Talk:Cardiopulmonary resuscitation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Medicine / Emergency medicine and EMS (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that this article follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Emergency medicine and EMS task force (marked as Top-importance).
 
WikiProject First aid    (Inactive)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject First aid, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.
 
WikiProject Death (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

When to use CPR[edit]

I have given CPR once, to a 3 year old. She choked on vomit and stopped breathing, indicated by her skin TURNING BLUE. When a person's blood circulation is no longer carrying oxygen to the skin, the skin turns blue-white. If both the heart and lungs are working, the person has pink skin. The girl turned back to pink once her air passage was open and she began breathing on her own. My Flatley (talk) 01:34, 12 December 2013 (UTC)


Wrong rate[edit]

The mentioned "rate of at least 120 per minute" is wrong, at least after the ERC guidelines (100-120/min). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.78.139.116 (talk) 16:49, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Not wrong, in Australia at least; a one-minute cycle is 30 compressions and 2 breaths - FOUR times per minute. This equates to something faster than 120 compressions per minute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.31.110.16 (talk) 08:17, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Compression only CPR[edit]

I've started editing the article to take into account the AHA's stunning reversal on compression -only CPR (see changes in first paragraph). I thought they would have to do it with the Guidelines revision in 2010, but they surprised me. This is historic: 50 years of saying you need to do mouth-to-mouth, and now it turns out it doesn't matter. Some of the lay press articles (like the Canadian one that comes up at the top on a Google search for CPR) make it sound like this is merely a clarification of existing guidelines, but it's not. Formerly, it was do full CPR unless you're a squeamish little wimp, in which case you can just do chest compressions. Now the AHA is acknowledging that compressions-only is just as good in terms of survival--which of course means better, since bystanders will obviously do it more often and more quickly. I feel confident that further research will show CCPR is actually better for survival, but never mind for now.

I think the whole CPR article needs to be revised in light of this development. This is important because the article is used by the interested lay public. Let's make this a group effort. texasex (talk) 20:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

It is important to remember that this was only the guidance of the AHA, which is only one of the organisations which make up ILCOR who set the international guidance, and as an international encyclopaedia, the article should be reflective of this. Now, that isn't to say i'm not in favour of compression only CPR, and the ambulance service here uses protocol C, which comes from one of the academic studies which form the basis for high compression CPR, although it actually uses 200 compressions to 2 ventilations, with a high success rate. One of the reasons that compression only CPR is as least as effective as CPR with breaths is that the survival rate is only any good when there is early EMS intervention, who will certainly use airway intervention and ventilations - by this time the oxygen saturation won't have dropped. If the EMS is delayed, the survival rate with no ventilations will be lower if the airway is not secured, due to lack of oxygen to circulate. Because of the mixed guidance currently in circulation, the lack of firm evidence on compression-only efficacy in bystander pre-hospital and of course, because WP is not a how-to guide (that'll be Wikibooks) we should be careful in what is written here about it. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 21:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Skewed success rates?[edit]

Aren't the success rates of CPR skewed due to the population it's often used on? Meaning, CPR is rarely given on healthy teens, 20 or 30 year-olds. CPR is primarily used on the elderly or those with a pre-existing heart condition (i.e. heart disease). Therefore, their survival rate is already drastically lower than normal. -- MacAddct1984 13:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

That has not been my experience at all. I have observed more bystander CPR performed on young people, on those rare occasions they experience a sudden cardiac death. Paradoxically, younger people have less collateral circulation. They are not necessarily easier to resuscitate. Generally speaking, survival rates are abysmal due to failures in a community's chain of survival, and bystander CPR is only a small part of those failures. When you say "drastically lower than normal" you have to define "normal" and that's not easy to do, even for epidemiologists. MoodyGroove 14:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove
Have to agree here. Most elderly or infirm patients (high risk group) will die at home, with nobody able or willing to perform CPR on them. For younger patients, they are much more likely to be out in public, where there is a greater chance of CPR being performed. Have a look at some of the journals linked from the Prevalence and effectiveness section for more info on this. Owain.davies 19:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Automated CPR devices[edit]

Then prove the notability, Owain.davies. The AutoPulse is a lot better known in the U.S. I've never heard of those other devices. MoodyGroove 19:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

Are you now happy with the notability of the devices in this section? I think we now have a good balance between commercial links and references. Owain.davies 18:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Comments about AutoPulse removed from article[edit]

These comments:

The autopulse device does have its problems as seen here, in the case of Riverside County Has Suspended Use of AutoPulse Jacket, where a 77yo man was subjected to the autopulse and later died from cracked ribs and internal injuries. The autopulse is purely mechanical, and so with no feedback will actually be detrimental to patient safety. Often called thumpers, these devices have been around for 40years, and will soon be phased out. Another autopulse trial against manual cpr here noted that the autopulse was harmful compared to manual CPR with the survival rate dropping from 10% with manual CPR to 6% with the autopulse.

were removed from the article because they give undue weight to anecdotal experiences with the device and do not conform to Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. Please see the AutoPulse article for a more balanced review of the available evidence. MoodyGroove 13:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove


First Sentence[edit]

I will question the first sentence, CPR is used for people who "lost" pulse, not just Cardiac Arrest. October 20 2007 Kullwarrior —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.149.170.5 (talk) 21:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

FYI, those mean the same thing. "Has lost their pulse" is colloquial language for "Is in cardiac arrest" Mike.lifeguard | talk 23:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
American Heart Association protocols (based on the 2005 ILCOR protocols, I believe) also call for CPR in paediatric bradycardia. Given that CPR can be used even when a pulse is present but too weak to be felt, I'm happy with "cardiac arrest" given that this article is not intended to be overly technical. Andrewjuren(talk) 23:53, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
It is also called for during Ventricular Tachycardia (Where it goes pulseless), as there is no blood being pumped round the body anyway... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.206.95.11 (talk) 12:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


On reflection, this could be misleading, as you do use CPR for ineffective heat beats (such as in babies with a pulse < 60, for instance. I'll give the wording some thought. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 12:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Rate of return of spontaneous circulation[edit]

40% (the rate quoted in the table for bystander CPR) sounds like a suspiciously high rate of ROSC. Is is not more likely that a large proportion of these were cases of wrongly diagnosed cardiac arrest? Also the citation does not seem to link to the original research article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.30.251.38 (talk) 19:42, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


Exactly! That is what pisses me off so much about these new protocols. CPR, AR, and choking protocols are all dumbed down. The excuse that 40% of people can't detect a pulse holds no water with me. The protocols should assume the person using them is being TRAINED to do so- they SHOULD be training them to detect a pulse, and not certifying them until the trainees demonstrate that they can do so, consistently. Instructing that CPR should be done WITHOUT a pulse check - how many people have died from having their heatbeat stopped with this method?? Disgusting. AR, checking the pulse then not doing so again for TWO MINUTES!! We were trained to check between breaths, so we could start CPR right away if necessary. There is no point in doing AR to a body that doesn't have a pulse. With choking, they don't teach proper placement of the hands while the patient is standing, and when they are prostrate, chest compressions instead if abdominal thrusts??? The assumption is when someone collapses in front of you with a obstruction they still have a heart beat. Chest compressions could very well kill them, and abdominal thrust are way more effective. These people are idiots - how can they make these techniques the standard for teaching? - at the very least these new protocols are inefficent, and in my opinion, criminal. This is in the vein of, "The surgery was a success, but the patient died." The organizations have a obligation to teach to the highest standard, and dumbing down to the lowest denominator is reprehensible. I was trained to a higher standard than this (formerly called industrial.)by a excellent and decorated instructor/EMT, am taking a standard course tomorrow, and am dreading having to perform and respond to testing I know is not up to par, just to get a ticket that isn't worth the paper it is written on. I know this is not the place to vent, this page is only about CPR, but I am so angry I could spit. The thought of the lives that will be lost because ILCOR assumes the people being trained are so stupid they can't HANDLE PROPER TRAINING sickens me. Shame on them. Thanks for letting me vent here guys. 207.6.54.61 (talk) 15:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Merger Proposal[edit]

What do people think about merging some of the information from History of CPR and then removing that article...that one seems redundant. Lateknightucd (talk) 17:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - The level of detail is far too high in history of CPR to be in the main article. Normal WP policy is to have daughter articles to reduce article sizes for things like this. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 17:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Understood OwainDavies. I'm new at editing and I'm still getting the hang of things. Would you prefer I remove the references to a merger discussion from the pages based on that level of detail? Lateknightucd (talk) 17:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Not necessarily - it's good that you're taking an active interest. Mine is not the only opinion out there, and others may disagree with me. The use of 'daughter' articles is useful, because it allows articles to focus on core subjects without getting sidetracked. If you agree, you could remove the tags, but don't feel obliged to just because I object. Regards, OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 17:44, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually, the use of daughter articles makes a lot of sense in keeping the core article concepts at the forefront. Thanks for the info, I'll remove the tags shortly. Lateknightucd (talk) 17:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

CCR/CPR[edit]

CCR and CPR very, very different.
Created CCR page. Needs expansion please.
Be referenced. EMS Mag had great article.
Vengeance is mine, saith the Prime 06:42, 2 Aug 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - I'm sorry, but CCR is just a CPR variation, and the cardiocerebral article on its own was already redirected here. The difference is negligible - even CCR involves insufflation, just at longer intervals. Some UK ambulance services now perform CPR at 200:2, but where would you draw the line between the two? OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 15:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Line is drawn at >0 breaths and 0 breaths.
CCR by definition is no breaths.
Anything with breaths is not CCR.
Major difference? layresponder.
See reference; more will follow.
Vengeance is mine, saith the Prime 16:39, 2 Aug 2008 (UTC)
Lay responders and professional both use forms of CPR - we don't have a CPR (lay person) article separately! If you look at history of CPR, you've got things like Holger-Neilson method, which also doesn't have any breaths, but still sits in CPR. This is just a protocol difference, and doesn't need a separate article. It was previously in existence, and merged in to this article, which is what we should continue to do. Concentrate your efforts on expanding the section of this article. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 17:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
In fact - even the article you're citing is titled 'this new model of CPR' - protocol only! OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 17:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
And regarding the assertion about 0 breaths - that's not true either. If you look at the protocol, it involves breaths after 8 minutes. The article also recommends the protocol to be used by EMS professionals, so i'm afraid your arguments don't stack up. This is just a protocol variation and should stay in this article. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 17:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
(Edit Conflict)
Realize ATM I'm going from memory.
I'll double-check later.
Will focus here; didn't want it to get too large, though!
Personally, dislike CCR/"hands-only" passionately.
Will work more later when have more time.
Thank you.
Vengeance is mine, saith the Prime 17:17, 2 Aug 2008 (UTC)
Ironically, i'm a big advocate of compression only CPR - i've seen what it can do on real patients! OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 17:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I should clarify.
CCR is awesome in that it helps people react.
"Something is better than nothing" is a line I HATE but have heard.
Thus I support CCR, but believe "proper CPR" to be better...more research will tell of course.
Bottom line is still Early Intervention - Early Defib - Early EMS, yes?
(And FWIW, I'm slowly becoming sold on CCR in a greater/general usage.)
 :-)
Vengeance is mine, saith the Prime 18:24, 2 Aug 2008 (UTC)
(What I dislike passionately is that some see it as an easy way out..."I don't need to get trained"...and the like.)

Agree that the chain of survival is still key for all patients. If you look at some of the studies of prevalence, one of the main reasons bystanders gave for not giving CPR was the MTM element, and this will help. I think that compression only is brilliant for EMS professionals - the 200 compression then shock used here (and also what the article recommends) is very effective indeed. All callers to the ambulance service here are also now advised to do the compressions only, although what is really important is to also maintain patent airway - which is where the training comes in! OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 18:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Yes, and Yes!
After all this time, it's still about the ABC's. Especially A.
The bystander fear is the biggest benefit I see, as professional responders will typically have AED or ALS or both.
I am interested to see where this will continue to take us!
Vengeance is mine, saith the Prime 18:56, 2 Aug 2008 (UTC)


Whether or not CPR and CCR are significantly different, CCR should be mentioned somewhere in this article as a related method (or at least linked in the See Also section). The only mention appears in the Effectiveness chart, but the term is never defined or linked. (Indeed, I saw "cardiocerebral resuscitation" in the chart and did not know what it is; so I came to this Talk page to suggest that some clarification is in order.)Starling2001 (talk) 16:26, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

We discuss it here Cardiocerebral_Resuscitation#Compression_only Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:40, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Timing[edit]

How many compressions per minute? About 100 they say. Not many people have a feel for that. So perhaps the beat of songs like 'Stayin' Alive' by the BeeGees (appropriate) or 'Another One Bites The Dust' (not so appropriate) would help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LGD3 (talkcontribs) 05:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

That might be more appropriate at WikiBooks First Aid, as that is definately a 'how to' - which Wikipedia doesn't do. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 10:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. I think that in an article about CPR the proper rhythm is worth mentioning as well as the fact that a lot of people who are teaching CPR are now using “Staying Alive” as a reference point. It depends on how you word it. --ITasteLikePaint (talk) 21:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
If you want something really innocuous at ~100bpm, "The wheels on the bus" is another good one. :-) Still, I'm forced to agree with Owain that Wikipedia is not a how to site. Jclemens (talk) 22:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I know this is an old discussion, but is the ironic and humorous example of "Another One Bites the Dust" really appropriate here? I know that people are unlikely to consult Wikipedia in the case of an actual heart attack, but even so putting a song about sudden death in an article about increasing the odds of survival of a dying person seems pretty insensitive. Jclemens recommends "The Wheels on the Bus" as an example that many people know, and if for whatever reason you don't like that one, there are plenty more. 100 bpm is a very common rhythm; you don't have to deliberately use the worst possible example. 2605:A000:F483:4300:4C9B:1522:F8D7:FA20 (talk) 07:04, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Procedure...[edit]

I don't understand one thing; how does the article on CPR lack the actual procedure? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.248.175.231 (talk) 05:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia is not a "how to" --ITasteLikePaint (talk) 06:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
It is just weird that there is info regarding differences in the procedure without the actual procedure being told to the reader first. CPR is a procedure. The article should leave the reader with knowledge of what is done during CPR and approximately how. I'm not saying to put a step by step guide, I just find it funny that I google CPR, expecting to click the first result and to leave with a general idea of how it is done. Everything is told about it except for what it actually is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.248.175.231 (talk) 07:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
In addition, the other two articles Airway management and Bleeding control to the sides of CPR in the "First Aid" box at the bottom of the article leave me with knowledge of what to actually do to perform these Techniques. CPR doesn't at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.248.175.231 (talk) 07:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I nearly had to perform CPR, and went to this Wikipedia article first, but wasted time trying to look for the procedure where there was none. Seeing as how Wikipedia is such a high-profile, trusted site and is the third result for 'CPR' under Google, Wikipedia should make an exemption and include procedure. It would save multiple lives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.120.201.135 (talk) 13:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree the procedure should be included, particularly as the history section contains descriptions of outdated procedures and the alternate methods section contains procedural variations. It would not make the article excessively long, it is pertinent to the explanation of what CPR means relative to outdated or alternate methods. 76.23.35.66 (talk) 04:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Interesting, the Choking article (where Heimlich Maneuver redirects to) has a section on treatment. The section is not called 'Technique', but if Treatment detailed isn't how-to ... MornMore (talk) 08:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

ROSC vs Survival[edit]

This article does not really make clear the difference between ROSC and survival in the tables of CPR effectivness. Could someone clarify this so non-CPR trained idiots such as myself can understand :). JakeH07 (talk) 03:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, i've put the start of an explanation in there. The upshot is that ROSC means the heart is beating again, so you've won the battle. Survival means they actually get discharged from hospital, so you've won the war. Very different things! OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 06:12, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks very much, that make a lot more sense. JakeH07 (talk) 06:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Section on 'Indications'[edit]

Today, User:Gak added the section below:

There are only a few situations under which CPR can reasonably be expected to have a successful outcome: unexpected cardiac arrest due to a heart attack, an adverse reaction to anesthesia, a drug overdose, or an accident like drowning or electrocution. CPR is unlikely to work in cardiac arrest due to other causes.<ref>{{[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki/Template:cite%20web cite web|title=CPR: It's Not Quite Like 'ER'|url=][http://www.rwjf.org/pr/product.jsp? http://www.rwjf.org/pr/product.jsp?]id=21335|author=Robert Wood Johnson Foundation|accessdate=18 May, 2009|date=31 December, 2004}}</ref>

I've removed this again, because I feel much of this is covered elsewhere, and the source cited doesn't exactly support the position stated. The source article is about end of life care for patients with co-morbidities, and the examples given are clearly non-exhaustive as part of the article. Looking at it, i think maybe end of life care for terminal patients isn't covered very much here, and i'll try and find some info to change that, but if anyone else gets there first, i suggest maybe the 'use in cardiac arrest' section might be the place. Also, the source article talks about chances of survival to discharge of a cancer patient (2%), but doesn't state a source - we could add that info to the 'chance of surviving' section.

Thanks OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 18:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


History of CPR[edit]

"CPR has been known in theory, if not practice, for many hundreds or even thousands of years; some claim[who?] it is described in the Bible, discerning a superficial similarity to CPR in a passage from the Books of Kings (II 4:34), wherein the Hebrew prophet Elisha warms a dead boy's body and "places his mouth over his". Up until the early 19th century, however, other methods of stimulation – such as the tobacco smoke enema – were considered equally or more potent methods of resuscitation."

Removed unsuported claim, weasel word of more than 4 months, and probably "original" research. Waiting for scholarship support of the claims to restore it. 190.158.14.75 (talk) 06:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

http://cdm.sos.mo.gov/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/libertytrib&CISOPTR=104330&CISOSHOW=104341&REC=15 Look under resuscitation of the drowned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.145.76.243 (talk) 22:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Paper on survival in the NEJM[edit]

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/361/1/22?query=TOC --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Interposed Abdominal Compressions[edit]

I wonder if something should be added to this article concerning "Interposed Abdominal Compressions?" (Just do a search on Google for that phrase; there's plenty out there about it.) It might just save somebody's life. Also, although admittedly not directly related, it might be worthwhile to mention that if the person is conscious, they should perhaps take a couple of aspirin. It's a blood-thinner and has been recommended for heart attack victims. It might just save somebody's life.

I think the interposed abdominal compressions looks very interesting, and definitely deserves adding to the article. Not so much on the aspirin, as this is about CPR directly, and therefore patients will not be concious, but good idea on the IAC. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at

CPR Switch: Chest Presses First, Then Give Breaths[edit]

This article needs an improvement: Heart group flips the old "ABC" -- airway, breathing, compressions -- to "CAB"! Story --Angeldeb82 (talk) 22:57, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

(Repeat of my comment at ABC (medicine) I think you may have not fully grasped the outcome - patients should still have their airway opened and breathing checked prior to commencing CPR. The acronym is still valid and in the correct order. You don't start CPR on someone who is breathing! In either case, this is not a how to manual and the compressions first CPR has been the international standard for several years. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 06:43, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I also responded to you at the ABC (medicine) article, so I won't rehash to much of it here, but the 2010 Guidelines from the AHA do not include "Look, listen, and feel." The first step is recognition, which is described as "No breathing or no normal breathing (ie. only gasping)." The next step for Heathcare Provider level is palpating a pulse for no more then 10 seconds, no pulse, start CPR with compressions first. After one cycle of compressions, the airway is opened and rescue breaths are given. 2010 AHA recommendations follow the pattern C-A-B. It will be interesting to see how the rest of the international community takes this recommendation. Rmosler | 14:06, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes CPR has changed per AHA/ILCOR to CAB as Mosler mentions for most cases ( adults and children except in drowning and newborns ). The document explaining the reason is here [1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Some changes[edit]

I made some changes to the lede, utilizing a more active voice, and some changes were made to include some more nuanced facts. I was a little bold, but can explain in more detail if necessary. [2] Rmosler | 15:10, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

New 2010 guidelines for CPR[edit]

Here it is and I will begin the update. Feel free to join in. [3]

Formatted: American Heart Association (Oct 2010). "2010 American Heart Association Guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science". Circulation 122 (S639). doi:10.1161/CIR.0b013e3181fdf7aa. 

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:29, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Each section actually has its own PMID thus the first is
  • Field JM, Hazinski MF, Sayre MR, et al. (November 2010). "Part 1: executive summary: 2010 American Heart Association Guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care". Circulation 122 (18 Suppl 3): S640–56. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.110.970889. PMID 20956217.  Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

As i have just edited, the guidance is not for 'lay' rescuers but for 'untrained' as given in the citations. They are different things. A lay rescuer (i.e. non professional) who is trained should give breaths. The specific example given in the new guidance is that telephone guided lay people with no training should use compression only.

Agree and changed Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:08, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

ERC 2010 guidelines[edit]

Nolan JP, Soar J, Zideman DA, et al. (September 2010). "European Resuscitation Council Guidelines for Resuscitation 2010: Section 1. Executive summary". Resuscitation. doi:10.1016/j.resuscitation.2010.08.021. PMID 20956052.  Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The ERC are based on the ILCOR info. Thus they all agree. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

to maintain viability for defibrillation[edit]

CPR is for more than maintaining viability for defibrillation. We use if for none defibrillatable rythms. Thus would need a good ref for this change.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

History[edit]

The history section says:

A second technique, called the Holger Neilson technique, described in the first edition of the Boy Scout Handbook in the United States in 1911, described a form of artificial respiration where the person was laid on their front, with their head to the side, resting on the palms of both hands.

I suppose "Holger Neilson" refers to Holger Nielsen, as in the image to the right, but though the year 1911 is not entirely impossible (he was born 1866), I find it dubious as other sources indicate that his resurrection method wasn't developed till 1932.-- (talk) 21:00, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

History from Hopkins Medicine magazine[edit]

The Winter 2011 issue of Hopkins Medicine magazine has an article, A Dying Dog, A Slow Elevator, and 50 years of CPR that gives a richer history of CPR than what is presented in this Wikipedia article.

For example, the article explains how chest compressions began "It was 1958 ... Knickerbocker ... was working in the lab of Hopkins electrical engineer William Kouwenhoven, who’d already invented the first cardiac defibrillator ... he saw the animal’s heart unexpectedly slip into a nearly universally fatal form of ventricular fibrillation ... Normally, his lab associates would pull up the wheeled cart that carried their novel cardiac defibrillating equipment ... With the chronically sluggish Blalock elevators now standing between them and the heart cart seven floors below ... Knickerbocker decided to test one of his growing suspicions. In the preceding months of experiments—with the lab dogs hooked up to the monitors—Knickerbocker had noticed that the dogs’ blood pressure readings spiked when he was forcefully pressing electrodes to the animals’ chests prior to defibrillation. Could those simple elevations constitute actual blood flow to a dying animal’s brain? ... Knickerbocker can’t remember whether he himself began compressing the dog’s chest and then handed it off, or whether he simply asked an associate to do it. ... Knickerbocker plugged in the apparatus, greased up the paddles—asked the man doing chest compressions to back away—and administered a single shock ... Almost immediately, the dog’s heart lurched back, and then settled. Knickerbocker recalls it as “a spontaneous beat that required no substantive assistance.” ... this moment clearly launched the development of CPR’s formal use of life-saving chest compressions, a separate team of scientists was making headway with another key component to modern resuscitation. At the affiliated City Hospital in East Baltimore, anesthesiologist Peter Safar and associate James Elam were rapidly advancing the idea of using a living bystander to breathe air into the lungs of an unconscious patient confirmed in cardiac arrest. " ...

It seems reasonable that this Wikipedia history could be changed to include the year, the lab work related to the cardiac defibrillator, rationale for trying chest compressions, Guy Knickerbocker's involvement, and the serendipity of the elevators.

Thoughts? Ckrahe (talk) 02:20, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

The Evolution of Adult CPR[edit]

Imagine finding your family member lying on the floor, unconscious. You have no idea how long they have been there. You run quickly to call an ambulance. While paramedics are on their way your family member is helpless and you can’t do anything for them… or can you? Wouldn’t you want to possess the skills needed to resuscitate them? Learning CPR skills is important as it can mean the difference between life and death. However, in order to perform it correctly and effectively, you must be aware of the correct and most recent method in which to administer it. According to the American Heart Association, 335,000 Americans die each year from sudden cardiac arrest before they reach a hospital and an astounding 80% of these heart attacks happen in the victim’s own home while family members stand by helplessly. In a situation like this the estimated survival rate is less than 5%. The American Heart Association believes that proper application of cardio-pulmonary resuscitation (CPR) can double the heart attack victim’s chance of surviving. Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is an emergency first aid procedure used to help someone who has lost their ability to breathe and has also lost their pulse. CPR was created in the 1950’s by Peter Safar, though there is evidence of earlier use, and was first promoted as a technique for the public to learn in the 1070’s. The American Heart Association has established standards for CPR and have recently rewritten as they now have a more conservative view of the potential outcome. CPR is performed in much the same manner as it has been for many years, despite the fact that it produces only about 20% of normal cardiac output. In the last fifty years, very little has changed from the last chest compression and ventilation concept of resuscitation. Research shows that appropriate CPR can indeed save a life provided it is performed immediately upon victim’s collapse. Only within the last few years has the traditional method of chest compressions together with mouth-to-mouth ventilation changed. For fifty years CPR has remained fairly consistent as opening the airway, delivering two rescue breaths and performing a series of chest compressions, pausing to deliver mouth-to-mouth ventilations and immediately resume chest compressions. Mouth-to-mouth resuscitation was the standard for reviving unresponsive victims of drowning or other medical problems long before modern CPR was developed. When CPR was created, mouth-to-mouth was an integral part of the process. Today, the elimination of mouth-to-mouth is seen as the answer to making CPR simpler to learn and follow. The new CPR guidelines replace the current A-B-C method of Airway, Breathing and Compressions. The new order is C-A-B, with Compressions being done before opening the Airway and Breathing into the victim’s mouth, as directed by the American Heart Association. We have always known that in order for CPR to be effective, compressions were important, and they still are. The ratio of chest compression to ventilation within a cycle has seen changes within the last two decades. What had been a ratio of 5:1 for so long was changed to 15:2 in 2000. When the new recommendations came out in 2005, the ratio was changed to 30:2. Currently, the recommendation is 50:2, dropping the ventilation at the beginning of the cycle. Instead of pushing on the chest at about 100 compressions per minute you should push at least 100 compressions per minute. At that rate, 30 compressions should only take about 18 seconds to deliver. A recent study conducted in Arizona demonstrates results that triple the survival rates for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest victims. The new approach, called Minimally Interrupted Cardiac Resuscitation (MICR), focuses on maximizing blood flow to the heart and brain through a series of coordinated interventions. It includes a series of 200 uninterrupted chest compressions, heart rhythm analysis with a single shock, 200 immediate post-shock uninterrupted chest compressions before the pulse check, early administration of the medication epinephrine ( used to stimulate the heart) and delayed placement of airway adjuncts to assist with ventilation to the lungs. Among 886 patients who suffered cardiac arrest in two cities, survival-to-hospital discharge increased from 4 of 218 patients (1.8%) in the before MICR training group to 36 of 668 patients (5.4%) in the after MICR training group.¹ Dr. Gordon Ewy, director of the Sarver Heart Center at the University of Arizona, is a long-time advocate of withholding rescue breaths from victims of witnessed cardiac arrest. In an issue of The Lancet, Dr. Ewy called for immediate changes in CPR guidelines. On March 31, 2008, the American Heart Association changed its guidelines to include hands-only CPR, focusing more attention on compressions. Current research² shows that focus is more and more on compressions. After all, the point of CPR is to move oxygen within the body through the blood. We know we can hold our breath for 3 to 5 minutes without any brain damage to other organs or cells, but what they do need is the blood that contains oxygen moved around the body with the help of compressions. The human body has enough oxygen in the blood to last for at least four minutes without any extra oxygen being supplied. By starting compressions immediately, the transport of blood continues without interruption for the first 30 compressions before 2 breaths are given. “When the rescuer pushes hard and fast on the victim’s chest, they’re really acting like an artificial heart. That blood carries oxygen that helps keep the organs alive,” said Sayre, an emergency doctor at Ohio State University Medical Center. Every interruption in chest compressions causes an interruption in blood flow to the brain, which will lead to brain death if the blood flow is interrupted for too long. It takes about 20 chest compressions to get blood pressure to a level that is effective. The responder should keep pushing as long and as hard as they can, alternating with others if possible every 5 cycles. An Automated Electrical Defibrillator should be in place and ready to analyze the heart as soon as possible. Ventilations should be delivered quickly in order for compressions to resume immediately. Often times, responders are concerned with opening the airway, finding a mask or the sinking feeling of having to place a face mask over a stranger’s mouth to deliver breaths. These tasks, if done initially, take up precious time that the patient does not have, especially if the patient was already down prior to the responder’s arrival.

 Statistics also say that over 80% of sudden cardiac arrests occur most commonly in the home or at work and to a loved one.  Although the ambulance and hospital can provide more advanced procedures and medications, the only procedure proven to save a life is CPR, by anyone, the sooner the better.  



Works Cited: American Heart Association, CPR & ECC, CPR & First Aid In The News http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/CPRAndECC/CPR_UCM_001118_SubHomePage.jsp http://www.usatoday.com/yourlife/health/medical/2010-10-18-CPR18_ST_N.htm http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/health/2010/10/18/new.cpr.guidelines.cnn?iref=allsearch http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130636417


Mick S. Eisenberg, MD, PhD, Bruce M. Psaty, MD, PhD, Caridiopulmonary Resuscitation Celebration and Changes, JAMA, 2010; 304(1): 87-88.

Nichol G. Thomas E., Callaway CW, et al: Resuscitation OUtcomes Consortium Investigators. Regional variation in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest incidence and outcome. JAMA 2008; 300 (12) 1423-1431.

Rebecca E. Sell, Renee Sarno, Brenna Lawrence, Edward M. Castillo, Roger Fisher,Criss Brainard, James V. Dunford, Daniel P. Davis, Minimizing pre- and post-defibrillation pauses increases the likelihood of return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), Resuscitation, 2010 (81): 822-825 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.168.41.169 (talk) 22:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Adverse effects/Contraindications?[edit]

I occasionally hear about cracked ribs or organ damage as a result of chest compressions (especially when performed on the elderly). While I realize that few persons in medical fields would want to write in a popular forum anything that might increase a potential rescuer's reluctance. . .if such problems are actual, I believe an objective treatment of CPR would make note of them.

Conversely, if the notion of such problems is without foundation (or is popularly exaggerated), then it should be addressed for the purpose of setting it straight (so that potential rescuers, like myself, will not hesitate due to a false knowledge of "the dark secrets of CPR that no one wants you to know about").

If an emphasis on mouth-to-mouth was still prevalent, I would have also recommended addressing the issue of health risks to the rescuer, as that was a common concern amongst laypersons considering CPR. However, I expect that such concern might no longer be significantly common, due to the growing de-emphasis on AR.

Wikipedia is an information resource for popular use, not a medical text (obviously). Thus, the existence of inaccurate, but significantly common, popular views of a topic should, in part, inform the context (and, consequently, the direction of content) of an article (as it already has done in this one where the article addresses unrealistic media portrayals of CPR).Starling2001 (talk) 17:41, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

There is a risk of injury associated with CPR, but it is secondary to the risks associated with being dead. Older CPR protocols used to reflect concern over potentially causing injury to the patient by breaking ribs, etc., but the current guidelines omit such references to avoid discouraging people from attempting CPR and because the risk of causing serious injury is quite low. The bottom line is that broken ribs heal and organs can be repaired, but only if the person survives the cardiac event. There are no "dark secrets of CPR". The current ECC guidelines are available for free online and cover everything anybody needs to know about CPR.Akigawa (talk) 01:06, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Actually, this is a very good point, and there is good academic literature on the subject. I will add a section on complications. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 09:56, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Update - I have now added a section on this, and it's quite interesting (some research indicates rib fractures in up to 97% of CPR cases, and that is certainly my experience on the ambulance). OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 10:33, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

In inpregnancy[edit]

"In pregnancy. During pregnancy when a woman is lying on her back the uterus may compress the inferior vena cava and thus decrease venous return.[3] It is recommended for this reason that the uterus be pushed to the woman's left and if this is not effective either roll the person 30° or consider emergency cesarean section.[3]" Yes, I understand that the only requirement for inclusion in the Wikipedia is a reliable source. But are you seriously suggesting to first responders to do an emergency cesarean section? That is not only a stupid idea because most people have no idea how to do it, but doing after a car crash on the street or field would cause life-threatening infecctions even if done properly. So this section should be revised because I highly doubt that a licensed doctor would read the Wikipedia to learn how to do CPR with a pregnant woman. There are really stupid people out there who would probably do it if they get the chance and then point the finger to the Wikipedia if something goes wrong. And nobody here wants to risk the government shutting down the Wikipedia, do you? 2001:5C0:1501:0:4003:3759:1B7E:2F72 (talk) 20:35, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I have inserted some clarity around being a healthcare professional consideration. On a general note, Wikipedia is not a manual, and does not suggest anything to anyone. It is an encyclopaedia, reporting on published literature. For that reason, this page does not contain information about how to perform CPR, and this is no different. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 09:53, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Cough CPR quibble[edit]

The statement that "the first symptom of cardiac arrest is unconsciousness" is indeed sourced to a newsletter, but I'm still skeptical. Since even a single skipped beat is very noticeable, I'm thinking that going flatline for ten seconds ought to be really noticeable, unless other distractions intervene. Per VnT the statement should be left alone, unless someone here can come up with a better source that discusses the issue in better detail...? Here's hoping. Wnt (talk) 17:19, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Expedient advice[edit]

Some people will be visiting this page in a life or death situation. From the article "The brain may sustain damage after blood flow has been stopped for about four minutes and irreversible damage after about seven minutes" If anyone were to read the article fully, it is very likely the victim will already have irreversible damage.

Is it advisable to include a large-font, bordered section at the top with quick instructions for first-time rescuers? I could assist with this.

William Entriken / Pacific Medical Training Full Decent (talk) 19:14, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree, although perhaps link to a section in the article which explains the procedure, or a sister project where the instructions exist already (wikibooks?) ed g2stalk 19:33, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
"some people will be visiting this page in a life or death situation"[citation needed] OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 08:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Administering CPR to animals[edit]

Does this section need rewriting, perhaps with mention of the Reassessment Campaign on Veterinary Resuscitation? It doesn't appear to be possible to trace the only source currently cited back to any scientific studies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tchanders (talkcontribs) 01:07, 4 September 2013 (UTC)