2010 CPR

October 19, 2010

so, I'm curious..

New guidelines say ' " ...a*t least* 100bpm " vs (old) " .*..about* 100bpm " .

Does that imply that 400bpm is even better? (facetious)

New guidelines say " ...a*t least* 2 inches {depth of compresson} " vs (old)

" ...*appro*x 1 1/2 to 2 inches " . Safe to assume that 7 inch compressions,

touching their spine, is better? (facetious again)

New guidelines are doing away with " look, listen and feel " , yet a rescuer is

supposed to " briefly " determine if a patient is breathing adequately.

Without 'looking' at the patient and 'listening' for potential air movement

sounds, how might I determine (briefly) if I patient is breathing?

I believe I understand the premise of the updates: initiating compressions

much sooner, less interruptions. IMO, I've always questioned the 2 rescue

breaths as the second step (especially when comparing BLS HCP to

Heartsaver). Yet, why replace the *parameters* with *minimums*? Numerous

times during training, I have had students that rapidly pound away at the

chest with rates >150+ bpm. I've told them to slow down within a

predetermined *range*, parameter. Now, following the guidelines, they might

be justified with " more is better " . In the guideline summary, a comparison

is made to distance traveled in a car: You'll get to your destination

quicker if you 1. travel faster and, 2. minimize your stops. To continue

with that metaphor, though: traveling faster consumes more gasoline and

increases wear&tear on a vehicle. In other words, providing compressions as

fast as possible might begin to physiologically affect

other necessary components.

I realize these guidelines are just now beginning to be distributed and that

a new thought-pattern must emerge from these new algorithms. I'm just

curious of the thinking behind the nomenclature adjustments that could be

construed in numerous ways. thnx.

*Mark Sastre

marksastre@...*

Recommended Posts