CPR with compressions and breaths, or CPR with compressions only? That is the question currently being asked. In January we reported on the commencement of a large scale, North American study aimed at comparing the effectiveness of the two methods of resuscitation. Research conducted since has provided growing support for Compression only CPR, as the more effective method of resuscitation for bystanders.
A retrospective study conducted by a multi-national group of researchers, has shown that Compression only CPR as the more effective bystander resuscitation method. The study explored data of over 3,200 out-of-hospital CPR cases with casualties whose cardiac arrests were likely due to heart problems.
The findings showed that casualties that received Compression only CPR had a 9 percent lower rate of mortality than casualties that received traditional CPR including rescue breaths (Reuters). The researchers believe that these findings provide strong support for a ‘000’ dispatcher to instruct for CPR to be delivered with chest compressions alone rather than chest compressions plus rescue breathing.
A recent Japanese study has also supported Compression only CPR as the more effective means of bystander resuscitation. The researchers conducted a cohort study that explored 1376 cases of bystander CPR where casualties also received defibrillation from an automated external defibrillator (AED).
The researchers’ findings showed that casualties that received a Compression only CPR had a significantly higher 1-month survival rate then those causalities that received traditionally CPR. The results also showed that these patients also had more favourable neurological outcomes than the conventional CPR group. The researchers believe that Compression-only CPR is more effective than conventional CPR for patients in whom out-of-hospital cardiac arrest is witnessed and shocked with public-access defibrillation.