Drowning victim resuscitated- video

[Bubbletrubble]

Probably the only reason when you don't do rescue breathing is when you are the only person why tries to save the victim, interrupting chest compression while giving rescue breathing is probably worse than chest compression without rescue breathing - in that case I would probably give 2 rescue breaths and then start chest compression.

@Farty: Is this what your CPR instructor taught you?

If so, with which agency was he/she affiliated?

 

[Farty]

Typically the situations where you wouldn't do rescue breaths are not diving situations, with few exceptions, like a diver being run over by a jetski or similar, facial bloody mess situations, or otherwise disgusting mess(vomit covered face), or where disease transmission looks like a higher risk than you'd like to take(again, probably not diving related).

I'm not a doctor, so please don't take this as a rock solid... I asked my roommate who is a doctor and she said that if it is one person non-professional rescue then the person who tries to rescue probably does not know exactly what to do and stopping chest compression to give few breaths is worse than not giving the breaths and not stopping the chest compression. If it is 2 or more people rescue, then you should do both unless there is a serious reason not to do it (as you pointed them out)

 

[Farty]

@Farty: Is this what your CPR instructor taught you?

If so, with which agency was he/she affiliated?

please don't get so offensive here and read the whole post, I never said that PADI or SSI or any other agency does not recommend that. I actually said that they do recommend month-to-month and chest compression.


speaking of CPR in general (you can get cardiac issues while scuba, this does not have to be drowning related).... I am NOT the only person who said that (few other people for example carrielsal pointed this out as well). I can give you a phone number of the doctor I spoke with if you really want to know more details.

here is interesting info about it http://firstaid.about.com/od/cprbasics/i/07_nobreathcpr.htm if I can quote "After comparing CPR with and without rescue breaths, they determined that CPR performed without rescue breathing was twice as successful for victims with the most chance of survival." - this is general CPR, personally I would always do month-to-month in case of drowning.

 

[Bubbletrubble]

btw I am NOT the only person who said that (few other people for example carrielsal pointed this out as well). I can give you a phone number of the doctor I spoke with if you really want to know more details.

This really isn't necessary. I suspect that you are misinterpreting what the doctor said anyway.

My questions were posed only to clarify your justification for the following stance:

Probably the only reason when you don't do rescue breathing is when you are the only person why tries to save the victim, interrupting chest compression while giving rescue breathing is probably worse than chest compression without rescue breathing - in that case I would probably give 2 rescue breaths and then start chest compression.

I'm not a doctor, so please don't take this as a rock solid... I asked my roommate who is a doctor and she said that if it is one person non-professional rescue then the person who tries to rescue probably does not know exactly what to do and stopping chest compression to give few breaths is worse than not giving the breaths and not stopping the chest compression. If it is 2 or more people rescue, then you should do both unless there is a serious reason not to do it (as you pointed them out)

You have misinterpreted what your roommate has said. What she said applies to a one-person non-professional rescue who has not been properly trained to do CPR consisting of both rescue breathing and chest compressions. For one person who is properly trained, it is better to do both rescue breathing and chest compressions. That's the current recommendation by all of the major CPR training agencies. Hands-only chest compression CPR is directed at the lay person who lacks the training to alternate between breathing and compressions...and would hesitate to initiate CPR (incorporating rescue breathing) due to the risk of disease transmission. Frankly, I would expect more from a diver who has gone through Rescue and CPR training.

Since you are unwilling to listen to us, please ask your roommate to clarify this point. If your roommate would like to discuss this with me, I would be more than happy to. It would probably be best to do this by PM.

FWIW, the about.com article you linked to contains a pretty even-handed discussion of the trend in CPR training towards compression-only CPR. It appears to be very effective under circumstances of witnessed cardiac arrest. That being said, in cardiac arrest patients, compression-only CPR is predicated on the notion that sufficient residual oxygenation of the blood remains. This assumption is not a good one in the instance of a drowning victim. Hence, drowning victims would benefit more from CPR that incorporated rescue breathing.

 

[Farty]

This really isn't necessary. I suspect that you are misinterpreting what the doctor said anyway.

My questions were posed only to clarify your justification for the following stance:


You have misinterpreted what your roommate has said. What she said applies to a one-person non-professional rescue who has not been properly trained to do CPR consisting of both rescue breathing and chest compressions. For one person who is properly trained, it is better to do both rescue breathing and chest compressions. That's the current recommendation by all of the major CPR training agencies. Hands-only chest compression CPR is directed at the lay person who lacks the training to alternate between breathing and compressions...and would hesitate to initiate CPR (incorporating rescue breathing) due to the risk of disease transmission. Frankly, I would expect more from a diver who has gone through Rescue and CPR training.

Since you are unwilling to listen to us, please ask your roommate to clarify this point.

You are actually very rude and I quite don't get why.


btw you should read this before you say what you just said Removing Mouth to Mouth from CPR - Chest Compression Only CPR

 

[Bubbletrubble]

You are actually very rude and I quite don't get why.


btw you should read this before you say what you just said Removing Mouth to Mouth from CPR - Chest Compression Only CPR

@Farty: I had no intention of being rude. I'm sorry that you interpreted my posts in that way.

I think it's important to clarify this point because a lot of the SB audience here have been trained to give rescue breaths during CPR. It would be a shame to see a well-trained Rescue diver revert to hands-only CPR for a drowning victim. That's clearly not current "best practice."

 

[Farty]

@Farty: I had no intention of being rude. I'm sorry that you interpreted my posts in that way.

I think it's important to clarify this point because a lot of the SB audience here have been trained to give rescue breaths during CPR. It would be a shame to see a well-trained Rescue diver revert to hands-only CPR for a drowning victim. That's clearly not current "best practice."

I very clearly stated that padi and ssi do recommend monuh-to-mouth, I also very clearly stated that I would do it in case of drowning.

What I pointed out was non-drowning CPR (which is not uncommon while diving - see that accident of woman from Arizona). In those cases mouth-to-mouth is not critical and there is no easy YES / NO answer and gave you a link which says that some CPR agencies do not use it for non-drowning accidents.



There was no reason to call on my instructor and his agency or discredit any of my
certifications. That is simply rude. I still stand behind every comment I made.

 

[Bubbletrubble]

There was no reason to call on my instructor and his agency or discredit any of my
certifications. That is simply rude. I still stand behind every comment I made.

Please PM me the content of my posts (in this thread) that have offended you. I think you have grossly misinterpreted the tone of my posts in this thread. I merely posed a couple of questions. I was curious as to what was taught in your CPR class and what agency was teaching it in that way. My intent was not to discredit your instructor or his agency or any of your certifications. I think it's wonderful that you've gone to the trouble of taking a Rescue class and CPR training. More divers should do exactly that.

FWIW, I have read the about.com article in its entirety. I think it's well-written. For the most part, the content is good. The author, Rod Brouhard, is a paramedic by training, but I would hardly say that he is an authority on the subject.

 

[binobanana]

So what do you do when the drowning victim is "spitting up that foam? I tried to save a scuba diver who was doing the exact same thing with that white foam comming out but my efforts were not effective.

Totally agree! Everybody is complaining, ohh they did that wrong they did not that!

A view tried helping and they did, no matter if they did the perfect job! Those who are complaining are those who standing along side watching! Or those people who stooping on the I95 after a motorcyclist dumbed his brain on the street!

What gives you guy's the right to judge, be ones yourself in this situation!

 

[KiiY]

I had CPR training at work in 2005 and again in 2007. Both were conducted by Medic First Aid International and are geared towards providing assistance if someone becomes incapacitated in the workplace... in which case drowning is probably not one of the major factors.

In 2005 rescue breaths were included as part of the CPR effort.
In 2007, rescue breaths were no longer included. If memory serves, reasons given were:

- People can be reluctant to give mouth to mouth to strangers or even friends. This leaves a point of ambiguity and may cause people to hesitate or do nothing to help if they think that rescue breaths are an essential part of the resuscitation processes.

- If the heart stops, there is often enough oxygen in the bloodstream to keep a person alive for some time. The important thing is to circulate the blood to the brain, which chest compressions help with.

- The break in chest compressions in order to perform rescue breaths can may be more harmful than the good that rescue breaths achieve.


I haven't had the opportunity to get Rescue Diver certification... but I've been following this thread to see if I can glean any valuable information that may help in an emergency.

But right now I'm still somewhat confused.

If a person's airway is closed off or their lungs are filled with water, would rescue breaths provide any benefit?

As it stands, based on the training I've had and what I've read here, I would perform chest compressions continuously (no rescue breaths) until more qualified help arrives.