Basically, it sounds like doing just chest compressions rather than chest compressions with breathing is better when performing CPR.
I was just hoping for some input from some of the medical professionals here, like CT. Sometimes the news media seems to get things wrong, so I was hoping for some clarification and confirmation.
Also, will training classes start teaching the compressions without breathing method exclusively now? Is it a good idea to be retrained (although for me personally, it's been awhile since I've been certified, so it's probably a good idea to get into another class)?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Is this a recommendation for all CPR, or just CPR after cardiac arrest?
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
When I was an EMT -- it seemed like they change the CPR protocols nearly every 3 years or so, to more "new and improved" way of doing things. It was confusing because you'd memorize and be tested on it one way, then they would change it -- or you would work with others who only knew a different way, which they had been taught.
In the field, you just do your best. Any applied CPR is better than none. I would like to be able to read more in-depth the study that this was based on, though. I have no real opinion on whether it could possibly be better or not -- they may be right. But it is really kinda hard to prove anything one way or another when there are so many OTHER factors in cardiac arrest situations.
It's ALWAYS a good idea to get re-trained. As often as possible. Unless you use it alot as a normal course of your day! Just because the more you are trained, the more it becomes a automatic, immediate response, and the more confident you become in applying the training.
FG
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Is this a recommendation for all CPR, or just CPR after cardiac arrest?
I don't know if this was directed at me or not, I don't really have the answer. In fact, one of my questions was as to how situational this new method is.
I'm sure I'm missing something, but in what kind of situation would you do traditional CPR other than for cardiac arrest?
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
The current recommendations are to continue with the current plan.
I'm skeptical of the article, as it doesn't address the key point: were the two groups in the study quoted otherwise equivalent? I had explained this in detail, but the internets ate my post, and I have a migraine. I'll gte back to this later.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
My mom renewed her (professional-- she's a nurse) certification last year and this was discussed at length.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I don't know if this was directed at me or not, I don't really have the answer.
It is an additional question I'm posing related to the issue as a whole.
quote:I'm sure I'm missing something, but in what kind of situation would you do traditional CPR other than for cardiac arrest?
I may be completely mistaken, but I think the mouth-to-mouth component may be more important in near-drowning cases.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote: I'm sure I'm missing something, but in what kind of situation would you do traditional CPR other than for cardiac arrest?
You use CPR any time there is no pulse or breathing apparent (which, I guess can be interpreted that all those situations are cardiac arrest, since that the CR term means "temporary or permanent cessation of the heartbeat" -- although most people think of that term meaning only heart attack.)
But traumatic injury, drowning, electrical shock, any situation where the heart has stopped beating properly, calls for CPR.
FG
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I just took a class, and they have now changed the ratio - when I first got certified, it was fifteen compressions to 2 breaths. Now, it's 30 compressions.
I was certified through the National Safety Council, if that matters.
As always, the most important thing to do in an emergency is call for help. Get trained medical personnel on the scene as quickly as possible. I was also trained on automatic defibrillators, which are in all the schools in my area now. Those are cool.
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: The current recommendations are to continue with the current plan.
I'm skeptical of the article, as it doesn't address the key point: were the two groups in the study quoted otherwise equivalent? I had explained this in detail, but the internets ate my post, and I have a migraine. I'll gte back to this later.
What CT said.
Also, please note the following toward the end of the article:
quote:A big caveat: The combination CPR in the Japanese study was given according to the old guidelines of 15 presses for every two breaths, not the 30 presses recommended now.
The American Heart Association said the study supports a focus on chest presses, but the association does not expect its advice to change.
Another important point is that the breathing part of CPR is still important for children in most cases, as when a child is found unresponsive, it is more likely to be due to respiratory arrest than cardiac arrest.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:But traumatic injury, drowning, electrical shock, any situation where the heart has stopped beating properly, calls for CPR.
I was classifying those as cardiac arrest. Perhaps I was using the phrase too broadly, just to mean anytime the heart stops suddenly, regardless of cause. I'm certainly the last thing from an authority on the matter.
Also, just wanted to thank everyone that chimed in with the info. Hope you getting feeling better CT.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Just because the more you are trained, the more it becomes a automatic, immediate response, and the more confident you become in applying the training.