your thoughts on what they are now saying about CPR?

Question

today i read the paper and they are now saying that possibly you should only do chest comparisions not mouth to mouth what are your thoughts?
http://www.webmd.com/heart-disease/news/20070316/CPR-mouth-to-mouth-not-much-help
thats the website article

when i was taught it was 15:2 now its 30:2.

but in my opion the numbers dont matter. its just the fact you compress the heart and get air in.

Answer 1

The new guidelines from the American Heart Association (the first organization to teach CPR) say 30 compressions to 2 breaths. They did a lot of research over the years to back this up. It's all about perfusion or getting blood flowing to the tissues. Any interruption in compressions causes that blood flow to stop. You still need to provide some oxygen to the lungs, but since the body is not moving, the oxygen requirement is reduced. One of the most important things you can do is to use an AED (automated external defibrillator). That will greatly increase the chances of a good outcome. For the best explanation and lots of info, go to the American Heart Association website. www.americanheart.org/
Firefighter/ EMT

Answer 2

The last time I was CPR certified in 2005, the instructor said that they have been doing the chest compression only method for years in Europe (don't know how true that is). However, if my loved-one needed CPR, I would hope that a passer-by gave them "the works" with chest compression and mouth to mouth, at least until there is clear data from multiple studies that proves that mouth to mouth results in poorer outcomes.

Answer 3

This is a bit of old news. I first heard this some 8 years ago.

The specifics are that rescue when performed during one man CPR does not seem to impact the effectiveness of the CPR.

ARC still teaches the old method (15 and 2) but AHA is now teaching a new method of 2 minutes of chest compressions, followed by 2 breaths and pulse check.

Answer 4

I used to teach CPR many years ago and was amazed at how often they changed the rules. Every few years it was some different combination of compressions to breaths. I confess I have long suspected that medical researchers needing to justify their grant money just look for new ways to do something that was working fine to begin with.

I'm sure this new method will work fine, too, but I just wish they would stick with one philosophy. I think these constant changes confuse people more than they help them.

Answer 5

I would say it depends on how long the person has been unconsious and not breathing...If the heart and breathing stopped immidiatly I think chest compressions would be more effective...but if the person has been not breathing for a few minutes(under5)..then it may be wise to do both.
But hey I'm not a doctor.
But then again people have used some unorthodox methods..such as a plunger and bike pump.

Answer 6

There are instruments that are easily carried that will keep you safe from viruses and other problems while giving CPR. They are small, plastic, and fit into the person's (who needs CPR) mouth, and will keep your mouth clean at the same time. I admit, I don't carry these, either. Logic tells us that if we fear 'catching' something, to not put our mouth up to someone else's mouth. I have given CPR to strangers, and I've been lucky. I have not 'caught' anything from this. With Hep C on the rise, and so many things that can make us really ill for life..................I think it must be a good idea, to keep our mouths to ourselves.

Answer 7

I don't think that is enough ventilation. The brain begins to "die" after 4 minutes of no oxygen, which means the brain needs a sufficient amount to work properly. To me, you can do all the compressions you want to a person, but they won't work nearly as well unless there is an adequate amount of air flowing through this persons body. However, anything you do at all is better than nothing.

Answer 8

I agree.