siddharth wrote at 04/25/2013 10:16 AM:
> Unrelated to the main topic here, but all the talk of DNR et al reminded
> me of this article earlier this week -
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22154552 .
> Hmmm.

Thanks.  That's definitely relevant.  But the trouble with that article
(and most, actually) is the purely positive results reported.  Here's
one that _seems_ more objective.  A practical first step might be to
push for more realistic portrayals of CPR in the media.


CPR: Less Effective Than You Might Think
http://www.intelihealth.com/IH/ihtIH/WSIHW000/35320/35323/372221.html?d=dmtHMSContent

>  As opposed to many medical myths, researchers have reliable data concerning 
> the success rates of CPR (without the use of automatic defibrillators) in a 
> variety of settings:
> 
>     2% to 30% effectiveness when administered outside of the hospital
>     6% to 15% for hospitalized patients
>     Less than 5% for elderly victims with multiple medical problems
> 
> In June 1996, the New England Journal of Medicine published a study about the 
> success rates of CPR as shown on the television medical shows "ER," "Chicago 
> Hope" and "Rescue 911." According to the shows, CPR successfully revived the 
> victim 75% of the time, more than double the most conservative real-life 
> estimates. A more recent study published in 2009 suggested that the immediate 
> success rate of CPR on television may be more realistic; however, discharge 
> from the hospital and longer-term survival were rarely mentioned in TV 
> dramas. In addition, while most CPR is actually performed on sick, older 
> individuals with cardiac disease, most victims in television dramas are young 
> and required CPR following trauma or a near-drowning — conditions with the 
> highest success rates.
> 
> Finally, patients on TV shows usually die or fully recovered. In real life, 
> many of those who are revived by CPR wind up severely debilitated. One reason 
> may be that, as noted by a study published in the January 2005 issue of the 
> Journal of the American Medical Association, CPR is frequently not 
> administered adequately, even when provided by trained ambulance personnel. 
> Improved technique (including more frequent and rapid compressions, as 
> recommended in the new guidelines) and use of automatic defibrillators could 
> dramatically improve success rates.
> 
> The low success rate of CPR may be an example of how a medical myth is 
> perpetuated by the media because it is more appealing than the truth. 
> Unfortunately, sugar-coating the concept of CPR leads to unrealistic 
> expectations when a loved one requires CPR or is ill, and heroic measures are 
> under consideration. A better understanding of when CPR may be effective and 
> when it is highly unlikely to help will better serve everyone in the 
> unfortunate event of catastrophic illness or injury. If you learn to 
> administer CPR, you may save someone's life, so learning the proper technique 
> is worth the effort. However, you should not expect the results you see on 
> television. 


-- 
=><= glen e. p. ropella
And I'm never gonna tell you why


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Reply via email to