New CPR method promises better results

[Kaido]

Go save a life!

 

[spidey07]

Very interesting. But I'll wait until it has been proven in the field.

I think the risk of rib damage is a lot better option than internal organ damage.

 

[SacrosanctFiend]

Originally posted by: spidey07
Very interesting. But I'll wait until it has been proven in the field.

I think the risk of rib damage is a lot better option than internal organ damage.

What does it matter if you're dead?

 

[thepd7]

quite a bit of mis-information in the article. They say CPR only has a 5-10% success ratio but it's not that simple. Like they said the chances go down 10% for every minute without CPR. They make it sound like the new method will change that. It won't. If the brain goes an extended period of time without oxygen damage will occur.

I would say that the chances of someone surviving if CPR is administered within 4 minutes are MUCH better than 5-10%.

Also they make it sound like doctors are refusing to do CPR in the office because of mouth to mouth. I have an airmask in my car and I would hope most doctors do too. If someone around me needs CPR they are getting it.

It sounds promising, but I really don't like the wording of the article.

 

[ProfJohn]

My favorite version is the Richard Belzier NY version ?Get up before you fucking die!?

 

[ElFenix]

i see this doesn't take into account the recent find that it is the sudden oxygen rush that kills cells, not oxygen deprivation.

 

[ForumMaster]

Originally posted by: SacrosanctFiend

Originally posted by: spidey07
Very interesting. But I'll wait until it has been proven in the field.

I think the risk of rib damage is a lot better option than internal organ damage.

What does it matter if you're dead?

he has a point spidey. neither would be ideal, but CPR isn't very effective. if this can revive more people with no risk of infection, the risk of internal organ damage is acceptable.

 

[ProfJohn]

I went through some fire fighting and medical training with a fire fighter and he pretty much implied that if you are giving mouth to mouth and CPR that things are in pretty bad shape. I would certainly believe the 5-10% survival rate. The person is essentially dead when you start CPR, you are trying to bring them back to life.

 

[911paramedic]

CPR does NOT save lives, cardioversion does.

He is talking apples and oranges. The 10% a minute refers to the delay in cardioversion, not how long you perform CPR. (You will NEVER revive somebody with CPR alone, you are prolonging their chances of being cardioverted.) I also wonder wtf he is talking about with doctors and nurses not wanting to do mouth-to-mouth, because professionals don't do that. We use bag valve masks and intubation, removing the mouth-to-mouth contact.

Wow, reporters should do SOME research before being allowed to write an article.

 

[Lord Zado]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
i see this doesn't take into account the recent find that it is the sudden oxygen rush that kills cells, not oxygen deprivation.

Yeah, I remember reading that article a month or two ago as well.

 

[thepd7]

Originally posted by: 911paramedic
CPR does NOT save lives, cardioversion does.

He is talking apples and oranges. The 10% a minute refers to the delay in cardioversion, not how long you perform CPR. (You will NEVER revive somebody with CPR alone, you are prolonging their chances of being cardioverted.) I also wonder wtf he is talking about with doctors and nurses not wanting to do mouth-to-mouth, because professionals don't do that. We use bag valve masks and intubation, removing the mouth-to-mouth contact.

Wow, reporters should do SOME research before being allowed to write an article.

agreed, maybe some good info but a whole lot of mis-information.

 

[eits]

i, for one, will never carry a board that looks like home plate with handles around in my back pocket.

cool article, though.