Unnecessary mouth-to-mouth procedure during CPRA meta-analysis was done on three separate dispatcher-assisted CPR with some involving mouth-to-mouth ventilation, while others without. According to Peter Nagele, (MD of Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis) CPR that only used chest compressions was seen to improve the chances of the patient’s survival by 22%. This represented a 2.4% absolute increase in survival. The findings obtained by Nagele and his colleagues were of the idea that medical facilities dealing in emergency services, should instruct the by-standers to concentrate on chest-compression-only CPR. This was to be done in adults who have collapsed away from the hospital as a result of cardiac arrest.

In the last update of 2005, a recommendation by the U.S. and European standard guidelines on basic life support outlined a standard CPR. The standard CPR suggested a combination of chest compressions and rescue ventilation with a ratio of 30 compressions for every two breaths. However, the importance of rescue breathing has been put to question in relation to some patients who include adults who experience out-of-hospital cardiac arrest resulting from cardiac origin other than asphyxia or trauma.

By use of three random trials, the above issue has been researched, and for each an insignificant merit with chest compression alone in delivery of CPR by a third party receiving instructions from a dispatcher. Nevertheless, Nagele and his colleagues could not achieve a relevant statistical ideology as a result of insufficient statistical strength. But in the current meta-analysis done, the benefits became significant.

In another secondary meta-analysis performed on seven observational cohorts constituting the CPR embracing rescue breathing and those that did not, failed to portray a difference between the two procedures. With an indication of survival rate of 8% in each sampled cohort.

In the report generated by Nagele and his counterparts, the cardiopulmonary resuscitation procedures that was done by the observed by-standers, did not follow any guidelines from any dispatcher. In addition, they indicated that a high chance of survival can be obtained by use of better compressions and by not taking much concentration on delivering of mouth-to-mouth. And highlighted this as the root reason as to why the 2005 U.S. and European guidelines doubled their standard compression to ventilation ratio from 15:2 to the current 30:2.

Advantages of Compression-only CPR

It is quite easy to understand and comprehend the procedure of delivering an effective compression only CPR. To the persons giving instructions to the by-standers have an easy time to teach those procedures. Another advantage is that the by-standers receiving CPR instructions are more willing to perform unlike the procedure including mouth-to-mouth.

Appropriateness of rescue breathing

At times of cardiac arrest caused by other agents other than non-cardiac ones, it is advisable to offer the patient a mouth-to-mouth procedure. Such causes include the primary respiratory problems that inhibit the normal breathing ability of an individual.

It is recommended that individuals should be trained in standard CPR procedures and any type of CPR done to a patient is better than none.