Why do you have a vintage mask on your forehead? They're not using those anymore.
Refusing CPR
- Thread starter Rockslinger
- Start date
- Status
Yes, chest compressions. Apparently it can aid recovery by taking stress off the heart. Since only 2% of people experience injuries from unneeded CPR and there is at least anecdotal evidence it encourages recovery after ROSC, the Army taught it to medics for a while. I'm not sure the current protocol. I left the service a long time ago.
wow. Ok. I know that the experts in Arizona have long preached that there is minimal risk. The problem according to others is that if your rhythm compresses the heart when it is trying to expand, and it repeats a few times in a row it can push the beating heart to stop beating. I have read a lot of compelling arguments from both sides but the jury is still out. 2% ? I find that number does not fit into my experience at all. Cracked ribs seem more common than not, but that is far from a scientific study. The main problem with any serious impact study is that if doing compression in a rhythm that was out of phase with the patient beating heart it would be impossible to tell after the fact if the patients heart stopped on its own, was stopped before, or stopped because of the CPR.
The logic is that we pretty well already know a sharp blow to the chest can stop a heart beating. We also know a strong compression when a heart is expanding can stop a heart from beating. So although no one has presented a statistical study showing that compression CPR can stop a heart (mainly because no one has figured out how to do it) I tend to agree that compression CPR on a beating heart is a bad idea (note using the standard test that assumes it is beating if the patient is responsive or breathing or both.
Oh I so do not want to get involved with a Schlong discussion. But you quoted him and I saw his words.
The bulk of this thread is only valid for cardiac arrest typical of seeing someone collapse with no visible cause.
In pretty much all cases of asphyxia the comments here are not of any value. Ventilation is still the most important aspect.
Drowning has other rules.
Two respirations followed by 30 chest compressions, repeat forever, in the 2006 manual I have (which was still in use in 2010 when I last recertified), but there was talk of eliminating the respirations or reducing the frequency further. I don't know if the protocol has been updated again in the last couple of years.
Well you figures are biased and only apply to certain situations. Random start times for the CPR, no AED, etc.
If my husband suddenly collapsed and I could start compression CPR on him within a minute, and have an AED zap him within 5 minutes the recovery rate (measured at 1 month) is close to 40%. Throw in Oxygen in that 5 minutes and it is significantly over 50%. If he recovers almost 100% chance of full function. So of course I will do CPR. And want it for me.
If either of us are down 10 minutes without compression CPR at normal temperatures..... I would be much much more worried. Problem is, how can you tell how long the person was down? Even more important how long till they stopped breathing? Even without a pulse you can detect, has the heart still been supplying oxygen? Your numbers and the condition after is almost 100% created by the brain not getting sufficient oxygen.
Before we got married Loki had a DNR. It was one of the things that we had to talk about. He agreed to drop the DNR and we bought an AED and O2.
And odds are we will go the CPR, AED, O2 route regardless.
Depends on who wrote "the manual". In North america there is a review every 3 to 5 years. the 2010 manual was based on the 2008 review.
The 2012 data is starting to show that survival rate is much higher with just the straight compression, but I do not think the manuals say "just do compression". The problem is the data is only applicable to sudden collapse. It does not address drowning etc where ventilation is more of a factor.
LOL I feel so wishy washy, but reality is it all depends on the cause.
I updated my course again last year. We were taught the 2 to 30 ratio. The instructor did mention that there was talk of updating to a 0 to 30 ratio but that nothing had officially come down the pipeline so he was continuing to teach the former.
Whose course? There seem to be a few sets of courses in Canada, as well as courses with different levels of complexity by each provider. Also water safety / rescue vs general first aid
<---- not being sarcastic etc. Just wondering.I was under the impression most courses since 2010 had been teaching both methods with vague conditionals as to which to use.
Private certified instructor via my employer. Not sure where he trained but knowing the financial resources of my present employer they didn't skimp. 2 day course. 16 hours instruction. Very good. I have taken various first -aid courses over the years and this was good update.
As for different levels of intensity to courses this is probably due to tailoring the courses to specific professions and other factors like geography etc. I have been St. John Ambulance cerified, Red Cross certified and received instruction from double qualified instructors. Some were one day quickies. One I had to take was a 5 day intensive course. Ended with a 4 hour live exam simulating a natural disaster. The main goal of that one was to stabalize as many people as possible and stay alive yourself due to environmental dangers. Fun stuff!
Using the title Dr is a no no until you jump through all the hoops.
Yes you posted lots of things. Including that you did not even know what ventilation was. Amazing how your expertise has increased over the last 10 pages. I am so happy you actually discovered how to do research.
A blow to a heart can easily stop it. Compressing a heart in a counter rhythm to its existing beat has been shown to stop it.
But what the heck, just do whatever you want. Obviously you think you know best. So just go off and do it.
I really cannot see any reason to continue this discussion. Do you?I will, until I see evidence to the contrary, firmly believe that doing compression CPR to a beating heart (detected by the subject breathing or being responsive) is at best high risk. I do not think I have ever seen any protocol that suggest it.
You believe that trying to make me look bad is more important than.... well whatever
You believe what ever you believe.
I suspect I will not change your mind. I know you are not going to change mine.
So why do you feel driven to continue?
Using the title Dr is a no no until you jump through all the hoops.
Yes you posted lots of things. Including that you did not even know what ventilation was. Amazing how your expertise has increased over the last 10 pages. I am so happy you actually discovered how to do research.
A blow to a heart can easily stop it. Compressing a heart in a counter rhythm to its existing beat has been shown to stop it.
But what the heck, just do whatever you want. Obviously you think you know best. So just go off and do it.
SO I WILL CONTINUE THIS DISCUSSION
I will, until I see evidence to the contrary, firmly believe that doing compression CPR to a beating heart (detected by the subject breathing or being responsive) is at best high risk. I do not think I have ever seen any protocol that suggest it.
You believe that trying to make me look bad is more important than.... well whatever SEE ABOVE FOR HOW AN EXPERT TRIES TO MAKE SOMEONE LOOK BAD
You believe what ever you believe.
I suspect I will not change your mind. I know you are not going to change mine.
So why do you feel driven to continue?
Why indeed?
Hunters up at the Sault
Wired home for two punts, one canoe.
The answer next day
Said, "Girls on the way,
But what in the hell's a panoe?"
So where did I lie? Going back to the beginning….
Gee the next post seems like an attack on me by someone who does not even know that ventilation is a standard protocol for respiratory distress. Does anyone not agree? This is a breathing patient. Pretty much some form of ventilation is called for since there are problems breathing.
So we have my statement “breathing means no compression CPR” , “ventilation might be appropriate”. And yours, including contradictory definitions of CPR. Both there in black and white. Hard to argue with complete quotes.
Oh another personal attack with the “lie” comment repeated, and without any single evidence. Actually hun, what we are taught is very different than what is taught a layperson.
Using acronyms is not a sign of intelligence or knowledge. It is just perpetuating foolishness and making it harder for the average person to understand what is going on. . So you were a PTS (patient) great. That is meaningless, got a plantar wart removed?
I am sorry if I find you’re your desire to try to prove me wrong or humiliate me seems more important than facts or informing people of medical risks.
My basic statement was “Lungs still working. I wonder why CPR was appropriate? Seems at most ventilation might be useful?”
Same consistent message. NO CPR IF THE HEART IS BEATING (I.E. Breathing is present etc)
I am sorry but WTF is your point? You do not like me. I get that one. But why are you still going on and on?
If you did not get the message and thought I meant check for a pulse I . I assumed that never EVERsaying "check for a pulse" would have been enough. Clearly just not saying it is not enough for some people. I am sorry I assumed it was obvious.
Oh well,
- Status
