CPR study questions mouth-to-mouth
A study, published in the medical journal, The
Lancet, found that in certain circumstances, chest
compressions only can be better than mouth to mouth.
The study of 3,000 patients showed that
chest-compression-only CPR was associated with a slightly
improved chance of survival compared with standard CPR
(14% v 12%).
In the second analysis of seven studies,
researchers found no difference between the two CPR techniques.
If you're unwilling or unable to do full CPR then chest compressions are better than nothing.
Dr Meng Aw-Yong
Medical Adviser, St John Ambulance
In both pieces of research the bystanders were
untrained and were receiving assistance over the phone from the
Something is better than nothing
Dr Meng Aw-Yong, Medical Adviser, St John
Ambulance, said: 'It's generally the case that rescue
breaths improve the chances of survival, when carried out by people
who know what they're doing. It's likely that those doing
first aid in this study were untrained and therefore the
mouth-to-mouth element was ineffectual.
'We know that giving rescue breaths can be
off-putting and the current advice is that if you're unwilling or
unable to do full CPR then chest compressions are better than
nothing. The best solution, however, is for people to get
trained in how to carry out chest compressions and rescue
breaths so they can be the difference between a life lost
and a life saved.'