| The traditional International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation approach described above has been challenged in recent years by advocates for compression-only CPR, also known as cardiocerebral resuscitation (CCR). This technique is simply chest compressions without artificial respiration. The respiration component of CPR has been a topic of major controversy over the past decade. The CCR method has been championed by the University of Arizona's Sarver Heart Center, and a study by the university,[24] claimed a 300% greater success rate over standard CPR.[25] The exceptions were in the case of drowning or drug overdose.
In March 2007, a Japanese study in the medical journal The Lancet presented strong evidence that compressing the chest, not mouth-to-mouth (MTM) ventilation, is the key to helping someone recover from cardiac arrest.[26] An editorial by Gordon Ewy MD (a proponent of CCR) in the same issue of The Lancet called for an interim revision of the ILCOR Guidelines based on the results of the Japanese study, but the next scheduled revision of the Guidelines was not until 2010. However, on March 30, 2008, the American Heart Association broke away from the ILCOR position and stated that compression-only CPR works as well as, and sometimes better than, traditional CPR.[27]
The method of delivering chest compressions remains the same, as does the rate (100 per minute), but the rescuer delivers only the compression element which, the University of Arizona claims, keeps the bloodflow moving without the interruption caused by MTM respiration. It has been claimed that the use of compression only delivery increases the chances of lay person delivering CPR.[28]
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia |
Article Details