Experts hope findings will encourage bystanders to use simpler technique
Article Source: msnbc.com
from:msnbc.comHands-only CPR enough to save a life, new studies say
Seeded on Wed Jul 28, 2010 6:51 PM EDT (msnbc.com)
- msnbc.com sites & shows:
- TODAY
- Rock Center
- Nightly News
- Meet the Press
- Dateline
- Morning Joe
- Hardball
- Ed
- Maddow
- Last Word
- msnbc tv
Leave a Comment:
For simplicity, you could even quit Bic Macs and Winstons.
If you're looking to encourage more untrained people to perform CPR, then compression-only CPR is the way to go, as doing something is almost always better than doing nothing. But if you're looking to provide the best care possible while you're waiting for 911 to arrive, then training lay people to perform traditional CPR makes more sense. Lives are at stake, so at CPR-Twin Cities (http://cpr-twincities.com), an authorized provider of American Red Cross classes, we don't cut corners. We teach people to safely provide emergency care, without legal or health risk to the rescuer.
If you're looking to encourage more untrained people to perform CPR, then compression-only CPR is the way to go, as doing something is almost always better than doing nothing. But if you're looking to provide the best care possible while you're waiting for 911 to arrive, then training lay people to perform traditional CPR makes more sense. Lives are at stake, so at CPR-Twin Cities
an authorized provider of American Red Cross classes in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area, we don't cut corners. We teach people to safely provide emergency care, without legal or health risk to the rescuer.
7/12/10 my husband went into cardiac arrest in my back yard, for 23 minutes I did hands only cpr till medics arrived. He came home to me 3 days ago, with NO brain damage. His jar was locked shut making conventional cpr imposible. I am a grateful wife today not a tearful widow. PLEASE learn both ways and when to use them, you'll be glad you did!
Kudos to you for not panicing or giving up... you're a hero!
I agree, kudos to you, 1irishtwin. You've clearly shown your love for your husband. Most people couldn't have performed CPR for that long.
You're also very lucky. For every minute that defibrillation is delayed, a person's chance of survival drops about 10 percent. Which means that, after 23 minutes without an AED (automated external debrillator), a person' chance of survival is pretty much gone. But those are just statistics, and sometimes reality turns out differently.
I'm wondering where you live, as 23 minutes is NOT an acceptable response time in most communities in the U.S.
I give you a thumbs up. 23 mins of chest compressions is a long long long time, as CPR stated, a lot of people don't last that long. Glad to hear he made it :)
Mitchell
Yes 23 minutes is a very long time, God gave me the strenth I am sure. I live on Cape Cod, from what I understand there was a huge car accident that delayed response time. The first to arrive were a police officer and the emt he was having lunch with! I was never so glad to see anyone!!! Very greatful to all who helped save the love of my life, 33 years and still counting.
Less than 10% of all people, both adults and children, who suffer an observed cardiac arrest in a hospital are alive a year later. Also, the highest costs for medical care are incurred in the last year of life. Does that mean we really should not be fighting fate? After all, what the insurance companies and the government want us all to do is pay outrageous insurance policies and die suddenly. It saves them money. Besides, anyone that does mouth to mouth on a complete stranger is showing poor judgement. If you get hepatitis B or C or AIDS or resistant TB you have not just harmed yourself but endangered your entire family.
Wow, not much of a humanitarian. I'm not sure where the 10% survival rate for observed cardiac arrest number is coming from, but that sounds very low. When an AED (automated external defibrillator) is used within the first couple of minutes of cardiac arrest (which it would be in a clinic setting) I've read the survival rates are closer to 40%. Also, the chance of getting a disease from doing rescue breaths during CPR is extremely low -- pretty much the same risk as kissing someone. And the bottom line is that anyone who is saved by the actions of others makes it worth taking the action. Fate? If indifference is our chosen path, then fine, do nothing. But I'm not indifferent and I know most people aren't as well.
Learning how to do CPR is not difficult. Take a class with an American Heart Association or American Red Cross instructor.
One report is from the journal Medicine. The other is from JAMA. How is reporting on statistics from two major medical journals not being a humanitarian? You are presumptuous and judgemental. There is a difference in being indifferent (or cautious) and being stupid. My point is NOT that we should not be doing CPR but that expectations may be too high. My other point is that insurance companies want us all to pay exorbitant fees for health insurance and then die so that they do not have to pay out. Kissing a stranger that appears perfectly healthy is risky enough. Mouth to mouth, which I doubt you have ever done, is significantly more risky when done on someone who is sick enough to suffer cardiac arrest. Since I attend cardiac arrests on a regular basis in a hospital, I'll pass on taking the Red Cross class. BTW, cite your source for 40% survival.