilation, haemodynamics, and metabolic parameters as the cornerstone of post-ROSC management. In deployed environments, this is operationally relevant: maintaining normothermia and physiological stability is both evidence-based and achievable, whereas complex cooling protocols may not be.
Whilst Extracorporeal Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (ECMO) is a useful tool within civilian practice, indicated for patients with witnessed, refractory cardiac arrest, typically with a shockable rhythm and a clear reversible cause, it is generally impractical to deliver on operations. However, it may be considered when operating within countries with a developed ECMO system.
It is recognised that traumatic cardiac arrest follows a distinct pathophysiological and doctrinal framework and is addressed separately within military guidelines. The ALS evidence discussed here therefore primarily informs management of non-traumatic cardiac arrest on operations, including arrhythmic, hypoxic, immersion-related, or other medical causes.
Beyond its physiological and technical dimensions, cardiac arrest on military operations has a profound impact on the wider team and the collective moral contract between personnel and the medical system that supports them. Sailors, soldiers and aviators must have confidence that if one of their own collapses, every appropriate, evidence-based intervention will be delivered with urgency, competence, and commitment. This belief is fundamental to trust in medical support and to the willingness of individuals to continue operating in high-risk environments.
In this context, the credibility of Advanced Life Support is not derived from indiscriminate escalation, but from clearly recognisable, professional, and determined care that aligns with best available evidence. A well-led resuscitation—characterised by prompt initiation of high-quality CPR, early defibrillation where indicated, timely administration of appropriate drugs, and disciplined team coordination—demonstrates unequivocally that the medical team is doing everything that can reasonably influence outcome. Even when resuscitation is unsuccessful, the visible delivery of ALS to a high standard reassures the wider team that their colleague received full and serious medical care.
Importantly, this reassurance is grounded in evidence-based practice rather than futile or theatrical intervention. Personnel are more likely to retain confidence in medical care when interventions are purposeful, timely, and coherent. The ALS evidence base makes clear that survival is driven primarily by maintaining perfusion—reflected in the proportion of arrest time during which effective chest compressions are delivered—and by timely defibrillation where indicated. Delivering these elements well communicates commitment and competence more convincingly than prolonged escalation that degrades care quality.
Leadership and communication are therefore integral components of ALS on operations. Clear command during the resuscitation, visible coordination of tasks, and calm explanation to non-medical leaders about what is being done reinforce trust. When resuscitation efforts conclude, a clear articulation that all appropriate evidence-based measures were delivered helps the wider team process the outcome and maintain confidence in medical support. This supports operational continuity by reducing uncertainty, moral injury, and loss of trust that could otherwise impair team function.
Taken together, the evidence base for ALS delivers a consistent message across civilian and military contexts. Survival depends predominantly on maintaining perfusion and delivering timely defibrillation, while drugs and advanced interventions offer incremental benefit only when they preserve these fundamentals. In operational environments, where constraints are greater and post-resuscitation care may be delayed, disciplined execution of these core principles is even more critical. Doing everything that is known to work—and doing it well—protects both the individual casualty and the collective effectiveness of the force.



