What did you learn today?

Status
Not open for further replies.
rockdrummer said:
don't need to ask Jake. This new method is already proven to be better than the traditional method. Oxygen will stay in the blood for up to 10 minutes after someone passes out. All you need to do is call 911 and immediately start continuous chest compressions. No need to count compressions or breath for the person.
Click to expand...

The instructors said almost the same thing as you just said. As long as the blood is circulating, that's the most important thing to do.

2 breaths and 30 compressions and just keep going until the EMTs arrive.
 
shel90 said:
The instructors said almost the same thing as you just said. As long as the blood is circulating, that's the most important thing to do.

2 breaths and 30 compressions and just keep going until the EMTs arrive.
Click to expand...

30x? oh my.... my arms will be tired and I will pass out....

my effort = EPIC FAIL!
 
Jiro said:
30x? oh my.... my arms will be tired and I will pass out....

my effort = EPIC FAIL!
Click to expand...

Ohhhh when we did the demonstrations, the instructors had us doing it for like 2 to 3 mins...man, my arms were ready to fall off! :lol:
 
shel90 said:
The instructors said almost the same thing as you just said. As long as the blood is circulating, that's the most important thing to do.

2 breaths and 30 compressions and just keep going until the EMTs arrive.
Click to expand...
What they are saying now is that for someone that has suffered cardiac arrest and if you get to them immediately, call 911 then start chest compressions only. Don't waste time checking for pulse and don't waste time breathing for them as oxygen will stay in the blood for up to 10 minutes after someone passes out from CA. If you stop chest compressions to breath then the blood flow stops. Continuous chest compressions (100 per minute I think they said) until the paramedics arrive. It has been proven that this increases survival rates.
 
Jiro said:
deafPhD - what do you have PhD in?
Click to expand...

I can't answer that. I've made that mistake before. I would tell someone on a forum what my field is, then suddenly everyone is asking questions (mostly senseless questions) to try to discredit me or make themselves look good. Also, another reason I do not want to comment on that is because people always try to get free advice or free guidance. So, its nothing personal. No disrespect intended.
 
rockdrummer said:
What they are saying now is that for someone that has suffered cardiac arrest and if you get to them immediately, call 911 then start chest compressions only. Don't waste time checking for pulse and don't waste time breathing for them as oxygen will stay in the blood for up to 10 minutes after someone passes out from CA. If you stop chest compressions to breath then the blood flow stops. Continuous chest compressions until the paramedics arrive. It has been proven that this increases survival rates.
Click to expand...

what about for drown victim? or smoke inhalation victim?
 
deafPhD said:
I can't answer that. I've made that mistake before. I would tell someone on a forum what my field is, then suddenly everyone is asking questions (mostly senseless questions) to try to discredit me or make themselves look good. Also, another reason I do not want to comment on that is because people always try to get free advice or free guidance. So, its nothing personal. No disrespect intended.
Click to expand...

gotcha! no problem and welcome to AD :wave:
 
Source: New Concepts of Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation for the Lay Public: Continuous-Chest-Compression CPR -- Ewy 116 (25): e566 -- Circulation


Why Is So-Called "Rescue Breathing" Not Recommended for Cardiac Arrest?

In the past, it was recommended that bystanders perform CPR that alternates chest compressions with mouth-to-mouth ventilations. Research has shown that traditional CPR is not the best way to treat cardiac arrest. Unlike respiratory arrest, during which the victim does not get enough air and the heart eventually stops because it no longer receives oxygen, a person who collapses because of sudden cardiac arrest was usually breathing normally just seconds before. In this case, there is no point in delaying the start of chest compression by trying to deliver "rescue breaths" to a person whose blood and lungs are full of oxygen. Studies found that the blood of a cardiac arrest victim contains enough oxygen to sustain him or her for several minutes.

More important, mouth-to-mouth breathing takes valuable time away from urgently needed continuous-chest-compressions. Research has shown that lay individuals interrupt each set of chest compressions for an average of 16 seconds while they deliver the heretofore recommended "2 quick breaths." Even if there are 2 or more bystanders, it is more helpful to trade off chest compressions than to have 1 person breathe for the victim because compressing the chest hard and fast without stopping is very exhausting.
Click to expand...
 
rockdrummer said:
What they are saying now is that for someone that has suffered cardiac arrest and if you get to them immediately, call 911 then start chest compressions only. Don't waste time checking for pulse and don't waste time breathing for them as oxygen will stay in the blood for up to 10 minutes after someone passes out from CA. If you stop chest compressions to breath then the blood flow stops. Continuous chest compressions (100 per minute I think they said) until the paramedics arrive. It has been proven that this increases survival rates.
Click to expand...

The next time I have a refresher which will be in August, I will ask about the need to take breaths. How I am trained..it is 2 breaths and 30 compressions. I guess it was a recent change?
 
Jiro said:
what about for drown victim? or smoke inhalation victim?
Click to expand...

Source: New Concepts of Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation for the Lay Public: Continuous-Chest-Compression CPR -- Ewy 116 (25): e566 -- Circulation

Standard CPR Still Needed for Respiratory Arrest

Despite continuous-chest-compression CPR being the method of choice for sudden unexpected collapse, conventional CPR with mouth-to-mouth breathing remains the appropriate rescue technique for patients who are in respiratory arrest. In respiratory arrest, which in most cases is caused by drug overdose, alcohol intoxication, carbon monoxide poisoning, a severe asthma attack, drowning, or choking, the primary problem is not the heart but a lack of oxygen (suffocation) that eventually leads to cardiac arrest. Note that in all these circumstances the collapse is neither sudden nor unexpected. Only 1 in 20 arrests is due to respiratory arrest. For respiratory arrest, chest compressions plus ventilation are recommended (the Table).
Click to expand...
 
shel90 said:
The next time I have a refresher which will be in August, I will ask about the need to take breaths. How I am trained..it is 2 breaths and 30 compressions. I guess it was a recent change?
Click to expand...
Yes the change applies to Cardiac Arrest victims
 
rockdrummer said:
Yes the change applies to Cardiac Arrest victims
Click to expand...

It will be interesting to see if the instructors bring that up this August. I have to take a FULL 8-hour refresher this year. Wow!

Last year, it was a 4 hour.
 
Jiro said:
I think it's best to go with what you are certified and trained for.
Click to expand...
I think it is best to use current proven methods that have a higher success rate. IMHO. Hopefully those that are giving out certifications will be on board with the new methods.
 
shel90 said:
It will be interesting to see if the instructors bring that up this August. I have to take a FULL 8-hour refresher this year. Wow!

Last year, it was a 4 hour.
Click to expand...
Yes it would be interesting if they brought it up. If they don't then you may want to ask them about it.
 
shel90 said:
I hope I remember by August! LOL!
Click to expand...
I don't know if this new method is a direct replacement. It would be interesting to know what your instructors say about it. Put a post it on your forehead so you will remember. :lol:


Update; here is the article published by the Mayo Clinic. Hands only is not a direct replacement but it can be used by any bystander that is not trained in CPR.

Jiro said:
I think it's best to go with what you are certified and trained for.
Click to expand...


So Jiro you are correct.

http://www.mayoclinic.org/medical-edge-newspaper-2008/nov-14c.html
 
rockdrummer said:
I don't know if this new method is a direct replacement. It would be interesting to know what your instructors say about it. Put a post it on your forehead so you will remember. :lol:
Click to expand...

Ummm..I have to take showers so I dont think the post will stay, dont you think so? :giggle:
 
rockdrummer said:
I think it is best to use current proven methods that have a higher success rate. IMHO. Hopefully those that are giving out certifications will be on board with the new methods.
Click to expand...

not if you're not certified for it. You're only certified to use what you have learned but if it's something new... you need to be re-certified for that. It's for legal reason like EMT.

If that new method ain't part of latest certification program, then I ain't gonna try that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top