Chest compression or conventional CPR after out of hospital cardiac arrest?

BMJ 2011; 342 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d374 (Published 27 January 2011) Cite this as: BMJ 2011;342:d374
  1. Ian G Jacobs, professor of resuscitation and pre-hospital care
  1. 1Discipline of Emergency Medicine, University of Western Australia, Crawley 6009, WA, Australia
  1. ian.jacobs{at}uwa.edu.au

Definitive evidence is lacking, but either is better than no CPR

The proportion of people with cardiac arrest who receive bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) before the arrival of an ambulance remains suboptimal. This is disappointing considering the substantial effort over many decades to promote bystander CPR. Reasons for the public not starting resuscitation include fear of infection, fear of litigation, and the complexity of conventional CPR.1 Consequently, it might be possible to improve participation in community CPR by removing the rescue breathing component of conventional CPR. However, such a strategy would be acceptable only if outcomes were at least similar for compression only CPR to those seen for conventional CPR.


In the linked observational study (doi:10.1136/bmj.c7106), Ogawa and colleagues report that one month survival after out of hospital arrest is significantly better with conventional CPR than compression only CPR (adjusted odds ratio 1.17, 95% confidence interval 1.06 to …

View Full Text

Log in

Log in through your institution


* For online subscription