Are continuous chest compressions more effective than traditional cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR)? This is the question that will now be answered, all thanks to a large scale study to be launched in North America.The American National Institutes of Health will conduct a study involving up to 23,000 participants across sites in America and Canada. and compare whether it is more effective to deliver CPR or Continuous Chest Compressions, to a patient who has had a cardiac arrest.
Traditional CPR, which is currently recommended by the Australian Resuscitation Council, includes chest compressions with short pauses for ventilation (assisted breathing). This approach has been called into question by recent studies suggesting that stopping chest compressions to provide assisted breathing may interrupt overall blood flow, thereby lowering survival rates.
Continuous Chest Compressions, on the other hand, is a resuscitation method where rescuers deliver chest compressions continuously to a patient with no assisted breaths or other interruptions. This method was adopted by the American Heart Association in 2010 and is recommended by them for bystanders. Possible advantages of CCC for the lay person, include a more simplified resuscitation method and it’s capacity to overcome any possible rescuer reluctance to deliver mouth to mouth assisted breathing.
The study is expected to conclude in October of 2014 with results to follow. Full Story