CPR more reliant when use of AEDS failsResearchers have discovered that the knowledge of using CPR can come in handy when AEDs fail to resuscitate a victim suffering from a heart attack. The MD of the University of Washington in Seattle, Peter J. Kudenchuk, said that use of chest compressions would be more helpful as compared to analyzing rhythms using AEDs.

54% of people receiving CPR were likely to come out of the situation with minimal neurological damages. This is according to a study made and published online by circulation: journal of the AHA (American Heart Association). Survival rates among pre-hospital cases are still low despite there being several improvements achieved in the field.

A few changes were made in the year 2005 by the International Liaison Committee. This was done in order to shift the focus on continuous CPR training rather than AED.

The changes made by the AHA

  1. They were required to double the duration of CPR administration in between each rhythm evaluation
  2. Dispatchers were required to decrease the number of shocks and back to back analysis.
  3. Adding the number of chest compressions. The increase would witness compressions rise from the normal 15:2 to 30:2
  4. They were also required to do away with pulse and rhythm checks immediately after shocking the victim

A lot of the situations that were related with the above guidelines were mostly as a result of tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation which often respond to shock. The number of out of hospital cases is fast declining. The number of people who survive from nonshockable arrest is not that impressive. Experts sort to see if the guidelines made any impact by reviewing data from 6,713 patients who were treated in between 2000 to 2010. People treated prior to the change of the guidelines in 2005 acted as the controls.  59% of the subjects were male and the mean age of all the subjects was 67 years.

Finding of the study after the guidelines

Very few bystanders did anything during the control period. The researchers noticed that there was significant improvement when they compared the control period with the post guidelines period.

Some of the improvements included positive neurological outcomes which rose from 3.4 to 5.1. Victims also experienced a higher survival rate and a huge number of them arrived at hospital in stable and manageable condition.

85% of people who received treatment after the control people were more likely to survive. It was however noted that survival rate was still poor despite the improvement made by the guidelines. This meant that intervention was needed to foresee further improvements in the field of non shockable patients.

The techniques used for resuscitation which involves hands-only CPR are considered more effective on non-shockable out of hospital victims as compared to shockable arrhythmias victims.

In general the reduction in interruptions of shock and rhythm analysis accompanied by more compressions offered the circulatory support required to treat and resuscitate the patient. The author of the study also indicated that there was a causal conclusion since the research was restricted by observational nature.