!5:2...30:2....could this be next?

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

DeepSeaDan

Contributor
Scuba Instructor
Messages
1,095
Reaction score
280
Location
Ontario, Canada
# of dives
I'm a Fish!
Some interesting things going on in Tucson.

Just when you thought you were all up to date with the new ILCOR Standards, someone has the nerve to try something EVEN NEWER!

Personally, I think this is a great idea. Mouth to mouth was never a big seller with the general public, & most folks can't remember their lunchbox, let alone a pocket mask. A 7% increase in the save rate is quite remarkable. It's called "C.C.R." Cardiocerebral resucitation, someday to arrive in a theater near you...

And for us - no more arguing about that silly in-water breathing skill!

Check it out here:

http://www.tucsoncitizen.com:80/daily/local/37405.php

Regards,
DSD
 
I definitely makes more sense. There is already CO2 in bloodstream, the incresed chest compressions facilitate it. In addition, since many are reluctant to do mouth to mouth, this method will likely allow the procedure to take place in an instance where it otherwise wouldn't because of fear of disease transmission. After all, most of what we exhale into the patient's mouth is CO2 anyway, you may as well circulate O2 already present in the blood stream.
 
lynny_lynny:
I definitely makes more sense. There is already CO2 in bloodstream, the incresed chest compressions facilitate it. In addition, since many are reluctant to do mouth to mouth, this method will likely allow the procedure to take place in an instance where it otherwise wouldn't because of fear of disease transmission. After all, most of what we exhale into the patient's mouth is CO2 anyway, you may as well circulate O2 already present in the blood stream.

Indeed, this will throw a spanner into the time-honoured way resucitation has been performed, but simplification is here to stay & I say HALLELUIAH!

As a professional responder, I can attest to the difficulty of doing effective airway management. For us it is usually a 3 person effort. Still, it's tricky not to send some or most of that provided air / O2 down the esophagus. I look foreward to not watching the adv. care medics trying to get a tube in, after all, it has been " airway airway airway, we must get a patent airway" for many years.

SO! When can we modify the diving rescue protocols to the new reality?!

;>)

DSD
 
DeepSeaDan:
Some interesting things going on in Tucson.

Just when you thought you were all up to date with the new ILCOR Standards, someone has the nerve to try something EVEN NEWER!

Personally, I think this is a great idea. Mouth to mouth was never a big seller with the general public, & most folks can't remember their lunchbox, let alone a pocket mask. A 7% increase in the save rate is quite remarkable. It's called "C.C.R." Cardiocerebral resucitation, someday to arrive in a theater near you...

And for us - no more arguing about that silly in-water breathing skill!

Check it out here:

http://www.tucsoncitizen.com:80/daily/local/37405.php

Regards,
DSD


Its actually a 350% increase in survival rate. (from 2 to 9%)

It is great that 911 folks can coach people on CCR over the phone.

I wonder if the survival increase is due to
the non trained people being coached over the phone on
how to do CCR vs actually comparing properly done CPR vs CCR.

Still seems like CPR, if done correctly, should be better.

--- bill
 
The University of Arizona in Tucson has been conducting this study for about 3 years now. What some people have misunderstood about the study (to include residents) is that this technique has been studied for use by lay people, not healthcare professionals. I had an argument with a UA resident a couple of years ago regarding this exact thing. She didn't want to intubate a coding patient until compressions were done for 2 minutes. It basically comes down to this - ABCs still matter. If you're trained, then you need to establish an airway and breathing before circulation. If you're not trained, it's easier to coach compressions over the phone than it is to coach rescue breathing. If you can intubate, then you better intubate.
 
I note that it says in the article that this is for cardiac arrest victims.

And cardiac arrest victims have a very low recovery rate anyway. A small change makes a major difference.

It doesn't say anything about this being for drowning etc victims.
 
This makes sense to me on at least one level. There is already O2 in the victim's system, use that at first at least. If I had one or two others who were trained nearby, it seems having someone start mouth-to-mouth would make sense. But if I'm going solo, I think the rapid compressions make more sense.

We all know the difficulty of a long CPR event. Keeping things coordinated is tough. We also know the statistics on CPR, they are not very good. Maybe this technique will boost the odds.

Jeff
 
In case of drowning victim, will not the blood O2 level be almost negligible. What will be the use of chest compressions without providing air. Exhaled air contains about 16% O2 which is good enough to provide Oxygen to the victim during rescue breaths. CCR can be good for cardiac patients but this being a divers forum and considering diving emergency (near drowning) 30:2 seems to be more appropriate. If you have a ambubag on boat or with your rescue kit, one rescuer can take control of respiration of the victim and the second rescuer can keep on providing chest compression till EMS personnel arrive. The chances of survical of the victim will be more.
 
MuscleBob.Buffpants:
I note that it says in the article that this is for cardiac arrest victims.

And cardiac arrest victims have a very low recovery rate anyway. A small change makes a major difference.

It doesn't say anything about this being for drowning etc victims.

Just wondering what you think drowning victims are? Cardiac arrest is cardiac arrest no mater the cause, for lay folks anyway.
Not so new, this is the 2006 AHA standards.
Check out "new ACLS" thread for a lot of quality input on this subject in teh medical forum
 

Back
Top Bottom