The success rate of different CPR methodsA 5 year observational analysis on more than 4000 cases of out of hospital cardiac arrests showed that the patient had a 60 percent chance of surviving when bystanders provided the simpler hands on CPR method. This eliminated the need for interrupting chest compressions with mouth to mouth CPR rescue breathing, reported Bentley Bobrow, of Arizona Department of Health Services.

This prospective study of outcomes of cardiac arrest was performed an intense public awareness campaign that was started in 2005 aiming at improving the ‘dismal’ survival rates while also aiming at improving public awareness of the hands only CPR, as written by the research team.

A study on CPR methods survival

Fortunately, the campaign initiated by the researchers appeared to work, during the entire period of study, there was a significant increase in bystander administered CPR. Also, there was an increase in number of compression- only CPR cases from one in 5 cases to 3 in four cases as the investigation showed. This study brought more evidence to support the fact that the hands only CPR can be extremely beneficial in emergency situations. It also confirmed the need to minimize the interruption caused by chest compressions. These findings were availed just few weeks after 2 large clinical trials showed survival after any of the CPR methods was almost equivalent. The study analyzed about 4, 145 cases of the out of hospital cardiac arrests. The study was undertaken from January 1st 2005 to December 31st 2009.  Of these cardiac arrest cases, nonmedical bystanders provided conventional CPR help in 666 situations, no CPR was given in 2, 900 situations and hands- only CPR in remaining 849 cases.

Findings of the study

The study showed that rate of any given bystander CPR type increased from 28.2 percent to 39.9 percent. The proportion of hands only CPR increased from 19.6 percent to 75.9 percent which represented a very significant difference. One implication showed by the study as noted by the researchers was that use of the chest compression only CPR and increased public knowledge on CPR can significantly help in saving many lives in a year. The researchers found that randomizing the study wasn’t possible, as the bystanders were the only ones who could choose the kind of CPR they use depending on the specific situation and their training/ experience. To ensure that ascertainment bias was eliminated from the study, the researchers said that the EMS personnel had been well trained on how to document the type and presence of the bystander CPR. This study showed a modest survival benefit. It was also noted that the finding was very important considering that the survival rate of the out of hospital cardiac arrests has always been dismally low and unsuccessful despite many years of study. Currently, the American Heart Association considers compression only CPR and Standard CPR to be equal.