...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