Here's a link to a story on MSNBC.com about the results of 2 new large studies of the effectiveness of 'hands only' CPR to the more familiar '30 compressions and 2 breaths' version.

There have also been studies done on abdominal CPR methods but I haven't seem that method discussed in the general press. Here's a link to a study from Purdue University. A web search on abdominal CPR will show more info as well.

I'm not a medically trained individual so would like to hear from the pro's on this forum their opinion and real life experiences. My interest stems from the fact that the DW is at risk for heart attacks and strokes. Short of buying an AED, which I've considered, I'd want to use the most efficient resuscitation method. Although we still have fun practicing the mouth-to-nouth part...

I'm working on our company's emergency plan and have a goal of 75% employee CPR/1st Aid/AED certified. It will happen.

Talking to EMT's, etc, they say say the odds of recovering someone who needs CPR is a multiple times percentage of success higher using an AED over compressions of any configuration.

But they are spendy. I am not in the medical field so its just my two cents. YMMV

Recently completed a Red Cross first aid class and the instructor told me that they intend to change the CPR technique, to do just chest compressions and delete the breaths. The theory is that during the compressions enough air is exchanged in the lungs to keep someone alive. But again, short of an AED, such as in the back-country, you must use the resources and knowledge at hand.

I don't speak for the Red Cross but I volunteer there, and I *think* the official position is or will be CPR with breath for medical personnel, CPR hand only for everyone else, or laymen. That is the required training for Red Cross volunteers anyway. Which makes sense, at least where additional rescue personnel are only minutes away - AEDs and a whole slew of drugs really up a person's ability to survive a heart attack. CPR on its own, not so much.

Personally if I knew a loved one was subject to heart attacks, I would invest in the AED and keep it nearby in the home or car when travelling. Like a PLB, the first time you need it and use it may pay off with the gift of life, cheap at half the price.

I would certainly apply CPR in the back country again (I have done so twice already), but, realistically, you are most likely looking at a fatality in that sort of a situation. A near drowning may be an exception. Don't get your hopes up.

My last certification, about three years ago, was hands only.

I was told by an EMT that while the no-breath method is now recommended for lay people, for first responders that are well trained, compression + breathes is still the standard of care.

I've been waiting for these studies to be completed, like the one from Seattle. I haven't searched for the actual journal articles yet, but according to that MSNBC report, the results show comparable results between traditional and compression-only CPR, which was a bit surprising. From previous smaller studies, I would've expected better results for compression-only, especially if these researchers are comparing people doing traditional vs compression-only purely from telephone instructions in a high stress situation.

Even so, as long as more people overall are willing to do compression-only CPR, even if it doesn't increase the chances of survival versus traditional CPR, more people will be saved since more people will try to help, and that seems like a net positive.

In Wilderness First Aid they advise CPR primarily for near drownings, lightning strikes, kids and infants - where the odds of success without other interventions all are better. I haven't provided CPR in a wilderness setting, but in a true wilderness setting it would be a tough and emotional decision to start CPR, and a real hard one to eventually stop.

Kids and infants are an important addition for compression+rescue breathing CPR. Also, it looks like the Red Cross just updated their official advice on compression only CPR, in the New England Journal of Medicine - so anyone who is interested can get it straight from the horse's mouth: http://www.redcross.org/portal/site/en/m...0089f0870aRCRD.

In our CPR class three months ago we did compressions + breaths, but this was for health care workers. We were told that if we're by ourselves or don't have a barrier for breathing, we should feel free to do compressions-only CPR.

We were basically told that CPR is used to keep oxygen flowing to the brain until someone can get there with a defibrillator. CPR by itself has very slim odds of restoring a viable heartbeat.

I have not been trained on the hands only method. Does it include clearing the airway/determining that it is clear? Does it even include checking to see if someone is not just taking a nap?

If does not, and the airway is not clear, how does air get in by the hands only method? Osmosis? I am not a certified instructor but in the past I have shown a lot of scouts how to do the old method. I can only hope that if I ever need it, someone will use the old method.

I carry a barrier around with me and if I ever need to do CPR I intend to use the old method. Although maybe instead of 15 compressions an 2 breaths I will do 30 and 2.