"New" style CPR

[ccmedoc]

What is it about the current CPR that gives it so much merit over any of the new ideas or ideas for improved methods?

Only that it is accepted..It is constantly evolving, much like everything in medicine. The more evidence presented on the subject, the more we see how fallible the practice may be. As it stands, it is the best thing we have going with any evidence behind it..good and bad.

I find it interesting that some things termed "new" have such strong resemblance to "old" practices tried and thrown away some years ago. I have seen, in artificial cardiopulmonary resuscitation manuals from the early 70's, maneuvers suspiciously similar to this study. Without the necessary evidence based studies, they were deemed inefficient as they did not directly impact the heart's pumping action. Now the Zoll autopulse claims to move more blood than humanly possible, by compressing the entire chest.Take that for what it is worth.

I am in the process of looking these (the old manuals) up and digitizing them..I hope to have them soon as time permits...just for arguments sake.

I was just seeking opinions from the gallery, as I have done in my part of the world. Interesting that the periodical I gleaned this from was a respiratory journal....I don't know why that struck me as odd? :roll:

[BEorP]

Only that it is accepted..It is constantly evolving, much like everything in medicine...

Exactly the point I was trying to mrmeaner. This attitude of "this is how we do it and have always done it so it must be the best" is too prevalent in EMS and is an obstacle when conducting research in EMS.