Doctor sparks debate over CPR

[SFLDiver]

Heard this'un last night on NBC News.
I'd like to see some accumulated stats,
published studies, backing data, etc.

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7642998/

Doctor sparks debate over CPR
Physician advocates continuous chest compressions
By Robert Bazell
Correspondent
NBC News
Updated: 7:36 p.m. ET April 26, 2005

TUCSON, Ariz. - Each year, 600,000 people die in the United States when their heart suddenly stops beating and professional help does not arrive in time. That's why for 40 years the Red Cross and the American Heart Association have been teaching citizens to perform cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) with a combination of 15 chest compressions then two breaths in the mouth.

But Dr. Gorden Ewy is out to prove that CPR — as it is done now — is a gigantic failure.

"What's at stake?" asks Ewy, director of the Sarver Heart Center at the University of Arizona. "Thousands of people's lives. Doing it right, advancing medicine. I mean, what's medicine all about?"

Ewy says the big problem with CPR as it is currently practiced is those breaths to the mouth, which interrupt chest compressions. During that interruption, he says, the critical flow of blood to the brain also gets interrupted.

And more important, surveys show most people won't blow into a stranger's mouth.

What's the right way to perform CPR? Ewy says it is simple, continuous chest compression — 100 times a minute — with no breaths.

Ewy has convinced the city of Tucson, Ariz., to start teaching classes with his new method. He not only persuaded the public in Tucson, he also convinced the fire department and the paramedics that his was the right way to do CPR.

"The paramedics in the field are reporting that it's an easier way to resuscitate code arrests and they are seeing a lot better response from the patients," saysJoe Gulotta, deputy chief of the Tucson Fire Department.

So far, the Red Cross and American Heart Association are staying with the old method.

"You know, there's a huge investment of 40 years of doing it that way," says Ewy. But he believes the world will eventually see things his way, and save a lot of lives.

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7642998/

 

[jonnythan]

It occurs to me that getting a little more blood flow through the brain does no good if that blood is devoid of oxygen.

 

[mossym]

yeah i would have thought the same, pushing the blood around does little if there is no oxygen in it.

and how long does it take to do the two breaths, 10 secs tops? surely 10 secs without oxygen is better than his method?

 

[jonnythan]

I also like how the article implies that the Red Cross (and basically every medical institution on earth) is simply stuck in the dark ages and refuses to come out and use his obviously superior method.

I love journalists.. they never know what they're talking about. Ever notice how when there's an article about a topic you *know*, they get everything wrong (diving, for instance... oxygen tanks!)? What makes you think they get *anything* right?

 

[mossym]

but to the uninformed, the press is always right..if you don't know better you trust someone who appears to know what they are talking about

 

[dlf]

It occurs to me that getting a little more blood flow through the brain does no good if that blood is devoid of oxygen.

My thoughts also. But then, I've done CPR 10-12 times and not a single one of them survived. Maybe there is room for improvement.

 

[whitedragon13]

Didn't the red cross recently change their standards from 5:1 (two rescuer) to 15:2 for the very same reason (interruption of blood flow?).

I did CPR once, in small-craft warning ocean conditions for 45 minutes in the water. Guy was revived in the ambulance, but died the next morning. That's when I became a total believer that CPR works-if it works in those conditions, then it's pretty good.

 

[mossym]

yeah but you are still getting oxygen in at some point, his method doesn't stop for a breath ever!!

 

[akscubainst]

It could be an interesting thing to see how it turns out. Several cities are dispatching compression only CPR because at least the bystander is doing something. With all of the fear of infection, getting someone to liplock someone is difficult. I just retired from the local volunteer FD and remember many times hearing the dispatcher say that the caller refused to do CPR.

Also, in 2000 the AHA changed the protocols on 2 rescuer CPR from 5-1 to 15-2 because research found that the break after 5 didn't allow the blood to reach the prefered level of O2 before falling again. With 15-2 the level of O2 exceeded the prefered level and remained there long enough to give the breaths and get back to compressions.

Something is better than nothing. I don't know about this guys theory but it will be interesting to see if his research pans out.

Dave

 

[O2BBubbleFree]

I'm certainly not a defender of the press, and agree with some of the views above, however I think that this new method warrants study.

WRT the lack of O2 in the blood, from what I've heard regarding this new method, the theory is that chest compressions circulate sufficient air through the lungs to make breathes unnecessary.

I wonder if head position is as critical? Maybe since air is being drawn in after each compression it moves more freely than being forced in by the rescuer? It would also be drawn in through the nose and mouth, where traditional CPR only forces air in through the mouth.

Just my $.02 worth.