|
| |
Alternative Methods
Cardiocerebral Resuscitation
The International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR) approach described
above has been challenged in recent years by advocates for Cardiocerebral
Resuscitation (CCR). CCR is simply chest compressions without artificial
respiration. The ventilation component of CPR has been a topic of major
controversy over the past decade. In March 2007, a Japanese study in the medical
journal The Lancet presented strong evidence that compressing the chest, not MTM
ventilation, is the key to helping someone recover from cardiac arrest.
The CCR method is championed by the University of Arizona's Sarver Heart Center,
and a recent study by the university, claims a 300% greater success rate over
standard CPR. The exceptions were in the case of drowning or drug overdose.
The method of delivering chest compressions remains the same, as does the rate
(100 per minute), but the rescuer delivers only the compression element which,
the University of Arizona claims, keeps the bloodflow moving without the
interruption caused by insufflations.
An editorial by Gordon Ewy MD (a proponent of CCR) in the same issue of The
Lancet calls for an interim revision of the AHA/ILCOR Guidelines based on the
results of the Japanese study, but the next scheduled revision of the Guidelines
is not until 2010. The initial response of the AHA was that no interim change is
necessary.
| |
|
