Updated on June 12, 2022
HealthDay operates under the strictest editorial standards. Our syndicated news content is completely independent of any financial interests, is based solely on industry-respected sources and the latest scientific research, and is carefully fact-checked by a team of industry experts to ensure accuracy.
- All articles are edited and checked for factual accuracy by our Editorial Team prior to being published.
- Unless otherwise noted, all articles focusing on new research are based on studies published in peer-reviewed journals or issued from independent and respected medical associations, academic groups and governmental organizations.
- Each article includes a link or reference to the original source.
- Any known potential conflicts of interest associated with a study or source are made clear to the reader.
Please see our Editorial and Fact-Checking Policy for more detail.Editorial and Fact-Checking Policy
HealthDay Editorial Commitment
HeathDay is committed to maintaining the highest possible levels of impartial editorial standards in the content that we present on our website. All of our articles are chosen independent of any financial interests. Editors and writers make all efforts to clarify any financial ties behind the studies on which we report.
FRIDAY, March 16, 2007 (HealthDay News) -- Adding mouth-to-mouth resuscitation to chest compression hurt, rather than helped, the survival of people who suffered cardiac arrest, a Japanese study found.
The study examined more than 4,000 adults who got emergency treatment from bystanders when they collapsed because their hearts stopped beating. The result: better neurological function in 10.1 percent of those who had only chest compression that started within four minutes of cardiac arrest, compared to 5.1 percent of those who also were given mouth-to-mouth resuscitation.
Similar benefits for chest compression alone were found for people who suffered abnormal heart rhythms and those with the breathing difficulty called apnea.
"However, there was no evidence of any benefit from the addition of mouth-to-mouth ventilation in any subgroup," the researchers reported.
The findings are published in the March 17 issue of the British journal The Lancet.
The report could lead to a further change in American Heart Association guidelines for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), said Dr. Gordon Ewy, director of the University of Arizona Sarver Heart Center, who has been proposing such a change for years. He wrote an editorial accompanying the journal report.
"Based on research conducted in our experimental resuscitation laboratory, we have been advocating chest compression alone for cardiac arrest," Ewy said. "We have done that because our surveys indicated that people are more likely to do bystander resuscitation if they have to do chest compression only, rather than having to do mouth-to-mouth resuscitation."
Bystanders hesitate to do mouth-to-mouth resuscitation partly because they dislike the physical contact and potential risk of infectious disease, and partly because "it is a very complex psychomotor skill, and people are afraid that they might hurt the person," Ewy said.
As a result, he said, "three out of every four people who witness cardiac arrests won't do bystander CPR."
And when mouth-to-mouth ventilation is given, chest compression has to be stopped momentarily, Ewy said, adding, "You're only pressing on the chest for half the time."
The heart association already appears to be leaning in that direction. It updated its CPR guidelines in November 2005, changing the ratio to 30 compressions for every two breaths, from the old ratio of two breaths for every 15 compressions.
"This article is extremely important, because it clearly shows what we've shown in our laboratory, that chest compression is better, and people are dramatically more likely to do that," Ewy said.
There are an estimated 450,000 cardiac arrests in the United States each year. Chances that someone whose heart stops beating in a public place will be resuscitated and go on to lead a normal life range from 2 percent to 70 percent in the United States and Canada, depending on where the event occurs, Ewy said.
Existing guidelines urge all adults to take a CPR course and to call 911 for instructions about emergency CPR.
"If you call 911, you are told to do chest compression alone," Ewy said. "If you can get more people to do chest compression only, it would make a dramatic difference."
Whether the CPR guidelines are changed because of this study is almost beside the point, said Dr. Lance Becker, director of the University of Pennsylvania Center for Resuscitation Science and a past chairman of the American Heart Association's Basic Life Support Committee.
"The message of the study is that any CPR is better than no CPR, and that any attempt at resuscitation is better than doing nothing," Becker said. "The good news for people is that they can feel comfortable if they do anything. Anything they do is going to help somebody."
For bystanders who hesitate to help when they see someone collapse, because they are unsure about mouth-to-mouth resuscitation, Becker said: "If you're not sure you can do it very well, don't do it. But do chest compression. Whether the guidelines will change, I don't know, but they guidelines say if you feel uncomfortable with mouth-to-mouth resuscitation, then just do chest compression."
For more on cardiac arrest and CPR, visit the American Heart Association.
This story may be outdated. We suggest some alternatives.
The content contained in this article is over two years old. As such our recommendation is that you reference the articles below for the latest updates on this topic. This article has been left on our site as a matter of historic record. Please contact us at email@example.com with any questions.