CPR obsolete?

[RgrF]

A leap forward or not?

from U of Az College of Medicine

[Trouble]

"It’s easy and does not require mouth-to-mouth contact, making it more likely bystanders will try to help..."

That's it. No one wants to do mouth-to-mouth. I've been hearing "hands only CPR" ads on the radio for several months at least.

[Doc]

Studies have shown that compressions alone are usually more effective than alternating compressions with mouth-to-mouth when only one person is performing the rescue so many physicians advise doing just the compressions.

There are exceptions to the recommendation in cases where the victim has been deprived of oxygen, for example, in the case of drowning, smoke-inhalation or chemical exposure.

And if two people are available to work in tandem then mouth to mouth is still advised.

BTW: It's my understanding that if someone drops from a heart attack in the street, their best chance for survival is an EMT arriving to shock the heart within 5 minutes of the event, so if you save someone's life with either technique, compression-alone or compression-plus-breathing, you've come darned close to performing a miracle.*

...

*I am not a medical doctor.

[Carm]

"They're dying, there soon to be dead, no matter what you do you can't make them worse, better to break a rib, then to let somebody die, I think they all be sore, but happy to shake your hand."

"Cause of good Samaritan laws, you are not at legal risk" Really? In every state or just Arizona?
Edit: Found this : Perils of Being a Good Samaritan In California

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/...31,00.html wrote:
"Dec. 19, the court made a decision in the case of Alexandra Van Horn v. Lisa Torti. The case alleged that Torti worsened the injuries suffered by Van Horn by yanking her "like a rag doll" from a wrecked car on Nov. 1, 2004, thus rendering Van Horn a paraplegic. The court found that Torti wasn't protected from legal action under California's current Good Samaritan laws.

"

Joe

[RgrF]

Carm wrote:
"They're dying, there soon to be dead, no matter what you do you can't make them worse, better to break a rib, then to let somebody die, I think they all be sore, but happy to shake your hand."

"Cause of good Samaritan laws, you are not at legal risk" Really? In every state or just Arizona?
Edit: Found this : Perils of Being a Good Samaritan In California
[quote=http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1871331,00.html]
"Dec. 19, the court made a decision in the case of Alexandra Van Horn v. Lisa Torti. The case alleged that Torti worsened the injuries suffered by Van Horn by yanking her "like a rag doll" from a wrecked car on Nov. 1, 2004, thus rendering Van Horn a paraplegic. The court found that Torti wasn't protected from legal action under California's current Good Samaritan laws.

"
Joe
Exceptions to the rule shouldn't become the rule. I suffered an aortic aneurysm last April and am still struggling with the complications resulting from the surgery that saved my life. My particular problem carried with it a 90% fatality rate.

That's over now but the complications are yet to be resolved. I'm happy as a pig in sh!t and most unlikely to sue either the hospital or surgeon who intervened on my behalf.

[Carm]

RgrF wrote:
Exceptions to the rule shouldn't become the rule. I suffered an aortic aneurysm last April and am still struggling with the complications resulting from the surgery that saved my life. My particular problem carried with it a 90% fatality rate.

That's over now but the complications are yet to be resolved. I'm happy as a pig in sh!t and most unlikely to sue either the hospital or surgeon who intervened on my behalf.

Glad you survived.
Joe

[Black]

RgrF wrote:
A leap forward or not?

from U of Az College of Medicine

It's not that far off from what the American heart Association is teaching in their latest incarnation. However it does threaten to do serious damage to the Heart Association's racket.
Bring it!

[Black]

Doc wrote:
BTW: It's my understanding that if someone drops from a heart attack in the street, their best chance for survival is an EMT arriving to shock the heart within 5 minutes of the event

I think you mean with an electronic defibrillator?

PSA: Many of these are now at the age where their batteries no longer hold a charge. If you have access to one or happen to carry one or know of one in your workplace, make sure it gets checked and still powers up.
A family member had a heart attack and was lucky enough that an off-duty paramedic happened to be right there-- however when he retrieved the AED from his trunk he found it dead.

[Doc]

Black wrote:
I think you mean with an electronic defibrillator?

Yes.

Black wrote:
PSA: Many of these are now at the age where their batteries no longer hold a charge. If you have access to one or happen to carry one or know of one in your workplace, make sure it gets checked and still powers up.
A family member had a heart attack and was lucky enough that an off-duty paramedic happened to be right there-- however when he retrieved the AED from his trunk he found it dead.

Nevertheless, there are various cities around the country where they have defibrillators located in the corridors of public buildings -- and often in private buildings and on street corners -- and they're finding that making them available to the public in this fashion increases the survival rate of sudden heart attack victims by 2-3 times.

I would not be surprised if 20 years from now almost every state had laws mandating them in every building over a certain size and new cars touted them as luxury features.

[lazydays]

At my workplace we just installed a defibrillator and received cpr training. Similar to what has been said here, compression with no mouth to mouth was recommended as opposed to no treatment at all. In our kit there were several "filters" that can be placed over the mouth to prevent direct contact. We trained with them. Hope I never have to do this under pressure!