Hands Only CPR

[Jeff Toorish]

Anyone else see this?

Heart Association: Hands-only CPR works - CNN.com

Interesting --although it doesn't apply to near drowning victims.

Of course, chances that any CPR is going to be successful are slim.

Jeff

 

[Mudbug_CSD]

I couldn't tell from the article - does this mean the <edit>AHA</edit> [-]Red Cross[/-] is making this the standard form of instruction in CPR classes instead of hands/breathing, or leaving things as-is and adding this as an alternate style of CPR?

 

[TwoBitTxn]

Red Cross isn't (or hasn't stated they are) making the change. The American Heart Assn is. They have been moving in this direction for awhile now.

My impression is that this is what main stream instruction will be very shortly.

TwoBit

 

[DeepSeaDan]

I couldn't tell from the article - does this mean the Red Cross is making this the standard form of instruction in CPR classes instead of hands/breathing, or leaving things as-is and adding this as an alternate style of CPR?

...or "Cardio-Cerebral Resucitation" has been in use for several years now by certain 1st responder agencies, in several different countries, with significant improvement in save rates over conventional cpr.

My understanding of the physiology ( in part ) behind this is that some amount of air exchange is generated by forceful compressions; this combined with the idea that an arrested person has an average of :11 of circulating O2 available. These facts, combined with the now generally-accepted theory that excellent compressions are the primary benefit to the casualty, are driving the push for the elimination of rescue breaths in lay-rescuer protocols; further, it is evident in advanced paramedic care ( in my response area for one ), where initial efforts are now concentrated on circulation, before the airway is intubated.

As to the Red Cross's position ( I teach for them ): I haven't seen anything coming down the pipe as yet. I was hoping for the change during the last major revisit, but the powers that be ( I.L.C.O.R. ) didn't see fit to make the jump just yet. Hopefully it will happen on the next review.

Finally, I have for many years looked for the elimination of rescue breaths from lay-rescuer resucitation. Fear of disease ( does anyone really carry around a barrier device with them? ), of making mistakes, & a general discomfort of providing the "kiss of life" to perfect strangers has kept many a would-be participant on the sidelines. Eliminating rescue breathing should result in a significant increase in lay-rescuer response. The fact that no-breath resucitation is proving successful makes this a change of considerable promise.

Best,
DSD

 

[wreckchick]

I've been hearing this was coming and expect that it will be mainstream very shortly. There is some air exchange in the lungs with compressions only so there is a chance that the blood can stay oxygenated.

We'll see what happens!

Rachel

 

[realdiver7]

CPR for the lay person has been going to the no breaths, just compressions method. For now, AHA Health Care Provider CPR continues to incorporate two breaths for every 30 compressions.

There are several distinct differences between lay person CPR and health care provider (professional) CPR, but since there weren't many differences years ago, many people still think there is only one way to do CPR.

I believe we will see AHA, Red Cross, National Safety Council, and other CPR education standards become more consistent with each other over time.

 

[pdks]

...or "Cardio-Cerebral Resucitation" has been in use for several years now by certain 1st responder agencies, in several different countries, with significant improvement in save rates over conventional cpr.

My understanding of the physiology ( in part ) behind this is that some amount of air exchange is generated by forceful compressions; this combined with the idea that an arrested person has an average of :11 of circulating O2 available. These facts, combined with the now generally-accepted theory that excellent compressions are the primary benefit to the casualty, are driving the push for the elimination of rescue breaths in lay-rescuer protocols; further, it is evident in advanced paramedic care ( in my response area for one ), where initial efforts are now concentrated on circulation, before the airway is intubated.

As to the Red Cross's position ( I teach for them ): I haven't seen anything coming down the pipe as yet. I was hoping for the change during the last major revisit, but the powers that be ( I.L.C.O.R. ) didn't see fit to make the jump just yet. Hopefully it will happen on the next review.

Finally, I have for many years looked for the elimination of rescue breaths from lay-rescuer resucitation. Fear of disease ( does anyone really carry around a barrier device with them? ), of making mistakes, & a general discomfort of providing the "kiss of life" to perfect strangers has kept many a would-be participant on the sidelines. Eliminating rescue breathing should result in a significant increase in lay-rescuer response. The fact that no-breath resucitation is proving successful makes this a change of considerable promise.

Best,
DSD

Very interesting indeed. I was an instructor/examiner with the Canadian Ski Patrol System, but moved away from the mountains and 'retired.' I understand they are in the process of making the shift.

I suppose it is still important to at least mechanically attempt to open the airway?

 

[garyfotodiver]

I am taking my AHA CPR renewal tomorrow. Can't wait to see what will be taught...

 

[cgvmer]

OK...so if this is the way to go, then what is the in-water process to use?

Currently (this is a very simplified version) under 5min to safety provide breaths and move toward safety.

Over 5min give breaths for a minute and move as fast as possible to safety.

If breaths aren't good enough when they change the protocol would we just move asap to safety with no breaths ?

Anyone care to guess on this one

 

[DeepSeaDan]

Very interesting indeed. I was an instructor/examiner with the Canadian Ski Patrol System, but moved away from the mountains and 'retired.' I understand they are in the process of making the shift.

I suppose it is still important to at least mechanically attempt to open the airway?

...important, just less so in the new perspective. For the lay rescuer, the protocol is now: scene safety, responsiveness / 911, open airway - assess for normal breathing, if no breathing, start compressions ( 30 ), then 2 breaths, & on with 30:2, reasses after :2 etc., etc.

Advanced EMS protocol is locality dependendent, but there has been a paradigm shift towards circulation. As this type of response involves multiple rescuers, the airway is managed immediately, in concert with circ.; however, where intubation used to be the #1 priority, it is now secondary to cardiac assessment, I.V. drug therapy initiation & so on. We do quite well with an oropharyengeal airway + bvm, so ventillations proceed just fine until such time as the tube can insure patency.

DSD