Elise Miotke

PICO
Evidenced Based Practice

1. In cardiac arrest patients, is hands only CPR as effective as traditional CPR

when initiated at time of collapse?
P- Cardiac arrest patients
I-Hands only CPR
C-Traditional CPR
O- Which is more effective?

I developed this question because I heard that studies are now showing that
hands only CPR is
just as effective, if not more effective, than traditional CPR with chest
compressions and
breaths. I believe that traditional CPR is more effective as this way you also
perform breaths to
the patient keeping their oxygen supply circulating as well. The fact that this
has even been a
discussion is very interesting to me. It could change the way we do things,
the way we are
trained and the number of individuals who survive Cardiac Arrest.
In summary, in my research I have found that Hands-only CPR, if performed
by a Bystander, is
more effective than Traditional CPR (compressions and breaths) if initiated
immediately upon
collapse.
I found this surprising at first as I thought that the breaths you provided were
equally as
important as the compressions. After doing the research and digging I have
found that when

an individual collapses there is enough oxygen still circulating in their blood

to supply it to the
major tissues and organs. I do understand however, that CPR without breaths
cannot go on for
a long period of time as the individual will essentially use up the oxygen
circulating in the
blood and will then starve organs of their necessary oxygen.
In conclusion, if initiated immediately upon collapse, hands-only CPR is as
effective, if not more
effective than traditional CPR. Training the general public that doing
something instead of doing
nothing is increasing the individuals survival and will hopefully increase the
survival rate of outof- hospital cardiac arrest patients.