CPR, defibrillator as effective as paramedics, studies say

[WAS967 97]

http://www.news-leader.com/today/0812-CPR,...ibr-154509.html

CPR, defibrillator as effective as paramedics, studies say

By Robert Davis

USA Today

Bystanders performing CPR and using automated external defibrillators save

as many cardiac-arrest victims as highly trained paramedics - and send more

of them home with normal brain function - according to studies out today.

The findings may lead to sweeping changes in the way emergency medical

systems across the nation allocate resources, experts say.

The chances of surviving a cardiac arrest nearly quadruple if fast-acting

laypeople perform CPR instead of waiting for paramedics, according to one of

the studies in today's New England Journal of Medicine. The study found that

the chances of survival more than triple if a shock from a defibrillator is

delivered within eight minutes.

Paramedics could not save more lives than people who performed CPR and used

an automated external defibrillator (AED), according to the study, the first

of its kind.

A second study in the prestigious medical journal shows that twice as many

lives are saved when an amateur rescuer uses an AED to deliver a shock to

cardiac-arrest victims before emergency medical services crews arrived.

About 60,000 people suffer a short circuit of the heart and require such a

shock each year. In recent years, easy-to-use, foolproof AEDs have saved

tens of thousands of lives.

And the devices have exposed shortcomings in EMS.

Paramedics simply can't reach victims fast enough, USA Today found in an

investigation published last year. Thousands of lives are lost each year

because of fragmented, inconsistent and slow emergency medical services.

"These two studies will change the way we think of EMS," says Robert

O'Connor, chairman of the EMS committee for the American College of

Emergency Physicians. He says more cities may now deploy more AEDs. "This

changes the playing field."

[x635 4,066]

What a ridiculous, retarded and poorly researched article. The study behind it seems like a bit of a joke as well.

But, as they are portraying themselves lately, USA today is the expert on EMS. ::rollingeyes::

What about all the people that DONT go into cardiac arrest because of paramedics?

[WAS967 97]

A similar article was in yesterday's Journal News. I can't find it on the Gannett website (because it sucks for archives). If you can find the article, please post it. And if the ACEP is thinking hard about the subject, it can't be all that far fetched,.

[x635 4,066]

In addition, USA Today is also the newspaper that several times this year, has reffered to EMS as "Ambulance driver". I truly don't think that AEDS are a replacment for ACLS or Paramedics,as the article implies, rather a very helpful supplement

[WAS967 97]

Keep in mind that there are two other studies that also show similar results. I agree with you tho. The studies show that CPR and AEDs are more effective at saving people when they are there at the time of collapse. One study showed that paramedics aren't as effective because they take time to get there. I'd have to read the studies myself to make a full assessment of what they are implying.

[x635 4,066]

The chances of surviving a cardiac arrest nearly quadruple if fast-acting 

laypeople perform CPR instead of waiting for paramedics, according to one of 

the studies in today's New England Journal of Medicine. The study found that 

the chances of survival more than triple if a shock from a defibrillator is 

delivered within eight minutes. 

Gee, civilain interventions and defib within 8 minutes can help to save lives????? DUH!!!Are they joking with the above? That just shows me the merit/quality of this so-called "study".

I, too, will hafta look at the actual study. I do not and will not trust the poor quality, biased, agenda based, and "pop" reporting of the USA Today.

[mfkap 0]

Gee, civilain interventions and defib within 8 minutes can help to save lives????? DUH!!!Are they joking with the above? That just shows me the merit/quality of this  so-called "study".

I, too, will hafta look at the actual study.  I do not and will not trust the poor quality, biased, agenda based, and "pop" reporting of the USA Today.

You have to remember that this stuff is going to the general public. And if articles like this can help convince people to learn/perform CPR or use an AED instead of waiting for EMS, it is a good thing.

The core of the article is decent and makes sense, it is just the usual media exploitation that makes the article stupid. We all know they don't care about the 1000 patients you get to in under 5 minutes if they can get a good story out of the one that it took 15 mins to get to.

[N1Medic 69]

What about all the victims that AREN'T shockable???????

[Guest alsfirefighter]

Actually, we are the supplement to the AED. AED is very early in the chain of survival for an out of hospital Vfib arrest. Let's not forget that is what they are talking about, not overall survivability, but ones in which an AED can be used. I'm actually a bit surprised by your stance on this 635, being early defib always wins, yes some of our pharmacological interventions may bring that back within a shockable threshold, but I have had a couple successful turn arounds due to AED use, 1 BLS, 1 PD and 1 Public access. Your chances of survival drop 7-10% for every minute that defib doesn't happen. Let's face it, most places are looking at a min. 3 min response time and some upwards of 7 to 10, and to be more realistic some areas even more then that!

[x635 4,066]

No, ALS, I agree with you, as I do with the American Heart Assoc.'s stance on the issue, which has been out for several years now. It says the same thing as this study does.

I'm against the "ALS is useless" tone of the article and reporting. BTW, this isn't the first time USA Today has had this stance.

AEDs (COUPLED WITH effective CPR) are a great tool. I don't beleive we are a "supplement" to them though, I think we are an extension of the care/chain rather. PAD is a great program, but absolutely no replacement or subsitution for quality ALS care. Let's not forget all the arrests that require the "5 H's and 5 T's. After all, something (at time BESIDES an MI) cause this person to go into arrest, wheter it would be a drug OD, diabetic, choking, hypoxia, hyperkalemia, etc etc.....

[x635 4,066]

Oh yeah, and why doesn't NYS*DOH or WREMAC REQUIRE AED's on ALL BLS ambulances and/or first response vehicles?????????????????????