Using CPR ‘hands-only’ often yield positive results60% of victims who receive ‘hands-only’ CPR are more likely to survive than those who neither received the treatment nor orthodox mouth to mouth CPR treatment. This is a finding based on adults who happen to suffer from sudden cardiac arrest.

Good news all around about ‘Hands-only’ CPR procedure

This is very welcoming news according to some researchers who believe that hands-only CPR is a far much better method as compared to other conventional CPR techniques such as mouth-to-mouth. To the researchers, the technique can be administered quickly and is also very easy to learn and adopt. There is a higher chance of witnesses offering help if no mouth-to-mouth is involved.

Dr. Bentley, lead writer and a medical director of EMST (Emergency Medical Services and Trauma) department of Health services’ bureau, believes that almost anyone has the capability of effectively performing CPR effectively and hence saving the victim’s life.

Bobrow, an emergency doctor based in Maricopa Medical Center, adds that one doesn’t necessarily have to acquire certification or learn different courses. He said that unlike adults suffering from cardiac arrest, children with similar cases and victims of drowning, chocking and breathing difficulty should receive mouth to mouth. This should be administered way before victim becomes unconscious so as to reduce complications.

Bobrow initiated an incentive to increase survival rates of cardiac arrest victims. He received help from mass media and fire departments who willingly accepted his proposal.

In between 2005 and 2009, 4,415 grownups in Arizona who suffered from cardiac arrest while outside the hospital never received treatment from a medical practitioner. Out if this number, 2,900 never got CPR from bystanders while 666 got orthodox CPR which is inclusive of mouth-to-mouth and only 849 got compression-only CPR. 13.3% of victims who got compression-only CPR lived and released from hospital as compared to 7.8% of victims receiving orthodox CPR.

Spreading the word on ‘hands-only’ CPR

In 2005 survival rates improved by 28% once people were educated. There was an overall increase of survival rates in the four years that followed. Mr. Bobrow said that there was much needed assistance from bystanders since emergency practitioners often arrived when it was too late to do anything significant.

‘Hand-only’ CPR is highly regarded as a full proof procedure that just might encourage bystanders to get more involved. Dr Sayre applauded the efforts of Dr. Bobrow and his colleagues to improve bystander participation though public CPR education and enlightenment. A lot of people refused to offer any help basically because they lacked the skill and knowledge or were afraid of thereafter consequences in case the victim dies due to a failed attempt. The study show positive signs that the number of bystander participation is likely to increase should Dr. Bobrow’s efforts be successful.

Sayre further added that there was need to have more studies and conclusion before putting prevalence of compression-only CPR over mouth-to-mouth. This is mostly because either of the two will work perfectly if they are administered in the right way.

A different study in ‘New England journal of medicine’ indicated that bystanders were often advised by emergency respondents to offer chest-compression-only or standard CPR.

The only disadvantage of mouth-to-mouth is that bystander performing it stops compression when breathing into victim’s mouth. This can cause loss of life.