This coming November, American Heart Association will convene to reevaluate protocols currently in used in using resuscitation and CPR. This year also marks the 40th year since the same association adopted CPR or cardiopulmonary resuscitation to be the primary and immediate intervention to rescue breath and pulse.
This coming November, American Heart Association will convene to reevaluate protocols currently in used in using resuscitation and CPR. This year also marks the 40th year since the same association adopted CPR or cardiopulmonary resuscitation to be the primary and immediate intervention to rescue breath and pulse. Many members of the AHA in medical uniforms and other critics are insinuating that this November meeting will be the time the association will scrap out CPR of its previous status and replaced with another form of intervention. This grants that CPR is becoming obsolete and that a new way is emerging to be better than the former. But why is it that only after 40 years that the association has planned to convene to tackle about the drawbacks of CPR and present a new approach? The answer simply lies in the bigger schemes of things surrounding the effectiveness of CPR and how its successor surpassed CPR’s capability.
Cardiopulmonary resuscitation has been widely regarded as the primary medical intervention in an out of hospital patient that suffers from heart attack or cardiac arrest. CPR is done at a rate of 100 chest compressions per minute and is interrupted in betweens by rescue breaths often known as mouth-to-mouth resuscitation. In the records and surveys of practitioners in medical uniforms, only 25% of patients without a pulse survive using this kind of intervention. CPR is also very effective as reviving intervention to drowning or poisoning victims as air breathed to a patient may cause the vacuum in the lungs to be moved thereby causing blockade to be burst out.
Cardiocerebral resuscitation advocates however discredit the effectiveness of CPR with respect to cardiac arrests. In an article posted in the health section of Popular Mechanics online, the advocated said that CCR has been confirmed to have higher survival effects to patients as compared to the CPR.
“[C]onstant pressure on the chest maintains a constant blood pressure, which insures blood flow to vital organs. In CPR, when a rescuer turns from his chest compressions to give the breaths, the blood pressure quickly drops to near zero and the blood stops flowing to the brain and other vital organs. Blood pressure is built up slowly over the course of the compressions, so when the rescuer returns to them, he or she has to make up for lost time,” read the Popular Mechanic’s article.
There had been many debates about the effectiveness of the two interventions and currently it is viewed to be one of the topics that will be decided upon by the American Heart Association. The proposal would be that CPR be lifted as the standard intervention for cardiac arrest patients but can still be used for other cases that it may be deemed helpful like drowning, drug overdose and for children. The views on the use of CCR do not actually disprove the effectiveness of CPR in general but only to a particular instance which is cardiac arrest. The main collaborating substance in the study was that, if the patient’s blood flow is not hindered by breathing in by the medic, chances are that oxygen will not be deprived the brain causing lesser damage. The interruption in CPR caused by breathing in is said to have contributed to its lower survival ratio compared to the CCR.
We can have a full glimpse of the decision of the professionals in medical uniforms once they meet in November. What concerns the patients and other practitioners mainly is not the technicality or whatever it maybe but the thought that whatever method will be advanced as long as it can help will be highly accepted.
Geo loves to write about the issues affecting the medical field and the professionals in medical uniforms. Here he talks about the famous first aid process.