title: Chest compression-only CPR or good quality 30:2 CPR.
abstract: There is debate as to whether chest compression-only cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CC-CPR) or standard 30:2 CPR should be taught to laypersons. Equivalence in outcomes between standard CPR and CC-CPR has been amply demonstrated in communities with short ambulance response times of about five minutes. Depriving oxygen from a collapsed patient beyond six minutes results in poorer outcomes. Communities with prolonged ambulance travel times have seen improved outcomes with CPR than CC-CPR. While healthcare workers demonstrate a reluctance to perform mouth-to-mouth ventilation, laypersons generally show a willingness to do so. Rescuer fatigue also argues against the use of CC-CPR for more than a few minutes. For communities with relatively long ambulance transport times, the best approach appears to be standard CPR, with emphasis on good quality compression. For dispatcher-assisted CPR, communication issues suggest that CC-CPR is advisable. Public CPR training should include teaching of mouth-to-mouth ventilation alternating with chest compressions.
authors: Department of Emergency Medicine, Singapore General Hospital, Outram Road, Singapore 169608. anantharaman@sgh.com.sg
authors: V
authors: V
authors: Anantharaman
mesh_terms: D000552:Ambulances; D000572:American Heart Association; D000818:Animals; D016887:Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation / Q000379:methods* / Q000523:psychology* / Q000592:standards; D004632:Emergency Medical Services / Q000379:methods; D005221:Fatigue; D007722:Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice; D006801:Humans; D058687:Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest / Q000628:therapy*; D017410:Practice Guidelines as Topic; D012846:Singapore; D013534:Survival; D014481:United States