Heart Association: Hands-only CPR works

  1. In a major change, the American Heart Association said Monday that hands-only CPR -- rapid, deep presses on the victim's chest until help arrives -- works just as well as standard CPR for sudden cardiac arrest in adults.
    Experts hope bystanders will now be more willing to jump in and help if they see someone suddenly collapse. Hands-only CPR is simpler and easier to remember and removes a big barrier for people skittish about the mouth-to-mouth breathing.
    "You only have to do two things. Call 911 and push hard and fast on the middle of the person's chest," said Dr. Michael Sayre, an emergency medicine professor at Ohio State University who headed the committee that made the recommendation.

    http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/03/31....ap/index.html
    •  
  2. Visit Kurious RN profile page

    About Kurious RN

    Joined: Sep '07; Posts: 78; Likes: 24
    from US

    19 Comments

  3. by   RN1989
    I am so sick of this mess. When this info from a study done by an EMS group out in AZ I think, came out a couple of weeks ago, AHA said that they weren't going to change CPR guidelines due to lack of appropriate study on the subject. Now suddenly they are looking at endorsing it???

    This last time I renewed ACLS they were pushing compressions instead of defib, stating that there were not enough good outcomes. Of course when I renewed ACLS prior to a year ago, the focus was on fast defib and not worry so much about CPR. And prior to that the focus had been on CPR and not defib, and on and on back to the dark ages of ACLS when people actually had to know something to pass the class.

    Last week I read an article that said that people weren't being shocked in a timely fashion, particularly in hospitals, and that CPR was fine but defib was needed more.

    Frankly - I believe it is all a crock. We are not God and we cannot save every life on the planet. The AHA changes their tune at every symposium because there aren't enough good outcomes. There isn't going to be a good outcome for every patient because we do not have the power to raise people from the dead. We can save some but not all, and certainly not all will come out without anoxic brain injury.

    I've watched over the years and I truly believe that the AHA is grasping at straws in an attempt to satisfy the general public's idea that a pill can fix anything regardless of how you treat your body. Either that, or as someone else has suggested before, they just need to change things to make sure that they get repeat customers for the classes so everyone can make a bit of money.
  4. by   rjflyn
    Quote from RN1989
    I am so sick of this mess. When this info from a study done by an EMS group out in AZ I think, came out a couple of weeks ago, AHA said that they weren't going to change CPR guidelines due to lack of appropriate study on the subject. Now suddenly they are looking at endorsing it???

    This last time I renewed ACLS they were pushing compressions instead of defib, stating that there were not enough good outcomes. Of course when I renewed ACLS prior to a year ago, the focus was on fast defib and not worry so much about CPR. And prior to that the focus had been on CPR and not defib, and on and on back to the dark ages of ACLS when people actually had to know something to pass the class.

    Last week I read an article that said that people weren't being shocked in a timely fashion, particularly in hospitals, and that CPR was fine but defib was needed more.

    Frankly - I believe it is all a crock. We are not God and we cannot save every life on the planet. The AHA changes their tune at every symposium because there aren't enough good outcomes. There isn't going to be a good outcome for every patient because we do not have the power to raise people from the dead. We can save some but not all, and certainly not all will come out without anoxic brain injury.

    I've watched over the years and I truly believe that the AHA is grasping at straws in an attempt to satisfy the general public's idea that a pill can fix anything regardless of how you treat your body. Either that, or as someone else has suggested before, they just need to change things to make sure that they get repeat customers for the classes so everyone can make a bit of money.

    Hold on take a pill. I work in the emergency department and come from a paramedic background, and I can universally say for a fact more often than not NO bystander CPR is being done prior to EMS arrival. If this simple change can get CPR being done even 10% more often we are going to save alot of lives.

    I also have taken emergency medical dispatcher (EMD) training as well, and from that it is difficult if not almost impossible to get someone to do CPR on another human being. Taking the putting your mouth near another persons mouth who more often than not has vomited or is bleeding is not something most want to do. The scripts were at the time I took the course pretty rigid for liability sake and if you could not get past A- airway you could not get past it.

    SO I for one say its about time.

    Rj
  5. by   LeesieBug
    The one thing I find slightly annoying is the "..works just as well as standard CPR" claim.

    If it supposedly works just as well, why maintain the current method at all?

    Then later the comment was made that for either adult OR child, "something is better than nothing". I definitely agree that something is better than nothing, but to hype up compressions only as being just as good then contradicting that by continuing to endorse the current practice makes me feel that it's somewhat of a ploy to get average folks to jump in doing compressions.

    Why make the big claim? Why not just send out a message to the public that you don't have to do it perfect, you don't have to do mouth- to- mouth, you don't have to be formally educated, just try doing compressions because it really does help!

    I think it reduces credibility to contradict your own claims.
  6. by   realnursealso/LPN
    http://handsonlycpr.eisenberginc.com/ Just read this on Yahoo. Thought you all might be interested.
  7. by   sirI
    Post #5 merged with existing thread.
  8. by   bluesky
    Quote from RN1989
    I am so sick of this mess. When this info from a study done by an EMS group out in AZ I think, came out a couple of weeks ago, AHA said that they weren't going to change CPR guidelines due to lack of appropriate study on the subject. Now suddenly they are looking at endorsing it???

    This last time I renewed ACLS they were pushing compressions instead of defib, stating that there were not enough good outcomes. Of course when I renewed ACLS prior to a year ago, the focus was on fast defib and not worry so much about CPR. And prior to that the focus had been on CPR and not defib, and on and on back to the dark ages of ACLS when people actually had to know something to pass the class.

    Last week I read an article that said that people weren't being shocked in a timely fashion, particularly in hospitals, and that CPR was fine but defib was needed more.

    Frankly - I believe it is all a crock. We are not God and we cannot save every life on the planet. The AHA changes their tune at every symposium because there aren't enough good outcomes. There isn't going to be a good outcome for every patient because we do not have the power to raise people from the dead. We can save some but not all, and certainly not all will come out without anoxic brain injury.

    I've watched over the years and I truly believe that the AHA is grasping at straws in an attempt to satisfy the general public's idea that a pill can fix anything regardless of how you treat your body. Either that, or as someone else has suggested before, they just need to change things to make sure that they get repeat customers for the classes so everyone can make a bit of money.
    I haven't laughed this much in a while
  9. by   sharona97
    Quote from rjflyn
    Hold on take a pill. I work in the emergency department and come from a paramedic background, and I can universally say for a fact more often than not NO bystander CPR is being done prior to EMS arrival. If this simple change can get CPR being done even 10% more often we are going to save alot of lives.

    I also have taken emergency medical dispatcher (EMD) training as well, and from that it is difficult if not almost impossible to get someone to do CPR on another human being. Taking the putting your mouth near another persons mouth who more often than not has vomited or is bleeding is not something most want to do. The scripts were at the time I took the course pretty rigid for liability sake and if you could not get past A- airway you could not get past it.

    SO I for one say its about time.

    Rj
    The CBS "doctor" on the morning show indicated this technique was only if you saw the victim "go down". There were other incidences mentioned when mouth to mouth would be needed. But, again it's the media?????????
  10. by   RGN1
    Here in the UK we were told this in our immecdiate life support (one up from BLS) mandatory training quite a few months ago. Basically the take on it here is that some attempt at CPR is better than none.

    We were told that in a "street" situation with an adult, where true mouth to mouth might be the only option but that choice was too distasteful, chest compressions alone have proved a good substitute & that some air is drawn into the lungs anyway by the act of compressing the chest.

    For a child mouth to mouth is the only hope but adults are different.

    Of course in hospital where we have pocket masks & ambubags it's not a problem but I know that I would not relish mouth to mouth in an adult I didn't know, who may have blood/vomit in/around his mouth. if I'm honest I would choose to only do chest compressions in those circumstances. However, I do have a disposable mask on my keyring (a gift from the course) so one person might be okay :-)

    Funny enough they ran this same story on the BBC news this morning too - I told my DH it was "old hat" to me!
  11. by   violet888
    Quote from Kurious RN
    In a major change, the American Heart Association said Monday that hands-only CPR -- rapid, deep presses on the victim's chest until help arrives -- works just as well as standard CPR for sudden cardiac arrest in adults.
    Experts hope bystanders will now be more willing to jump in and help if they see someone suddenly collapse. Hands-only CPR is simpler and easier to remember and removes a big barrier for people skittish about the mouth-to-mouth breathing.
    "You only have to do two things. Call 911 and push hard and fast on the middle of the person's chest," said Dr. Michael Sayre, an emergency medicine professor at Ohio State University who headed the committee that made the recommendation.

    http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/03/31....ap/index.html
    Thank you. I am sure that at our hospital the Hands-only CPR will need to be agreed upon by the Code Blue Team and management before it is accepted practice.
  12. by   rjflyn
    Quote from violet888
    Thank you. I am sure that at our hospital the Hands-only CPR will need to be agreed upon by the Code Blue Team and management before it is accepted practice.
    I don't think its for in-hospital use, the whole point is out of hospital bystander general public consumption. See my post above. John Q Public doesn't do CPR, that is unless you live in Seattle, WA then it like 1 in 3 know and you stand a change in hades of surviving an out of hospital arrest. Im in FLorida, I can only hope I drop at 1) Disney, 2) the airport, 3) Sea-world, 4) Universal or 4) work or 5) at home.
    Rj
  13. by   bluesky
    One of the docs I work with at clinic is a retired cardiologist who founded the whole cardiac surgery program at the local open heart hospital. Today he told me he's read all the studies and even knows the main physician proponent and says he's known about it for 10-15 years. He says if he goes down he wants compressions only...

    I wasn't really listening until he spoke because this man is widely worshipped as a god in these parts.
  14. by   clayah
    I've hear that in Europw this is what they have been doing will success - compressions only.
    The word needs to get out to the publice because I am sure people will respond to people who need CPR if they know they don't have to do m-m resuscitation.

close