Change in CPR Advice
It's been a while since I took CPR - sad to admit. But when I did, I remember there were a lot of instructions... Pinch nose, pull head back, check for a blocked airway. Three fingers up from the bottom of the sternum, place your hands. Push 15 times, breath once. Repeat. Now the American Heart Association has a new set of instructions:
1. Call 911
2. Push like crazy.
Simpler, no? And it turns out that these instructions save lives just as well.
68 comments:
I'm actually surprised to see this article back here because just a few days ago, I saw it pop up on Yahoo's main page. When I tried to read it, it froze my computer... oh the irony.
http://news.wired.com/dynamic/stories/H/HANDS_ONLY_CPR?SITE=WIRE&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
This article was just a bit more elaborated version of what the American Heart association had to say. There are apparently hundreds of thousands of people who die from cardiac arrests each year outside of hospitals. The article goes on to give an example of a man who survived this incident without mouth-to-mouth CPR. However, it's important to note that the person who saved him was a chiropractor. It's fairly obvious that most of America is unaware of how to handle a situation in which someone needs CPR.
I personally would not like to give mouth-to-mouth CPR. The first things that come to mind are infection and the fact that I have no experience in that field whatsoever. This new "proven" method make people feel a bit more secure in taking action, by eliminating the Bystander Effect usually apparent in such situations.
I remember taking a Health and Safety class back in my first year of high school and learning the life-saving yet tedious steps to applying CPR. Four years later, I can sadly say that any critical points of the process have slipped my mind. Aside from the notes given in class, it was optional to take an actual CPR training workshop, which I didn’t have the heart to go to. It implied that CPR was much more hands-on than just the lecture notes during class. The fear of complicating the situation more than it already is is something that would definitely prevent me from doing anything in a scenario wherein someone is suffering a cardiac arrest and I’m the only one at hand to do anything.
Luckily, with this alternative method, people will no longer stand by idly and watch while tragedy hits. And hopefully, even incompetents like me can plant this method into their heads. The only problem now is spreading the news and since cardiac arrest is a worldwide phenomenon, this method should become one too.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/03/31/hands.only.cpr.ap/index.html
My question is why it took the Red Cross so long to update this method. Below is a comparison of the old and new versions of CPR.
http://www.pparc.org/trained/Key%20Changes%20to%20FA%20CPR%20Curriculum.pdf
You just have to wonder why they didn't make things simple the first time.
It is amazing that they came up with a new method of CPR. Now there is no excuses for not helping. Anyone can do the new method compared to the old one. My mom had a certificate that claimed that she was certified to perform CPR and she told me that she had to take a class to become certified. This is probably too much commitment for average citizens. Now without having to take a 4 hour class, people may be more committed to perform CPR when needed. Another benefit is that there is no need to perform mouth-to-mouth. It is more sanitary for both the rescuer and the rescuee.
here is an article talking about the new method and the increase of survivors.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2005/11/28/qc-cpr20051128.html
hopefully now people will be more willing to help.
Although this article was pretty brief it's very amazing that it shows that now there is no excuse to not attempting to help someone who is going into cardiac arrest. The new way of CPR is much more simple than the old way. With the old way there are things to worry about such as how many times you need to pump and how many breaths to take, and when.
I personally think that the new method is a much more helpful way for citizens to help others, not everyone is experienced enough to know how to perform CPR properly and if this is the least they can do save someone's life then they should do it!
I am interested in how they figured out that this method worked and whether or not there are any useful tips in the way you can compress the victims chest in order to increase the chances of survival. Hopefully this new method will help save more lives.
Here's an article pertaining to the topic.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10501442
I am also surprised that this article came up on this blog today, because I saw the headline on Yahoo news feed as well. The Yahoo article compared the two methods and I remember trying to memorize the three steps. I work with children, so it would be very helpful.
However, even though it was three steps, I still couldn't remember it. I would also be hesitant about mouth-to-mouth contact.
What I'm most surprised about is that I thought that only pushing on the person's chest would harm, not hurt. Now it's good to know that that is not true, because lives could be saved.
I couldn't find the Yahoo article, but here's a link to a news video feed that briefly shows how to administer the new CPR method.
http://www.ktvz.com/global/story.asp?s=1343812&displayHelp=true&displayHelp=true
if that link doesn't work, you can go to the original article and find the link there
http://www.ktvz.com/Global/story.asp?S=8103651
I think its important to not become delusional about CPR. I may be the lone voice in saying this, but CPR isn't all its cracked up to be.
CPR is the catch-all for cardiac arrest, no matter what the cause is, but that doesn't mean its effective. As a matter of fact, according to WEB MD, only 5~10% of those who undergo CPR survive.
http://www.webmd.com/news/20010514/real-cpr-isnt-everything-seems-to-be
Sure its better than nothing, and I'm glad that few percentage has survived, but it should also be considered that CPR is applied to cardiovascular emergencies when not even needed. The doctrine goes, “if no breathing, if no pulse, in between AED shocks, do CPR.” In other words, ‘if a heart ain’t-a-beatin’, you better be a CPR’in.’
As an example, when I work on an ambulance, I got a call for a motorcyclist who ran into a wall. When I got on the scene, he was unconscious and had blood all over him. He had no pulse in his extremities, but I felt a faint pulse in his neck. I initiated CPR, and in a course of two to three minutes, I noticed serious bruising showing up over his chest and abdomen. He died en route to the hospital, and in talking with the doctor, I learned the patient died from the impact. The impact cut his aorta from his heart. He had bled into his cavities.
Would CPR help a guy whose aorta was bleeding into the body? No. And there are plenty of other cardiovascular emergencies which CPR has no efficacy (for example, cardiac tamponade - fluid in the sack around the heart), but due to doctrine, we do CPR regardless and sometimes, give a false sense of hope to ourselves and the victim’s family.
I'm also relieved to read this article because I too took a CPR course in high school from which I remember absolutely nothing. All I remember is kneeling over a dummy and cringing at the thought of putting my mouth on it when we had to share dummies with other students. I would hope that I would never be put in a situation where I would have to do it on another human. Surprisingly, I passed the course even though I didn't memorize the laborious process and couldn't honestly say that I knew how to perform CPR. But after reading this article I feel much more at ease and not so nervous about having to ever possibly do CPR.
But, I found a really interesting article about a new and promising CPR method. Instead of pushing down on a victim's chest, you press their abdomen which a biomedical engineer and professor Leslie Geddes says increases blood flow through the heart by 25% over the current CPR method. The article goes into further detail of how this method promises better results:
http://news.uns.purdue.edu/x/2007b/070905GeddesCPR.html
I may be alone, but I am not the least bit surprised by this article. I have been trained on CPR twice, and I still can't seem to remember all the complicated steps, not to mention the different variations for a baby, child or adult. I remember asking a question in one of my CPR classes about what would happen if I did the wrong breath/chest compression combination. What if I did the adult ratio on a baby...could that hurt the baby? I was taught in my classes that the important thing is just to get air into the persons lungs and to try to get the heart working again. Formal CPR is mostly just what research has proven to be the MOST affective way; however, in a crisis, any way is better than no way. Even if a person breaks a persons sternum in the process of pressing on their chest, it is better to have that person alive with a broken sternum then dead because someone was too scared to try CPR. I actually hope this "new CPR" encourages people to take action in a crisis, I sadly don't think it will, but maybe it will show people that like the article says, "all you can do is help".
Although this revised method may seem simpler than before, I think for many who tend to panic alot, this method has a chance of causing more injury than healing.
I have heard the common problem with performing CPR is that people panic and push too hard on a person's sternum and as a result may accidentally break a rib or two, which can then lead to more serious injuries.
The "push like crazy" directive is probably not the best, as vague descriptions like that lead to more dead people.
However given a choice between a couple broken ribs or death, the choice is pretty obvious. Despite my negativity though, I'd very much prefer someone push like crazy than not push at all.
CPR link: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89284540&ft=1&f=1003
Hahaha, what a great new method to save people. I personally think that this by far is easier than the old school cpr because i don't know how to do cpr at all. All that i know is what i've seen on tv and it's to tilt head back and breath into their mouth then push their chest i think? Well, something like that i hope. But now that it's changed, i think that more people will remember these instructions with ease. However, the new instructions are kind of dumb as well. If i had seen someone who's in need of cpr, i know that i'll be calling 911 immediately, i mean who wouldn't? The push like crazy part, i probably won't be doing though since i'm afraid that i'll push too hard and break something in there. Then there'll be more problems for when the paramedics get there.
I agree with what most people have already said, that this new method is much better compared to the old method. For one thing, it's more of a natural instinct instead of something to memorize. Most people tend to panic when something serious like possible drowning person needs help, which means that no matter how well you have managed to memorize the steps to giving CPR, you'll either forget them all or be in a condition that disables you from performing these steps. But with this new method, it's a lot more of what the average person would do anyway without having anyone teach or tell it to them. It also decreases the need for the rescuer to have knowledge of not only the steps to CPR (which most people learned in middle or high school), but also the know where the "bottom of the sternum" is. This new method is obviously more effective in saving people, as the stat from http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4483 shows.
I applaud the American Heart Association for simplifying the steps involved in the complicated conventional CPR that was established long ago. I believe that this hands only CPR method created by the American Heart Association not only makes performing the act of CPR much simpler but it also encourages the public to perform CPR on bystanders in need simply because everyone is capable of calling 911 and pushing hard and fast into the center of a person's chest. I also believe that this new hands only CPR creates awareness within the public because cardiac arrest that occurs outside of hospitals are much more common than we perceive it to be. According to this site that I found online http://www.hhnmag.com/hhnmag_app/hospitalconnect/search/article.jsp?dcrpath=HHNMAG/PubsNewsArticle/data/0510HHN_FEA_EnvirAsses&domain=HHNMAG
"In 2005, 133 million Americans had one or more chronic conditions. This number will grow 37 percent between 2000 and 2030, an increase of 46 million people."
It is clear that more and more Americans will suffer from chronic conditions as time passes by and the site also notes that the increasing state of obesity, medical bankruptcy, and rising costs of health care insurance is only adding to the problem. Therefore the AHA is doing its best to raise this awareness and solutions to help alleviate this problem through the establishment of procedures such as the hands only CPR.
I agree with many of those who are commending the American Heart Association for publishing this "new set" of instructions. I think a lot of people do fear doing something wrong if they are bystanders to someone needing CPR. Therefore allowing them to know that chest compressions are good enough until help arrives, will hopefully increase CPR giving. It's funny because within the last 23 hours the Canadian Press has commented and responded to the American Heart Association, obviously stating that it is not a new set of instructions, but an old one that now has evidence to prove its success. Most of all what I found surprising, yet unsurprising was the fact that they report only between 20-35% of victims receive CPR from bystanders. Scary!!! Hopefully this is a step towards more bystander help.
Link to Canadian Press Article: http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5hwJwRLnCn_N0NufDrDubm4Da2Cyw
I am curious to see if the new CPR method will have more success in the future than the old CPR method released by the American Heart Association. Although CPR has saved lives, depending on the victim’s situation, it’s true that media today highly exaggerates the success rates of CPR. I agree with the posts above. Our culture has indeed given the majority of us a “false sense of hope” when it comes to the effectiveness of CPR. But I guess hope is better than nothing.
http://health.yahoo.com/emergency-emergencycare/cpr-less-effective-than-you-might-think/harvard--COL031901.html
Many of the articles I’ve read state that bystanders don’t perform CPR primarily since they’re afraid of breaking a rib or doing something else wrong. However, it seems that liability issues also prevent many from helping others in general, since those who do not have liability insurance have a higher chance of losing their finances if they cause a death while trying to save a life. The article below is about a rescuer who pulled a victim out from a car crash. The rescuer ended up paralyzing the victim, and the court ruled that since the movement of the body was not considered “medical care,” the rescuer was at fault. It’s unfortunate that the law does not necessarily protect citizens that have the natural human instinct to save a person’s life. Good thing this isn’t the case with CPR (please correct me if I’m wrong). Although CPR would be considered medical care, perhaps bystanders thinking about such unlucky rescuing situations might have had a more rational reason for not performing CPR.
http://firstaid.about.com/od/medicallegal/a/07_no_good_sam.htm
In high school i remember learning about CPR with the fake dolls and what not. To tell you the truth.. i dont remember anything. I just always remember from movies that there is mouth to mouth. This new way of CPR actually helps fellow bystanders to not be as afraid to be in contact with the other person. This new method eases the situation of a cardiac arrest because there is no longer a need for a certified professional to be present. If the American Red Cross Association had came out with this new method earlier this would have been very useful to many people and in highschool there would be no mandatory CPR class. However it is probably more effective if we know the standard CPR way then just pushing hard on the person's chest.
I found an article that suggest reasons why we should use this new method.
http://chealth.canoe.ca/channel_health_news_details.asp?news_id=24865&news_channel_id=41&channel_id=41
After reading the article and seeing how easy the steps were for CPR, its amazing how much more in depth health classes were about CPR. I am really amazed by how two simple steps can actually save a person's life. I remember in high school, we would actually use fake human models in order to prepare ourselves for when an incident requiring CPR would take place. If the steps were so easy, then there wouldn't be such structured way of saving someone's life. Even though these steps seem like a "Dummy's guide on CPR" I think I would still be afraid to pump as hard as possible. Anyway, I hope America see these directions and actually are thorough and careful when they use CPR. I think America should have common sense when it comes to pressing at the right places otherwise, it would cause more pain for the person needing CPR instead of saving the person.
here is a website showing how to do CPR on people of different ages:
http://firstaid.about.com/od/cpr/ht/06_cpr.htm
This new approach to CPR is not only simple to remember but also will be responsible for many more saved lives. The old approach was way too complicated and involved violating more "personal space" with giving the victim a breath. As mentioned below, only 20-35% of bystanders would initiate CPR in the presence of a victim. Would the thought of giving somebody the "kiss of life" be responsible for that small percentage? Perhaps people are still wary about being "too close" to a stranger, even when the stranger's life is in danger. Luckily, according to Britain's telegraph online newspaper, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.
jhtml?xml=/news/2008/04/02/nhealth602.xml, giving somebody the "kiss of life" is unnecessary and chest compressions alone would help revive a person. This new finding agrees with the new American Heart Association's set of instructions for CPR. With this new method, it eliminates the need for the violation of personal space and could ultimately be responsible for more lives being saved. Also, since the technique is now more easy to understand and memorize, bystanders may be less wary to attempt to save the victim due to their newfound confidence and understanding of the steps of CPR.
I think it is very interesting how the process has extremely simplified, and I feel like that I can actually do something about it in case the situation arises. Previously, I had many friends going to CPR classes, which made me a little intimadated in terms of thinking a person had to be trained in order to properly save someone's life. Moreover, I feel the longer the procedure the more easily it is forgotten in a high-panic situation.
But at the same time, after reading an article from the NY times (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/01/health/research/01heart.html?_r=1&sq=CPR&st=nyt&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&scp=3&adxnnlx=1207170300-ZVvYaY4a8FdXUB8A5zxuZg), it's important to remember that CPR shouldn't be completely forgotten. The medics and AHA (American Heart Association) want to people, being anyone in this case, to immediately respond to emergency situations, especially since things happen unexpectedly and a trained individual may not be around. All in all, I think it is a friendly approach in giving people the ability to take part in saving lives.
I never learned how to do CPR I just figured that if someone had cardiac arrest in front of me I would run around looking for someone who knows how to do CPR while calling 911 and maybe yelling hysterically for the police. So, I'm glad that they've come up with an easier way to save someones life, one that requires very little effort and skill. I'm all for that. But it also makes me wonder why it took them such a long time to come up with such an easy solution to what used to be such a complicated procedure. Maybe soon they'll say that the way to prevent a stroke is to raise your left hand really high and skip on one foot for five minutes. Ok maybe that's a little far fetched but you get the idea.
I forgot to add the link.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/11/28/health/main1078009.shtml
This site also has a video that talks about how the new CPR works.
They've increased the number of chest compressions because they increase blood flow to the lungs and body. You need to keep the blood circulating by pushing down on the chest hard and fast. The number of times rescuers use defibulators has also decreased because the first shock works more than 85 percent of the time.
Now people have no reason not to help someone in cardiac arrest. This new way of CPR is so much easier.
I have been a lifeguard at a pool for several years and and I remember the first time I learned CPR and rescue breathing. I remember the class lasted two days and the CPR portion was about 4 hours long. If these new findings are indeed true, I could have saved a great deal of time by not taking thsese classes! I also remember hearing recently that they changed the number of chest compressions inbetween each breath but I havnt really been keeping up with it.
This sort of information though would be great if it was distributed to the masses and lives were saved because more people would be able to use a much simpler form of CPR.
I saw this article online and thought it was interesting. Check it out!
http://www.abc15.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=ce05b9b3-91cb-460b-9542-eeb52b6425aa
I read this article on yahoo as well. I am CPR certified by the American Red Cross, as well as, Ellis and Associates. I have been a lifeguard for almost three years and the only time I have used my skills was on my grandmother last thanksgiving. Since then, I have forced my family members to learn CPR. My supervisor reminds us at every training to tell our family members to dial 911 in case of an emergency, but most importantly to not be afraid to perform hard and fast compressions on the chest. Like the article says you will only help the person in need of help and your help will be greatly appreciated. Growing numbers of people die each year due to cardiac arrest. I beleive it is very important to not be afraid and use common knowledge when it comes to emergencies to possibly save a life.
For more information on CPR certification and training please visit: http://www.redcross.org/services/hss/courses/
It's understandable that there would be a new set of instructions for CPR. Improperly performed CPR can cause harm and not save anyone at all. I'm not savvy with CPR so I would rather just call 911 and push like crazy. I wouldn't trust someone's life in my hands, especially since I have no CPR training. To be honest, I'm not sure how many of us know the proper technique to perform CPR and I think that there is a smaller number that is actually certified.
When I was younger, I was enrolled in a Jr. Lifeguard program where they taught us cpr and we became "certified." But without practice and experience, I could not even tell someone all the tedious steps to cpr. I think the new cpr guidelines are much easier to follow and to remember. More people are going to be willing to give cpr to someone in need because they are not worrying about the strict guidelines they would have had to follow. A lot of people are also hesitate to give mouth to mouth which can hold back a person from giving cpr to someone in need. This new method eliminates the mouth to mouth making it easier for people to help!
http://www.kare11.com/sports/sports_article.aspx?storyid=503035
This is article states that more than 300, 000 people die from heart attacks in the United States where 70% of them happen at home. With this new version of cpr, young adults are going to be more confident to help their mom or dad if they are having a heart attack. I think that this is going to benefit more people.
I remember taking Health in high school and I had to learn CPR and it was actually very difficult for me to continue performing CPR on the doll. It is interesting how this "Hands Only" method can double the victim's chances of survival. All I can say is I am relieved to know that pushing hard and fast in the center of the chest can do more good than I previously thought and feel this is a method that can be used by all (this method was probably produced for the more germaphobic people).
This article is pretty actually helpful. I never had CPR lessons. Who needs CPR lessons when everything you need to know about CPR is online? I think this is a good way to show people how to perform CPR when someone who goes into cardiac arrest. This way it increases the chances of the victim to survive in a situation like this. I think I might have to go through some training for CPR for a summer job I might take. I don't know yet though. But with this information online, I can have a better understanding of it.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-03/aha-hcs032808.php
When I first read this post, I thought that it was a joke, some kind of excuse/joke about not knowing how to do CPR. After reading the real article, I now realize the real purpose of the "new set of instructions" for CPR. I'm actually not surprised that bystanders are known for not doing anything about someone going into cardiac arrest. Easier said than done, but until reading this article I never thought about how I would approach the situation. These new instructions no longer seem like a joke to me, instead I realize how these simple instructions can save a life. I wouldn't call this "new method" amazing because it's common sense. Maybe it'll be helpful for those who worry too much to a point where they would have let the person die.
I'm surprised that's all you need to do to double the chances of survival of someone that has collapsed. I took health and safety in high school and passed with an A, but to be honest, if placed in a life and death situation, I'd panic and probably freeze up, not knowing what to do.
http://depts.washington.edu/learncpr/quickcpr.html
I found a site that is somewhat similar to this CPR post. The site I found comes with basic diagrams and a simple procedure to the one posted on this blog. However, the site I posted involved mouth to mouth. Nonetheless, I guess the most important step in saving a person's life when they collapse, is the "call 911" part and the "push on chest."
I took a health and safety class in my junior year of high school and learned a much more complex way to give CPR to those who undergo cardiac arrest. There were way too many steps to remember which is never a good thing. In the event that someone in your surrounding area goes under cardiac arrest, trying to remember all the steps of that complicated method delays your own CPR response that you give to the adult in need.
This method of CPR creates a simple and effective way to provide aid to adults who have suddenly collapsed. I think this way of giving CPR will be way more successful in saving lives than the previous method. The one before was much too complicated and took too much time. This way bystanders can take immediate action instead of trying to remember all the complicated steps of the process.
http://www.ehow.com/articles_4043-p2-cpr.html?ref=fuel
here are articles which provide anything from "basic instructions to advanced tips and techniques" on CPR
I am very glad that the American Heart Association decided to change its CPR recommendation to the hands-only CPR method. I think this method will allow many people who witness cardiac arrests and don't know how to perform CPR feel more comfortable in trying to help the victim. I hope that this new method spreads around fast, and people watch the video demonstrating on what to do. It is really sad that so many cardiac arrest victims don't get the help that they need as soon as possible, especially when it only takes a few hard pushes in the chest. Like the AHA says, any attempt to CPR or help is better than no attempt. However, I am surprised that this Hands Only method is as effective as CPR in most cases. I always thought that CPR was a somewhat complicated process since you had to go through training to learn it, and the Hands Only method can be performed by almost anyone and provide very similar results for most cardiac arrest patients. I unfortunately do not know CPR, but I feel more comfortable now knowing that I can still attempt to help someone in need by knowing two simple steps: calling 911 and pushing hard and fast in the center of the chest.
Here is a link to an article talking about the AHA's new Hands Only recommendation, which also gives some statistics on how many Americans die of cardiac arrest every year and how many people who are stricken outside of a hospital survive:
http://www.thebostonchannel.com/health/15755843/detail.html?rss=bos&psp=health
I must say that I applaud the great minds who are working at the American Heart Association in simplifying such a complicated (is it really?) procedure into a much doable one. When such circumstances occurs, when a person needs CPR, most people are frantic and their minds are a blank slate. Its true. I mean. Most people would be panicking quite obviously because their "insert relationship" is in a dire situation and they have to stand by and watch. The AHA has made it simpler for people to help others because truth be told, you don't want to put your lips on someone who you don't really know, do you? This simplified procedure encourages people to utilize 911 and to just randomly push. I hope this method is effective and does not do the opposite of what it is intended to do, save lives. May many hearts keep beating due to this simplified procedure.
This new simplified version of CPR is not only more safe from infection and contact, so it saves many people. However, in the article I read from the San Francisco Chronicles, it reports that the hands only CPR can only be applicable for people who went through cardiac arrest. Children and drowned cannot be saved simply by hands only CPR.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/04/01/BAJ8VTF35.DTL
When I learned CPR, the instructor says not to press too hard into the chest or it will break the victim's ribs. After reading the Red Cross article I realized that to save that person's life is more important than that person's ribs.
Prior to reading this article, I thought that CPR was a fairly complex process that could ONLY be understood and properly performed if one took classes that solely cater to CPR. However after reading "Change in CPR Advice" my notions changed. It's comforting to know that The American Heart Association made alterations to its CPR advice because saving one who has a sudden cardiac arrest is easier; easy both in remembering the two simple steps, call 911 and push hard and fast in the center of the victim's chest, and in performing these actions.
The link below provides a more in depth explanation on The American Heart Association's new CPR advice.
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080401/LIFE02/804010361/-1/gallery
I always knew what the basic steps of CPR were, but I was never sure of how to correctly perform it. Like many people, I would honestly be afraid to step in if I were to come across a person with heart failure. Even if I did know the proper steps of CPR, I would feel as if all the procedures will fly out of my head when it is actually time to perform it (due to anxiety). The new CPR is much more practical and simple, allowing everyone to perform it without much pressure. The only drawback is that the new form of CPR cannot be performed on most children and on people that were drowning.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/04/01/BAJ8VTF35.DTL
I am an active member of the Boy Scouts of America and have been since 2000. One of the merit badges that I was required to earn in order to attain Eagle Scout was First Aid. In it, I learned how to properly use CPR on victims whose hearts have stopped and have stopped breathing. When I read this article, I was confused and amazed at the same time. Confused because I was never taught to use simply push hard and fast on the center of the chest. I was taught the conventional way of pushing on the chest and breathing into their lungs. The process of what I was taught is featured in the BSA handbook. I was amazed that new studies have corrected the old method of CPR.
http://www.scouting.org/HealthandSafety/GSS/gss06.aspx?print=1
This article talks about the Boy Scouts and their First Aid Training
I find this article extremely surprising as well. CPR has such specific instructions to help give support on specific body parts to help save a life, and now to find out that the specifics are no necessary is really interesting. I think it is really informative to know this new information because now if I or anyone is put in a situation where CPR would be needed most people are not trained or qualified to perform CPR and now pushing is the only thing needed to be done to help save a persons life. I know if I was put in a situation where someone needed CPR I would be afraid to do a step incorrectly and fear hurting the person or not knowing what is affective. I agree with the other comments where with this new discovery will help witnesses avoid standing and watching a victim and go ahead and take action.
It's interesting to read that hands-only CPR can be just as effective as mouth-to-mouth CPR: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/03/31/national/a130045D28.DTL&hw=cpr&sn=001&sc=1000
When I had to take CPR classes for a job, we learned the mouth-to-mouth method.
However, I feel like people will still be scared to help because of things like lawsuits. I heard from somewhere there is a chance of breaking the ribs of the person who is receiving CPR.
However, experts are say that those who receive while waiting for medical treatment have a better chance of surviving, as much as double or triple. I was surprised to see the huge difference hands-on CPR can make.
This article is very surprising, yet extremely beneficial! Every summer I work with young children between the ages of 7 and 12. Being a camp counselor and responsible for around eight young girls at any given moment, among other young children, it is important for the staff at the camp to be able to react accordingly and perform in a calm manner in the event of an emergency.
I remember taking a CPR certification course that lasted 8 hours straight. It was highly demanding and I learned a lot, although I could not help but wonder what happens if someone cannot react accordingly in an actual situation. The situation in which CPR is performed is highly demanding of an individual to stay calm in a time that is the complete opposite and there is no true way to practice that. It is impossible for CPR certification to put an individual in this exact real life situation. With the new guidelines, almost anyone can give CPR and the lack of complicated steps will give performers more confidence in doing so. Here is a related link describing a certain situation in which a bystander initiated action and helped save a life. It is unique that a stranger would do this and that alone is truly beautiful! The work of the bystander also contributed to the revision of guidelines by AHA.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23884566/
Personally for me, after reading the full report published by the AHA in their own Journal, i have the feeling that AHA is trying to cover themselves due to a lot of human error. This article and new advise applies to "bystanders" and "Trained people who forgot the more advanced training." Some online sources (not published- http://medicscribe.blogspot.com/2007/03/compression-only-cpr.html) have some "proof" that with an unobstructed airway when the chest is compressed the natural rise of the chest will draw air into the body (not a significant amount but I guess it is adequet). Lancet, the jounral that published this article also provided a podcast (http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/issue?issue=9565&volume=369) in which the publication was explained and defended stating that compression only CPR is meant for bystanders only and is effective only in primary cardiac arrest (blood is oxygenated) and not arrests due to respiratory (blood is deoxygenated) causes. So it is not alright to completely give up on breathing, lives still might depend on it and for the average person with no background compressions only are the best, at least the blood is flowing but rather it would be better to include breaths if the person is trained and confident because there is a chance that the it could be a respitory problem that would require both compressions and rescue breaths.
A published journal that I found compiled a lot of data and concluded that initinally (<4) the results were the same or very similar after that the chemistry of the blood had significant differences, it takes longer than 4 minutes to get an ambulence or more trained professionals. They also conclued that anything less than 6.5 minutes with chest only was sufficient to provide oxygen but anytime after the blood was not saturated enough with O2 to keep the body at "normal" levels.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T19-3VTRJPY-8&_user=4422&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000059600&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=4422&md5=419e73e7dc2bdb911d1646bedf3e5b13
Personally for me, trained lifeguard/cpr+professional rescuer/aed if i had a mouth guard of mask i would stick with the newly revised way of 2b:30c without protection i now have an excuse not to breath for the victim. I think politics are at work but that is just my oppinion.
I am relieved to hear that there has been a change in CPR. I took sports medicine back in High School and learning CPR was not my favorite topic. I was not fond with the idea of saving someone’s lives with my mouth. My main fear was; what if the patient had herpes? I found it ridiculous to carry the plastic mouth-to-mouth resuscitator (to prevent actual touching of mouth to mouth when performing CPR) all the time. What if someone needed CPR and I did not have the resuscitator? Plus, the procedure was complicated for those who did not have a strong medical background. I was only a junior in high school learning how to do CPR. Unfortunately, I do not remember what is the procedure is anymore.
If the new method is call 911, push like crazy…it sounds fine to me! But too good to be true. According to the CBS News website, it says “The guidelines also urge that 911 operators be trained to provide CPR instructions by phone.” It seems strange to me that if the new CPR is just call 911 and push, why are the 911 operators are being trained to give CPR instructions?
This is the link of the website if you want to read for further details. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/11/28/health/main1078009.shtml
It seems to me, and it is just my opinion, that the new method is to encourage the bystanders and myself to do something rather than standing there staring with our mouths open. The new method is too simple and will actually give the bystanders more confidence that he/she can save someone’s life giving numerous compressions to the chest. If the new method increases the number of people giving CPR and actually saves someone’s life, then we can’t complain that the new CPR is too simple!
I learned about CPR in high school, but unfortunately the only things i remember is what I see on television, when a character is all of a sudden in need of CPR (which almost every time, the character survives). I was ignorant however, to the fact that people were unwilling and/or hesitant to perform CPR when needed. I'm glad that they simplified the process and that the process still produces the same results. I'm curious to why they decided to eliminate the whole mouth-to-mouth part of CPR. Although, this does make things easier, and the fear of having to put your mouth on someone else's is eliminated. With a more comfortable way, hopefully percentages of people receiving CPR will increase.
Here is a link to a website that explains the new CPR process and why constant compressions to the heart can help save the person: http://www.wvmetronews.com/index.cfm?func=displayfullstory&storyid=24264
I too took CPR lessons and could never remember everything that was needed to be done except for, ask someone to call the ambulance, check for a pulse, and then push down on the chest multiple times. I like this new method much better.
The article attached describes how a man used this method to save a man who collapsed!
http://www.examiner.com/a-1312328~Experts_Now_Recommend_Hands_Only_CPR.html?cid=sec-promo
I am relieved to hear that there has been a change in CPR. I took sports medicine back in High School and learning CPR was not my favorite topic. I was not fond with the idea of saving someone’s lives with my mouth. My main fear was; what if the patient had herpes? I found it ridiculous to carry the plastic mouth-to-mouth resuscitator (to prevent actual touching of mouth to mouth when performing CPR) all the time. What if someone needed CPR and I did not have the resuscitator? Plus, the procedure was complicated for those who did not have a strong medical background. I was only a junior in high school learning how to do CPR. Unfortunately, I do not remember what is the procedure is anymore.
If the new method is call 911, push like crazy…it sounds fine to me! But too good to be true. According to the CBS News website, it says “The guidelines also urge that 911 operators be trained to provide CPR instructions by phone.” It seems strange to me that if the new CPR is just call 911 and push, why are the 911 operators are being trained to give CPR instructions?
This is the link of the website if you want to read for further details. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/11/28/health/main1078009.shtml
It seems to me, and it is just my opinion, that the new method is to encourage the bystanders and myself to do something rather than standing there staring with our mouths open. The new method is too simple and will actually give the bystanders more confidence that he/she can save someone’s life giving numerous compressions to the chest. If the new method increases the number of people giving CPR and actually saves someone’s life, then we can’t complain that the new CPR is too simple!
(Note to professor: dismiss XBUBBLESTARZ blog. I accidently signed on using a different account).
I was very shocked at first to encounter this new method of CPR. I was previously a lifegaurd and we were tested again and again on the importance of CPR and doing the procedure precisely correct. After reading this article it seems that the chances of you getting the same results if you are to just call 911 and push on the person's chest will be the same as if you did the several steps of the original CPR method. Honestly, I think that this is by far one of the best things that the American Heart Association could have done. Even as a CPR certified person I was still worried about forgetting a step in CPR or messing something up and making matters worse. I cannot blame people who just stand by and watch when someone goes into cardiac arrest since they think that if they try to help they might make matters worse. Now with these simple steps I believe if the situation arises that more people will respond accordingly. Here is a link that will take you to a site that explains the complex procedure of the old CPR method so that you can come to appreciate the simpleness of the new method.
http://depts.washington.edu/learncpr/
http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5hwJwRLnCn_N0NufDrDubm4Da2Cyw
I found this topic interesting because I have never really thought about what I would do in a situation where someone was having a cardiac arrest. It never really crossed my mind, but now that I think about it, I have no idea what I would do in this situation. I think I would be too scared to do anything, and I would most likely wait for someone else to be the hero. It is somewhat relieving that just these two simple steps could actually save someone's life, but I still feel like it is quite intimidating that someone's life is in your hands.
In the article that I found from the Canadian Press, there is a part that states, "Compressing the heart and continuing the blood flowing through the body has a great effect on the survivability of patients." This statement is one that caught my attention because it gives me some sort of scientific evidence that compressing the chest is actually beneficial. Before, pushing on the chest seemed like a superficial concept to me; it seems like pushing on one's chest would end up harming them more than helping. However, learning that the blood flows better by this process puts a sense of ease in me. So, maybe when a situation like this comes up, I will have the courage to act upon these two simple steps.
Also, I took a CPR class in high school because it was required for my physiology class. When I took this course, I found it interesting, and I tried to make the most of it. However, I think about a month later, I forgot everything about it. So, I could see why people could freeze up when they are pressured to perform CPR on someone in a life threatening situation. It is so hard to remember each of the steps normally, so being under pressure does not help either. I think that these two steps are really useful because they are simple and they stick to people's minds.
This new set of instructions may be simpler but vague to those who have not taken a CPR class. This instruction seems to only aid those who have substantial knowledge about CPR. Those who are ignorant of any past classes or lessons on CPR would panic with such vague instructions. In addition, it may encourage those without experience or knowledge about CPR to take rash actions. I believe that one should be substantially trained to perform an action as CPR.
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/first-aid-cpr/FA00061
This link shows a set of guidelines for CPR. I believe that to truly perform CPR correctly and safely, one should have substantial knowledge. This in-depth instruction on CPR would allow one to not act rashly, and after classes and lessons, be more confident to perform CPR.
Overall, I like the general idea of "hands-only CPR" because in most emergency cases people tend to panic. These two simple and easy to remember steps will most likely help to quell those feelings of panic and be more beneficial to someone who collapsed. However, I agree with the majority of the comments in that CPR isn't a cure-all. According to the AHA, hands-only CPR shouldn't be used on infants or children, adults who were already found unconscious, and on drowning victims. These three exceptions are better off with the combination of chest pumps and mouth-to-mouth. Also, I thought about injuries that could occur as a result of the recommended hard and fast chest compressions such as broken ribs, but the AHA bluntly explains that those injuries can occur. I guess once you factor in confusion/panic over the situation and the fact that a person's life may be on the line, then calling 911 and chest compressions seem reasonable and practical to do especially if you don't know the conventional CPR method. If I found myself in the situation I'm probably going to remember the hands-only CPR because the extra step of mouth-to-mouth breathing is somewhat confusing considering the information I have comes from what I've seen in movies or TV shows.
I found an article that shows how even emergency crews who are trained and expected to know the conventional CPR method are starting to focus on uninterrupted chest compressions through the new method of MIRC which includes an electric shock.
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/news/fullstory_62089.html
My AP Biology teacher made the entire class become CPR certified and all I can remember was that there were tons of little steps to remember and I could not get them exactly right. I remember feeling nervous to announce to people that I was CPR certified, just incase an emergency did come up and I did not remember what I was supposed to do and all I'd be able to show the unfortunate person in cardiac arrest would be my insignifcant scrap of paper proving my certification. This new method is going to make saving lives more efficient and easier. It is great that anyone can save a life now.
Here is an article titled "New CPR method improves results 500%" where it is explained that giving traditional mouth to mouth is a dangerous waste of time.
When I first read this post, I thought that it was a joke, some kind of excuse/joke about not knowing how to do CPR. After reading the real article, I now realize the real purpose of the "new set of instructions" for CPR. I'm actually not surprised that bystanders are known for not doing anything about someone going into cardiac arrest. Easier said than done, but until reading this article I never thought about how I would approach the situation. These new instructions no longer seem like a joke to me, instead I realize how these simple instructions can save a life. I wouldn't call this "new method" amazing because it's common sense. Maybe it'll be helpful for those who worry too much to a point where they would have let the person die.
I found something interesting on this website about CPR, maybe ANOTHER way to potentially save a person:
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/first-aid-cpr/FA00061
It says that the bystander shuold asess the situation before starting the CPR. First, one must see if the person is conscious or unconscious and if he/she IS unconscious, one simply shakes them and asks if they're ok. If there is no responses they also tell the bystander to call 911 and get another person can begin CPR. The website also says that if the person is alone, they should immediately call 911. (this has become quite the answer recently) Another clever way to remember when checking on the unconscious person is to remember the ABCs: airway, breathing, and circulation. Move quickly through Airway and Breathing to begin chest compressions.
In high school health class, they taught the older method of CPR. This including the unforgettable mouth to mouth resuscitation. From what I remember it was a bit confusing. This new and improved method comes off a bit easier and with a better chance of success. Instead of having to incorporate mouth to mouth, a larger emphasis is placed on simple chest compressions. Previously CPR had been stereotyped as a trained only procedure. Now, though training would probably be recommended, it is safe to say that the fear of having to provide CPR has slowly diminished. It still comes as a surprise that a persons life can come down to the simple act of pushing down on somebody's chest.
The new method shows promise and allows people of all ages to execute the correct move.
http://www.insurevents.com/Articles/CPR.htm
I'm a lifeguard and have had to learn both ways of doing CPR. When I first took the class I had to learn the old version which was way more complicated than the new version. There were different ratios of breaths to chest thrusts for Adults, Children and infants. It was crazy trying to keep them all straight. This new method is a whole lot easier. 30 chest thrusts for every two breaths. I think they made the switch, partially because the old way was too complicated. I learned it in class, yes, but I had to review it all the time during the first summer I worked at the pool. I always got the numbers switched around. The average citizen who takes the CPR class probably would never think about the steps after he or she had finished the class until they actually had to perform them. The new version is much easier to recall and, thus, perform than the old one. Red Cross is in the business of saving lives, not making sure everyone does the "correct" version. Every minute that a person goes without CPR means they are 10% less likely to survive. If the person who's about to perform CPR on them hesitates because he can't remember the numbers, then the victim is that much less likely to survive.
This is actually an extremely interesting article because it totally negates all information about resuscitation of a victim that we have learned throughout all of our sports activities, especially the local swimming lessons. I have been certified in CPR for many years, but as you think about it, there are too many tips and tricks to resuscitate someone using CPR. I don't really think that you would be thinking about tilting the "booger shooter" and performing mouth to mouth. Especially to a complete stranger because of all the viruses and diseases being rapidly spread nowadays. I think that someone with the CCR training would be more likely to help someone that is having a cardiac arrest(stranger or not) if they don't have to perform mouth to mouth in order to resuscitate.
Also, the rate of survival for CCR over CPR is astonishing. CCR victims survive 3 times more than victims given CPR.
All in all, I think that this study is extremely interesting and has good techniques for helping victims without even having serious medical training.
This article goes much more in depth about CCR: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/356990_cpr29.html?source=mypi
Its interesting to see the switch from using mouth mouth cpr to now hands only. I can understand seeing that most people would probably feel uncomfortable about the close contact but if its someone's elses life it should not matter. However the article goes to show that hands only technique is just as good. The article discusses how those who receive the hands only technique have a greater rate of survival. I can see more people switching to this technique because it doesnt seem as complicated as cpr. The hands only seems to be way more simple and less confusing.
http://cms.firehouse.com/content/article/article.jsp?id=58954§ionId=46
Wow, I find it really interesting that simply pushing down on a person's chest while they're in cardiac arrest has now been accepted as sufficient! All this time many have remained afraid to even go near someone in that type of state, I mean, who wants to feel responsible for making a situation worse, right? I know that in my experience, I wouldn't dare go near a person I saw collapse, let alone begin the process of CPR! Then again, now that it has become "hands only" it seems a whole lot less frightening. I might even be brave enough to one day try and be a hero. Hopefully many others will too, all they have to do is push! Seems to me like this is a good thing, lives could potentially be saved!
http://www.webmd.com/heart-disease/news/20080331/hands-only-cpr-gets-thumbs-up
I find this article to be very interesting, but I believe that the article also poses a lot of questions. It seems to me that the simple set of directions to repeatedly press on the person's chest and call 911 is too brief of directions for someone reading the article.
While reading the through the article, many questions ran through my head. What if the cardiac arrestee was an elderly man or a child? Everyone obviously has different bodies and I assume that improper CPR on an elderly person or a child might harm the victim even further, leaving more work and obstacles for the medical response to take care of once they arrive on the scene.
Some people do not even know which side of the chest the heart is on! It is astounding the simple facts that people do not even know. Some people would be just pressing on the wrong side.
I know that something like 10% of cardiac arrest patients survive from CPR, so if I were in the same situation, I suppose it would be best to do absolutely nothing besides to call 911. Skip straight to step 2.
Apparently the method is actually saving more lives though, which is obviously a great thing, but surprises me. Here is a link to a review now that it has been in affect for a bit: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2005/11/28/qc-cpr200
I remember only being taught CPR in junior high for about an hour and that was it. Sure, we had the dummy and saw the video's and all that, but I honestly don't remember it anymore. There were so many steps and the instructors would tell us to be sure and do it right otherwise we could damage the persons rib cage or cut off air supply. I do agree that people probably hesitate because they're afraid of doing something wrong and having a simpler way of providing CPR and not having to worry about doing it right or wrong will be very helpful.
The new CPR instruction makes it a lot easier to save lives. I did some research on the topic, and research shows that three times as many people survived a cardiac arrest when a new method of resuscitation. The old approach, the rescue-breathing instructions, may delay the saving process because people reluctant to perform mouth-to-mouth resuscitation. And it is also difficult to understand the technique. Many people learned it in junior high school, but get stuck in the real cases. So, the new method has been found very helpful and successful. It is really simple to tell and understand, instead of going to CPR classes.
http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art56299.asp
In this article, it provides some new information saying that “this procedure is not to be used in all cases where the person has stopped breathing and is unresponsive.” The goal of new CPR method is to get the blood circulating, because people who suffers a collapse may has enough oxygen in the blood. However, the method is not good for other situations like drug overdoses or carbon monoxide poisoning and children who are not breathing. In these cases oxygen needs to be added to the blood, so the mouth-to-mouth CPR method should be used. Hmm…No matter which method to be used, the final purpose is to SAVE LIVES. ^^
I have taken an American Heart Association CPR class this past December and was taught the traditional CPR technique and when first reading the blog thought it may have been a joke. After further reading about the new technique learned that compressions may be more important than giving the breathes of air.
This article shows that the hands only technique is better for persons suffering from cardiac arrest. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/16/health/webmd/main2579427.shtml
The important thing to remember is that the new technique works best for an adult who has collapsed, because he or she is more likely to be suffering from a cardiac arrest and breaths of air are less important. For a child who was about to drown, and needs oxygen, the breaths of air are important. One who is trained in performing the traditional CPR should use the traditional method for that case. One who is not trained, should follow the hands only technique, because something is better than nothing.
I remember all my friends taking CPR lessons for physiology class and life guarding in high school. They would carry a binder full of instructions. Now that the American Heart Association changed the CPR instructions; I wonder if CPR classes are even required. The instructions seem as easy as “stop, drop, and roll” or “duck, cover, and hold.” Is CPR something that will be taught in elementary schools at the beginning of the school year like the basic fire and earthquake instructions? It makes saving a life too easy. While I was researching through Google to find a related article, I found that changes in CPR happened in 2005 too.
http://www.rnews.com/Story_2004.cfm?ID=32432&rnews_story_type=62&category=10
CPR was changed so it could be simpler. Instead of having different compressions to breaths for different age groups the American Heart Association changed it to 30 compressions to 2 breaths for every age group. Now the American Heart Association changed it to call 911 and push like crazy. It seems as the instructions are getting easier and easier. No one has an excuse to not save a life now. Everyone is responsible for the person that needs CPR in front of them.
This article that the AHA has provided on how to perform CPR depicts the idea that CPR is easy and can be done by also any person. But to be honest, CPR is not as easy as they portrayed it to be.
Unfortunately, a couple of months ago my dad had a heart attack and paramedics rushed into our home and performed CPR on him for approximately a hour and a half and the pressure that was applied to his heart was unbelievably hard that they descriptions of how to perform CPR on someone according to the AHA doesn't seem so drastic.The pressure that was applied to my dad's heart caused him to have crushed and broken ribs, that's how much pressure that was added to him.
This article also doesn't explain what part of your hands to use because I'm positive that a specific area of your hand must be applied to someone's chest in order for the CPR to be effective.
This article also doesn't mention mouth-to-mouth resuscitation, which i thought was necessary during CPR.
I believe that an article i found would be more informative to people who would like to learn and know how to perform CPR just in case of emergencies:
http://depts.washington.edu/learncpr/childrencpr.html
it also comes with a demonstrative video.
AND also this website also informs people on how to perform CPR on children:
http://depts.washington.edu/learncpr/childrencpr.html
I was surprised that I can help someone survive from death with the new CPR method even though I have never trained. From now on everyone can perform this new CPR method and save a life of someone who collapses due to sudden cardiac arrest. This is great news that even I can perform the new method. Like the article stated, the procedure is simple to follow: call 911 first and perform hands-only CPR 100 a minute.
The article that I provided below stated that hands-only CPR is more effective tan the mouth-to-mouth breathing.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-cpr1apr01,1,2974745.story
Since everyone can easily perform and does not have to give mouth-to-mouth CPR, I hope this new CPR method would decrease the death of sudden cardiac arrest people.
This new method of CPR is obviously saving more lives than previously. The fact that everyone is aware that anyone can perform CPR on someone by simply pushing on their chest multiple times before the paramedics arrive, keeps that person's chance of surviving relatively level. So now that people have this extra confidence with CPR more lives are being saved once a person enters cardiac arrest.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/conditions/03/31/moh.cpr/index.html?iref=24hours
In this article, it talks about how it has shown improvement in the state of Arizona. The man that was stuck in his car after having a cardiac arrest was saved by a UPS man that was just around the corner and once he saw the car he rushed over and called 911 and immediately began to perform chest compressions. Once the paramedics got there they performed shocks to his chest which proved to establish a weak pulse again.
All in all, this is a great thing for people to know now. People have now seen that it works to just do chest compressions without worrying about breathing techniques.
Success rates for survival has increased for these situations and that is obviously a great thing for everyone to know that there is still hope and something they can do if a person is having a cardiac arrest, before paramedics arrive to the scene.
Sorry that last comment was by Sam White
Post a Comment