| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
01 May 2007 11:27:25 PM |
| Object: |
To Treat the Dead The new science of resuscitation |
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18368186/site/newsweek?GT1=9951
To Treat the Dead
The new science of resuscitation is changing the way doctors think
about heart attacks—and death itself.
By Jerry Adler
Newsweek
May 7, 2007 issue - Consider someone who has just died of a heart
attack. His organs are intact, he hasn't lost blood. All that's
happened is his heart has stopped beating—the definition of "clinical
death"—and his brain has shut down to conserve oxygen. But what has
actually died?
As recently as 1993, when Dr. Sherwin Nuland wrote the best seller
"How We Die," the conventional answer was that it was his cells that
had died. The patient couldn't be revived because the tissues of his
brain and heart had suffered irreversible damage from lack of oxygen.
This process was understood to begin after just four or five minutes.
If the patient doesn't receive cardiopulmonary resuscitation within
that time, and if his heart can't be restarted soon thereafter, he is
unlikely to recover. That dogma went unquestioned until researchers
actually looked at oxygen-starved heart cells under a microscope. What
they saw amazed them, according to Dr. Lance Becker, an authority on
emergency medicine at the University of Pennsylvania. "After one
hour," he says, "we couldn't see evidence the cells had died. We
thought we'd done something wrong." In fact, cells cut off from their
blood supply died only hours later.
But if the cells are still alive, why can't doctors revive someone who
has been dead for an hour? Because once the cells have been without
oxygen for more than five minutes, they die when their oxygen supply
is resumed. It was that "astounding" discovery, Becker says, that led
him to his post as the director of Penn's Center for Resuscitation
Science, a newly created research institute operating on one of
medicine's newest frontiers: treating the dead.
Biologists are still grappling with the implications of this new view
of cell death—not passive extinguishment, like a candle flickering out
when you cover it with a glass, but an active biochemical event
triggered by "reperfusion," the resumption of oxygen supply. The
research takes them deep into the machinery of the cell, to the tiny
membrane-enclosed structures known as mitochondria where cellular fuel
is oxidized to provide energy. Mitochondria control the process known
as apoptosis, the programmed death of abnormal cells that is the
body's primary defense against cancer. "It looks to us," says Becker,
"as if the cellular surveillance mechanism cannot tell the difference
between a cancer cell and a cell being reperfused with oxygen.
Something throws the switch that makes the cell die."
With this realization came another: that standard emergency-room
procedure has it exactly backward. When someone collapses on the
street of cardiac arrest, if he's lucky he will receive immediate CPR,
maintaining circulation until he can be revived in the hospital. But
the rest will have gone 10 or 15 minutes or more without a heartbeat
by the time they reach the emergency department. And then what
happens? "We give them oxygen," Becker says. "We jolt the heart with
the paddles, we pump in epinephrine to force it to beat, so it's
taking up more oxygen." Blood-starved heart muscle is suddenly flooded
with oxygen, precisely the situation that leads to cell death.
Instead, Becker says, we should aim to reduce oxygen uptake, slow
metabolism and adjust the blood chemistry for gradual and safe
reperfusion.
Researchers are still working out how best to do this. A study at four
hospitals, published last year by the University of California, showed
a remarkable rate of success in treating sudden cardiac arrest with an
approach that involved, among other things, a "cardioplegic" blood
infusion to keep the heart in a state of suspended animation. Patients
were put on a heart-lung bypass machine to maintain circulation to the
brain until the heart could be safely restarted. The study involved
just 34 patients, but 80 percent of them were discharged from the
hospital alive. In one study of traditional methods, the figure was
about 15 percent.
Becker also endorses hypothermia—lowering body temperature from 37 to
33 degrees Celsius—which appears to slow the chemical reactions
touched off by reperfusion. He has developed an injectable slurry of
salt and ice to cool the blood quickly that he hopes to make part of
the standard emergency-response kit. "In an emergency department, you
work like mad for half an hour on someone whose heart stopped, and
finally someone says, 'I don't think we're going to get this guy
back,' and then you just stop," Becker says. The body on the cart is
dead, but its trillions of cells are all still alive. Becker wants to
resolve that paradox in favor of life.
.
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: To Treat the Dead The new science of resuscitation |
02 May 2007 12:18:22 AM |
|
|
In article <pl4g331r8kqgmma2g1g386lgaqu4lqvhsl@4ax.com>,
wrote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18368186/site/newsweek?GT1=9951
To Treat the Dead
The new science of resuscitation is changing the way doctors think
about heart attacks—and death itself.
Very interesting. Now science is starting to look a the biochemistry of
death. Hopefully, it will save lives.
By Jerry Adler
Newsweek
May 7, 2007 issue - Consider someone who has just died of a heart
attack. His organs are intact, he hasn't lost blood. All that's
happened is his heart has stopped beating—the definition of "clinical
death"—and his brain has shut down to conserve oxygen. But what has
actually died?
<snip a lot of good stuff>
--
John #1782
"We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be
white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides."
- Saint Ignatius Loyola (1491-1556) Founder of the Jesuit Order.
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: To Treat the Dead The new science of resuscitation |
15 May 2007 08:28:02 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 01 May 2007 22:18:22 -0700, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote in alt.atheism
In article <pl4g331r8kqgmma2g1g386lgaqu4lqvhsl@4ax.com>,
wrote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18368186/site/newsweek?GT1=9951
To Treat the Dead
The new science of resuscitation is changing the way doctors think
about heart attacks—and death itself.
Very interesting. Now science is starting to look a the biochemistry of
death. Hopefully, it will save lives.
Unknowingly, doctors were killing their patients.
By Jerry Adler
Newsweek
May 7, 2007 issue - Consider someone who has just died of a heart
attack. His organs are intact, he hasn't lost blood. All that's
happened is his heart has stopped beating—the definition of "clinical
death"—and his brain has shut down to conserve oxygen. But what has
actually died?
<snip a lot of good stuff>
--
Atheist n A person to be pitied in that he is
unable to believe things for which there is
no evidence, and who has thus deprived himself of
a convenient means of feeling superior to others.
—Chaz Bufe, The American Heretic’s Dictionary
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: To Treat the Dead The new science of resuscitation |
02 May 2007 07:22:18 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 01 May 2007 21:27:25 -0700, wrote:
- Refer: <pl4g331r8kqgmma2g1g386lgaqu4lqvhsl@4ax.com>
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18368186/site/newsweek?GT1=9951
To Treat the Dead
The new science of resuscitation is changing the way doctors think
about heart attacks—and death itself.
By Jerry Adler
Newsweek
May 7, 2007 issue - Consider someone who has just died of a heart
attack. His organs are intact, he hasn't lost blood. All that's
happened is his heart has stopped beating—the definition of "clinical
death"—and his brain has shut down to conserve oxygen. But what has
actually died?
:
Another lot of dangerous "black & white" thihnking falls by the
wayside! :)
Yay!
--
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: To Treat the Dead The new science of resuscitation |
02 May 2007 08:26:15 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 01 May 2007 21:27:25 -0700, stoney wrote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18368186/site/newsweek?GT1=9951
To Treat the Dead
The new science of resuscitation is changing the way doctors think about
heart attacks—and death itself.
By Jerry Adler
Newsweek
May 7, 2007 issue - Consider someone who has just died of a heart attack.
His organs are intact, he hasn't lost blood. All that's happened is his
heart has stopped beating—the definition of "clinical death"—and his
brain has shut down to conserve oxygen. But what has actually died?
Oxygen is very toxic stuff. "Reperfusion injury" is a relatively new idea
that is one of those "Why didn't I think of that sooner?" things. When
the cellular machinery that uses oxygen in a way that doesn't damage the
rest of the cell is itself damaged, trying to restore oxygen delivery as
fast as possible has many deliterious effects. Of course, continuing
anoxia is pretty damaging as well.
--
MarkA
(this space accidentally filled in)
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: To Treat the Dead The new science of resuscitation |
15 May 2007 08:35:49 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 02 May 2007 09:26:15 -0400, MarkA <toor@nowhere.com> wrote in
alt.atheism
On Tue, 01 May 2007 21:27:25 -0700, stoney wrote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18368186/site/newsweek?GT1=9951
To Treat the Dead
The new science of resuscitation is changing the way doctors think about
heart attacks—and death itself.
By Jerry Adler
Newsweek
May 7, 2007 issue - Consider someone who has just died of a heart attack.
His organs are intact, he hasn't lost blood. All that's happened is his
heart has stopped beating—the definition of "clinical death"—and his
brain has shut down to conserve oxygen. But what has actually died?
Oxygen is very toxic stuff. "Reperfusion injury" is a relatively new idea
that is one of those "Why didn't I think of that sooner?" things.
Lots of very good reasons. The sheer lack of time between emergency
patients or regular patients. The overwhelming amounts of information
physicians commonly deal with. Such has the tendency to generate almost
a rote response. The conferences/courses which are required to keep a
doctorate active as well has trying to have some semblance of a private
life.
When
the cellular machinery that uses oxygen in a way that doesn't damage the
rest of the cell is itself damaged, trying to restore oxygen delivery as
fast as possible has many deliterious effects. Of course, continuing
anoxia is pretty damaging as well.
--
Atheist n A person to be pitied in that he is
unable to believe things for which there is
no evidence, and who has thus deprived himself of
a convenient means of feeling superior to others.
—Chaz Bufe, The American Heretic’s Dictionary
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: To Treat the Dead The new science of resuscitation |
02 May 2007 07:46:54 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 02 May 2007 09:26:15 -0400, MarkA <toor@nowhere.com> wrote:
- Refer: <pan.2007.05.02.13.26.13.727904@nowhere.com>
On Tue, 01 May 2007 21:27:25 -0700, stoney wrote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18368186/site/newsweek?GT1=9951
To Treat the Dead
The new science of resuscitation is changing the way doctors think about
heart attacks—and death itself.
By Jerry Adler
Newsweek
May 7, 2007 issue - Consider someone who has just died of a heart attack.
His organs are intact, he hasn't lost blood. All that's happened is his
heart has stopped beating—the definition of "clinical death"—and his
brain has shut down to conserve oxygen. But what has actually died?
Oxygen is very toxic stuff. "Reperfusion injury" is a relatively new idea
that is one of those "Why didn't I think of that sooner?" things. When
the cellular machinery that uses oxygen in a way that doesn't damage the
rest of the cell is itself damaged, trying to restore oxygen delivery as
fast as possible has many deliterious effects. Of course, continuing
anoxia is pretty damaging as well.
On the same topic, recent recommendations for CPR are that one ONLY
performs the chest compression, and no longer interrupt it to force
air into the patient's lungs.
Extensive testing has show that the survival rate improves noticably
WITHOUT the perfusion of air.
(Enough gets circulated during the chest compression as it is and, as
has been conclusively shown, too much oxygen is actually BAD in this
situation.
A bit of oxygen deprivation saves lives.)
Of course, it will take a generation for this modified method to seep
through to educators and medicos, wuch is the way of habit.
I would "look up" a formal reference, but cannot be bothered just at
the moment.
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: To Treat the Dead The new science of resuscitation |
03 May 2007 12:47:43 AM |
|
|
Michael Gray wrote:
On Wed, 02 May 2007 09:26:15 -0400, MarkA <toor@nowhere.com> wrote:
- Refer: <pan.2007.05.02.13.26.13.727904@nowhere.com>
On Tue, 01 May 2007 21:27:25 -0700, stoney wrote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18368186/site/newsweek?GT1=9951
To Treat the Dead
The new science of resuscitation is changing the way doctors think
about heart attacks-and death itself.
By Jerry Adler
Newsweek
May 7, 2007 issue - Consider someone who has just died of a heart
attack. His organs are intact, he hasn't lost blood. All that's
happened is his heart has stopped beating-the definition of
"clinical death"-and his brain has shut down to conserve oxygen.
But what has actually died?
Oxygen is very toxic stuff. "Reperfusion injury" is a relatively
new idea that is one of those "Why didn't I think of that sooner?"
things. When the cellular machinery that uses oxygen in a way that
doesn't damage the rest of the cell is itself damaged, trying to
restore oxygen delivery as fast as possible has many deliterious
effects. Of course, continuing anoxia is pretty damaging as well.
On the same topic, recent recommendations for CPR are that one ONLY
performs the chest compression, and no longer interrupt it to force
air into the patient's lungs.
This is from one or two studies and ARE NOT what the 2005 standards suggest.
These standards are a joint effort but The American Heart Association
usually takes the cresit.
Extensive testing has show that the survival rate improves noticably
WITHOUT the perfusion of air.
(Enough gets circulated during the chest compression as it is and, as
has been conclusively shown, too much oxygen is actually BAD in this
situation.
A bit of oxygen deprivation saves lives.)
Of course, it will take a generation for this modified method to seep
through to educators and medicos, wuch is the way of habit.
The new guidelines usually take about a year to be fully in place. There is
a new set that comes out every five years.
All the major agencies now teach the new information. Worse case is someone
who was certified in mid 2006 or so and is an individual not associated with
EMS. He or she will not become current until mid 2007 or 2008 depending on
the agency. Chances are they will not remember much and if they have to do
it will do poorly.
I would "look up" a formal reference, but cannot be bothered just at
the moment.
There have been a few studies that support compressions only and many of us
thought this might happen for the 2005 guidelines. The new ratio of 30
compressions to 2 breaths supports this but there are other reasons.
They also say that if you can't or won't do the breathing, do the
compressions.
The main reason for leaving breaths in seems to be to simplify training.
People forget and introducing a bunch of different rules for children and
adults adds to the confusion.
Most adults tend to be breathing until their heart fails and their system is
oxygenated.(Drowning is one exception.)
Most children's hearts stop because there is not enough O2 to keep it going.
They are usually choking.
While somewhat anecdotal I know of one ER doc who has never in 15 years seen
a patient who was flatline at the scene recover. If they are in fibulation
there is a chance with ALS having more alive at the back door than BLS.
However the ones who leave alive are essentially the same.
The cooling mentioned is gaining a lot of interest in several areas but it
will be a long time before anything is done in the field to assist this.
By-passing the heart may never be done in the field.
Incidentally, the article did not talk about the other organ that needs O2
to live, the brain.
NB.
If you ever find yourself doing CPR, DON'T STOP when the responders get
there. Wait until they ask you to move aside.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Chris H. Fleming" |
|
| Title: Re: To Treat the Dead The new science of resuscitation |
03 May 2007 02:06:41 AM |
|
|
On May 2, 8:46 pm, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Wed, 02 May 2007 09:26:15 -0400, MarkA <t...@nowhere.com> wrote:
- Refer: <pan.2007.05.02.13.26.13.727...@nowhere.com>
On Tue, 01 May 2007 21:27:25 -0700, stoney wrote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18368186/site/newsweek?GT1=9951
To Treat the Dead
The new science of resuscitation is changing the way doctors think about
heart attacks-and death itself.
By Jerry Adler
Newsweek
May 7, 2007 issue - Consider someone who has just died of a heart attack.
His organs are intact, he hasn't lost blood. All that's happened is his
heart has stopped beating-the definition of "clinical death"-and his
brain has shut down to conserve oxygen. But what has actually died?
Oxygen is very toxic stuff. "Reperfusion injury" is a relatively new idea
that is one of those "Why didn't I think of that sooner?" things. When
the cellular machinery that uses oxygen in a way that doesn't damage the
rest of the cell is itself damaged, trying to restore oxygen delivery as
fast as possible has many deliterious effects. Of course, continuing
anoxia is pretty damaging as well.
On the same topic, recent recommendations for CPR are that one ONLY
performs the chest compression, and no longer interrupt it to force
air into the patient's lungs.
Extensive testing has show that the survival rate improves noticably
WITHOUT the perfusion of air.
(Enough gets circulated during the chest compression as it is and, as
has been conclusively shown, too much oxygen is actually BAD in this
situation.
A bit of oxygen deprivation saves lives.)
Of course, it will take a generation for this modified method to seep
through to educators and medicos, wuch is the way of habit.
I would "look up" a formal reference, but cannot be bothered just at
the moment.
My wife was just taught this last time she updated her CPR thing.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: To Treat the Dead The new science of resuscitation |
03 May 2007 06:18:17 AM |
|
|
On 3 May 2007 00:06:41 -0700, "Chris H. Fleming"
<chris_h_fleming@yahoo.com> wrote:
- Refer: <1178176001.007207.213920@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>
On May 2, 8:46 pm, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Wed, 02 May 2007 09:26:15 -0400, MarkA <t...@nowhere.com> wrote:
- Refer: <pan.2007.05.02.13.26.13.727...@nowhere.com>
On Tue, 01 May 2007 21:27:25 -0700, stoney wrote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18368186/site/newsweek?GT1=9951
To Treat the Dead
The new science of resuscitation is changing the way doctors think about
heart attacks-and death itself.
By Jerry Adler
Newsweek
May 7, 2007 issue - Consider someone who has just died of a heart attack.
His organs are intact, he hasn't lost blood. All that's happened is his
heart has stopped beating-the definition of "clinical death"-and his
brain has shut down to conserve oxygen. But what has actually died?
Oxygen is very toxic stuff. "Reperfusion injury" is a relatively new idea
that is one of those "Why didn't I think of that sooner?" things. When
the cellular machinery that uses oxygen in a way that doesn't damage the
rest of the cell is itself damaged, trying to restore oxygen delivery as
fast as possible has many deliterious effects. Of course, continuing
anoxia is pretty damaging as well.
On the same topic, recent recommendations for CPR are that one ONLY
performs the chest compression, and no longer interrupt it to force
air into the patient's lungs.
Extensive testing has show that the survival rate improves noticably
WITHOUT the perfusion of air.
(Enough gets circulated during the chest compression as it is and, as
has been conclusively shown, too much oxygen is actually BAD in this
situation.
A bit of oxygen deprivation saves lives.)
Of course, it will take a generation for this modified method to seep
through to educators and medicos, wuch is the way of habit.
I would "look up" a formal reference, but cannot be bothered just at
the moment.
My wife was just taught this last time she updated her CPR thing.
Excellent.
I don't mind being proven wrong on such a prognostication.
--
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: To Treat the Dead The new science of resuscitation |
02 May 2007 09:49:39 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 03 May 2007 10:16:54 +0930, Michael Gray
<mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Wed, 02 May 2007 09:26:15 -0400, MarkA <toor@nowhere.com> wrote:
- Refer: <pan.2007.05.02.13.26.13.727904@nowhere.com>
On Tue, 01 May 2007 21:27:25 -0700, stoney wrote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18368186/site/newsweek?GT1=9951
To Treat the Dead
The new science of resuscitation is changing the way doctors think about
heart attacks—and death itself.
By Jerry Adler
Newsweek
May 7, 2007 issue - Consider someone who has just died of a heart attack.
His organs are intact, he hasn't lost blood. All that's happened is his
heart has stopped beating—the definition of "clinical death"—and his
brain has shut down to conserve oxygen. But what has actually died?
Oxygen is very toxic stuff. "Reperfusion injury" is a relatively new idea
that is one of those "Why didn't I think of that sooner?" things. When
the cellular machinery that uses oxygen in a way that doesn't damage the
rest of the cell is itself damaged, trying to restore oxygen delivery as
fast as possible has many deliterious effects. Of course, continuing
anoxia is pretty damaging as well.
On the same topic, recent recommendations for CPR are that one ONLY
performs the chest compression, and no longer interrupt it to force
air into the patient's lungs.
Extensive testing has show that the survival rate improves noticably
WITHOUT the perfusion of air.
(Enough gets circulated during the chest compression as it is and, as
has been conclusively shown, too much oxygen is actually BAD in this
situation.
A bit of oxygen deprivation saves lives.)
Of course, it will take a generation for this modified method to seep
through to educators and medicos, wuch is the way of habit.
Actually, it's probably about to be taught fairly soon. As an
educator, I'm required to be recertified in CPR annually, and at my
most recent recert last month, we were taught that the breaths to
compressions ratio had been changed from 2:15 to 2:30, with the
instructor stating pretty confidently that the no-breaths protocol
would probably be in place next time around.
--
"O Sybilli, si ergo
Fortibus es in ero
O Nobili! Themis trux
Sivat sinem? Causen Dux"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: To Treat the Dead The new science of resuscitation |
03 May 2007 01:57:55 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 02 May 2007 22:49:39 -0400, raven1
<quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote:
- Refer: <h1ji33lsmbumh1ue5gg0ruf4g4kvfp5e82@4ax.com>
On Thu, 03 May 2007 10:16:54 +0930, Michael Gray
<mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Wed, 02 May 2007 09:26:15 -0400, MarkA <toor@nowhere.com> wrote:
- Refer: <pan.2007.05.02.13.26.13.727904@nowhere.com>
On Tue, 01 May 2007 21:27:25 -0700, stoney wrote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18368186/site/newsweek?GT1=9951
To Treat the Dead
The new science of resuscitation is changing the way doctors think about
heart attacks—and death itself.
By Jerry Adler
Newsweek
May 7, 2007 issue - Consider someone who has just died of a heart attack.
His organs are intact, he hasn't lost blood. All that's happened is his
heart has stopped beating—the definition of "clinical death"—and his
brain has shut down to conserve oxygen. But what has actually died?
Oxygen is very toxic stuff. "Reperfusion injury" is a relatively new idea
that is one of those "Why didn't I think of that sooner?" things. When
the cellular machinery that uses oxygen in a way that doesn't damage the
rest of the cell is itself damaged, trying to restore oxygen delivery as
fast as possible has many deliterious effects. Of course, continuing
anoxia is pretty damaging as well.
On the same topic, recent recommendations for CPR are that one ONLY
performs the chest compression, and no longer interrupt it to force
air into the patient's lungs.
Extensive testing has show that the survival rate improves noticably
WITHOUT the perfusion of air.
(Enough gets circulated during the chest compression as it is and, as
has been conclusively shown, too much oxygen is actually BAD in this
situation.
A bit of oxygen deprivation saves lives.)
Of course, it will take a generation for this modified method to seep
through to educators and medicos, wuch is the way of habit.
Actually, it's probably about to be taught fairly soon. As an
educator, I'm required to be recertified in CPR annually, and at my
most recent recert last month, we were taught that the breaths to
compressions ratio had been changed from 2:15 to 2:30, with the
instructor stating pretty confidently that the no-breaths protocol
would probably be in place next time around.
That is very interesting.
They have to "ease" their way into evidence based medicine??
I expect that in the interim, only 50% of needless brain damage will
occur...
Why not stop it IMMEDIATELY, for Bob's sake?
The evidence is THERE right now!
That they are halving the current rate is an indication that some
shady bureaucratic political juju medicine is being implemented here.
I s'pose I *should* be grateful that they have even heard of it at
all...
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: To Treat the Dead The new science of resuscitation |
03 May 2007 07:27:06 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 03 May 2007 16:27:55 +0930, Michael Gray wrote:
On Wed, 02 May 2007 22:49:39 -0400, raven1 <quoththeraven@nevermore.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <h1ji33lsmbumh1ue5gg0ruf4g4kvfp5e82@4ax.com>
On Thu, 03 May 2007 10:16:54 +0930, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 02 May 2007 09:26:15 -0400, MarkA <toor@nowhere.com> wrote:
- Refer: <pan.2007.05.02.13.26.13.727904@nowhere.com>
On Tue, 01 May 2007 21:27:25 -0700, stoney wrote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18368186/site/newsweek?GT1=9951
To Treat the Dead
The new science of resuscitation is changing the way doctors think
about heart attacks-and death itself.
By Jerry Adler
Newsweek
May 7, 2007 issue - Consider someone who has just died of a heart
attack. His organs are intact, he hasn't lost blood. All that's
happened is his heart has stopped beating-the definition of
"clinical death"-and his brain has shut down to conserve oxygen.
But what has actually died?
Oxygen is very toxic stuff. "Reperfusion injury" is a relatively new
idea that is one of those "Why didn't I think of that sooner?" things.
When the cellular machinery that uses oxygen in a way that doesn't
damage the rest of the cell is itself damaged, trying to restore oxygen
delivery as fast as possible has many deliterious effects. Of course,
continuing anoxia is pretty damaging as well.
On the same topic, recent recommendations for CPR are that one ONLY
performs the chest compression, and no longer interrupt it to force air
into the patient's lungs.
Extensive testing has show that the survival rate improves noticably
WITHOUT the perfusion of air.
(Enough gets circulated during the chest compression as it is and, as
has been conclusively shown, too much oxygen is actually BAD in this
situation.
A bit of oxygen deprivation saves lives.)
Of course, it will take a generation for this modified method to seep
through to educators and medicos, wuch is the way of habit.
Actually, it's probably about to be taught fairly soon. As an educator,
I'm required to be recertified in CPR annually, and at my most recent
recert last month, we were taught that the breaths to compressions ratio
had been changed from 2:15 to 2:30, with the instructor stating pretty
confidently that the no-breaths protocol would probably be in place next
time around.
That is very interesting.
They have to "ease" their way into evidence based medicine?? I expect that
in the interim, only 50% of needless brain damage will occur...
Why not stop it IMMEDIATELY, for Bob's sake? The evidence is THERE right
now!
That they are halving the current rate is an indication that some shady
bureaucratic political juju medicine is being implemented here.
I s'pose I *should* be grateful that they have even heard of it at all...
Given all the 'stuff' going on during a cardiac arrest, I wouldn't get too
worked up that giving breaths at 2:15, 2:30, or zero is going to be the
deciding factor.
--
MarkA
(still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: To Treat the Dead The new science of resuscitation |
03 May 2007 07:26:46 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 03 May 2007 08:27:06 -0400, MarkA <manthony@stopspam.net>
wrote:
- Refer: <pan.2007.05.03.12.27.04.283615@stopspam.net>
On Thu, 03 May 2007 16:27:55 +0930, Michael Gray wrote:
On Wed, 02 May 2007 22:49:39 -0400, raven1 <quoththeraven@nevermore.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <h1ji33lsmbumh1ue5gg0ruf4g4kvfp5e82@4ax.com>
On Thu, 03 May 2007 10:16:54 +0930, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 02 May 2007 09:26:15 -0400, MarkA <toor@nowhere.com> wrote:
- Refer: <pan.2007.05.02.13.26.13.727904@nowhere.com>
On Tue, 01 May 2007 21:27:25 -0700, stoney wrote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18368186/site/newsweek?GT1=9951
To Treat the Dead
The new science of resuscitation is changing the way doctors think
about heart attacks-and death itself.
By Jerry Adler
Newsweek
May 7, 2007 issue - Consider someone who has just died of a heart
attack. His organs are intact, he hasn't lost blood. All that's
happened is his heart has stopped beating-the definition of
"clinical death"-and his brain has shut down to conserve oxygen.
But what has actually died?
Oxygen is very toxic stuff. "Reperfusion injury" is a relatively new
idea that is one of those "Why didn't I think of that sooner?" things.
When the cellular machinery that uses oxygen in a way that doesn't
damage the rest of the cell is itself damaged, trying to restore oxygen
delivery as fast as possible has many deliterious effects. Of course,
continuing anoxia is pretty damaging as well.
On the same topic, recent recommendations for CPR are that one ONLY
performs the chest compression, and no longer interrupt it to force air
into the patient's lungs.
Extensive testing has show that the survival rate improves noticably
WITHOUT the perfusion of air.
(Enough gets circulated during the chest compression as it is and, as
has been conclusively shown, too much oxygen is actually BAD in this
situation.
A bit of oxygen deprivation saves lives.)
Of course, it will take a generation for this modified method to seep
through to educators and medicos, wuch is the way of habit.
Actually, it's probably about to be taught fairly soon. As an educator,
I'm required to be recertified in CPR annually, and at my most recent
recert last month, we were taught that the breaths to compressions ratio
had been changed from 2:15 to 2:30, with the instructor stating pretty
confidently that the no-breaths protocol would probably be in place next
time around.
That is very interesting.
They have to "ease" their way into evidence based medicine?? I expect that
in the interim, only 50% of needless brain damage will occur...
Why not stop it IMMEDIATELY, for Bob's sake? The evidence is THERE right
now!
That they are halving the current rate is an indication that some shady
bureaucratic political juju medicine is being implemented here.
I s'pose I *should* be grateful that they have even heard of it at all...
Given all the 'stuff' going on during a cardiac arrest, I wouldn't get too
worked up that giving breaths at 2:15, 2:30, or zero is going to be the
deciding factor.
How many (non-professional) bystanders *would* have performed it, but
elected not to because of revulsion at the thought of having to give
mouth to mouth on a bristled drunk with vomit and blood around his
mouth, and possibly HIV positive?
I imagine that the incidence of them pretending ignorance would be
quite high in that case.
I also imagine that they *might* have attempted it if they only had to
do chest compression.
I vaguely remember a study being done on this very topic, but cannot
find it.
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: To Treat the Dead The new science of resuscitation |
03 May 2007 10:55:26 PM |
|
|
Michael Gray wrote:
<snip>
How many (non-professional) bystanders *would* have performed it, but
elected not to because of revulsion at the thought of having to give
mouth to mouth on a bristled drunk with vomit and blood around his
mouth, and possibly HIV positive?
I imagine that the incidence of them pretending ignorance would be
quite high in that case.
I also imagine that they *might* have attempted it if they only had to
do chest compression.
I vaguely remember a study being done on this very topic, but cannot
find it.
http://www.jems.com/products/cpr/articles/243159/ is not coming up for me
now but is probably the souce of this information.
As pointed out in almost all searches on a "CPR compressions only" search
bystander hesitancy is a concern. Giving mouth to mouth on "bristled drunk
with vomit and blood " is no fun and while the possibility of AIDS exists,
it is vanishingly small.
Compression only for adults may, as the study says, have some advantage in a
lay population. The guideline for children remains the same and their
suggested guidelines for professionals are the same as an optional choice
for rescuers and has probably been adopted by most medical authorities (2
minutes of CPR first, then an airway and AED)
The 100 a minute is the same.
The training has been simplified because it was hard to remember what you
did to who. Now everybody get 30 - 2 for the single rescuer (Two person was
eliminated a while back, too hard to learn.)
Will we go back to three sets of rules?
Compression only for adults,unless they choke or drown, then give breaths
and compressions and breaths for kids but do I ask how old they are first?
Establishing an airway in adults is hard (I failed two in a row a while
back. I always have an airway on me now.) and much harder in kids.
Only large studies will tell, but the bottom line is that no matter what the
advance it will be a *long* time before the success rate climbs much and
most of that will be from use of an AED.
******
Zoll now has a wearable AED and I asked their rep last Saturday if it came
with a remote control. (I though it was funny, she didn't.)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: To Treat the Dead The new science of resuscitation |
15 May 2007 08:37:12 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 02 May 2007 22:49:39 -0400, raven1 <quoththeraven@nevermore.com>
wrote in alt.atheism
On Thu, 03 May 2007 10:16:54 +0930, Michael Gray
<mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Wed, 02 May 2007 09:26:15 -0400, MarkA <toor@nowhere.com> wrote:
- Refer: <pan.2007.05.02.13.26.13.727904@nowhere.com>
On Tue, 01 May 2007 21:27:25 -0700, stoney wrote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18368186/site/newsweek?GT1=9951
To Treat the Dead
The new science of resuscitation is changing the way doctors think about
heart attacks—and death itself.
By Jerry Adler
Newsweek
May 7, 2007 issue - Consider someone who has just died of a heart attack.
His organs are intact, he hasn't lost blood. All that's happened is his
heart has stopped beating—the definition of "clinical death"—and his
brain has shut down to conserve oxygen. But what has actually died?
Oxygen is very toxic stuff. "Reperfusion injury" is a relatively new idea
that is one of those "Why didn't I think of that sooner?" things. When
the cellular machinery that uses oxygen in a way that doesn't damage the
rest of the cell is itself damaged, trying to restore oxygen delivery as
fast as possible has many deliterious effects. Of course, continuing
anoxia is pretty damaging as well.
On the same topic, recent recommendations for CPR are that one ONLY
performs the chest compression, and no longer interrupt it to force
air into the patient's lungs.
Extensive testing has show that the survival rate improves noticably
WITHOUT the perfusion of air.
(Enough gets circulated during the chest compression as it is and, as
has been conclusively shown, too much oxygen is actually BAD in this
situation.
A bit of oxygen deprivation saves lives.)
Of course, it will take a generation for this modified method to seep
through to educators and medicos, wuch is the way of habit.
Actually, it's probably about to be taught fairly soon. As an
educator, I'm required to be recertified in CPR annually, and at my
most recent recert last month, we were taught that the breaths to
compressions ratio had been changed from 2:15 to 2:30, with the
instructor stating pretty confidently that the no-breaths protocol
would probably be in place next time around.
/artie johnson voice
Veeerrrry iiiinnteresting
--
Atheist n A person to be pitied in that he is
unable to believe things for which there is
no evidence, and who has thus deprived himself of
a convenient means of feeling superior to others.
—Chaz Bufe, The American Heretic’s Dictionary
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: To Treat the Dead The new science of resuscitation |
16 May 2007 02:51:09 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 15 May 2007 18:37:12 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <i1ok43hogcot3ehdces732aspnv5aer2r3@4ax.com>
On Wed, 02 May 2007 22:49:39 -0400, raven1 <quoththeraven@nevermore.com>
wrote in alt.atheism
On Thu, 03 May 2007 10:16:54 +0930, Michael Gray
<mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Wed, 02 May 2007 09:26:15 -0400, MarkA <toor@nowhere.com> wrote:
- Refer: <pan.2007.05.02.13.26.13.727904@nowhere.com>
On Tue, 01 May 2007 21:27:25 -0700, stoney wrote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18368186/site/newsweek?GT1=9951
To Treat the Dead
The new science of resuscitation is changing the way doctors think about
heart attacks—and death itself.
By Jerry Adler
Newsweek
May 7, 2007 issue - Consider someone who has just died of a heart attack.
His organs are intact, he hasn't lost blood. All that's happened is his
heart has stopped beating—the definition of "clinical death"—and his
brain has shut down to conserve oxygen. But what has actually died?
Oxygen is very toxic stuff. "Reperfusion injury" is a relatively new idea
that is one of those "Why didn't I think of that sooner?" things. When
the cellular machinery that uses oxygen in a way that doesn't damage the
rest of the cell is itself damaged, trying to restore oxygen delivery as
fast as possible has many deliterious effects. Of course, continuing
anoxia is pretty damaging as well.
On the same topic, recent recommendations for CPR are that one ONLY
performs the chest compression, and no longer interrupt it to force
air into the patient's lungs.
Extensive testing has show that the survival rate improves noticably
WITHOUT the perfusion of air.
(Enough gets circulated during the chest compression as it is and, as
has been conclusively shown, too much oxygen is actually BAD in this
situation.
A bit of oxygen deprivation saves lives.)
Of course, it will take a generation for this modified method to seep
through to educators and medicos, wuch is the way of habit.
Actually, it's probably about to be taught fairly soon. As an
educator, I'm required to be recertified in CPR annually, and at my
most recent recert last month, we were taught that the breaths to
compressions ratio had been changed from 2:15 to 2:30, with the
instructor stating pretty confidently that the no-breaths protocol
would probably be in place next time around.
/artie johnson voice
Veeerrrry iiiinnteresting
But stoopid!
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: To Treat the Dead The new science of resuscitation |
20 May 2007 10:38:45 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 16 May 2007 17:21:09 +0930, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com>
wrote in alt.atheism
On Tue, 15 May 2007 18:37:12 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <i1ok43hogcot3ehdces732aspnv5aer2r3@4ax.com>
On Wed, 02 May 2007 22:49:39 -0400, raven1 <quoththeraven@nevermore.com>
wrote in alt.atheism
On Thu, 03 May 2007 10:16:54 +0930, Michael Gray
<mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Wed, 02 May 2007 09:26:15 -0400, MarkA <toor@nowhere.com> wrote:
- Refer: <pan.2007.05.02.13.26.13.727904@nowhere.com>
On Tue, 01 May 2007 21:27:25 -0700, stoney wrote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18368186/site/newsweek?GT1=9951
To Treat the Dead
The new science of resuscitation is changing the way doctors think about
heart attacks—and death itself.
By Jerry Adler
Newsweek
May 7, 2007 issue - Consider someone who has just died of a heart attack.
His organs are intact, he hasn't lost blood. All that's happened is his
heart has stopped beating—the definition of "clinical death"—and his
brain has shut down to conserve oxygen. But what has actually died?
Oxygen is very toxic stuff. "Reperfusion injury" is a relatively new idea
that is one of those "Why didn't I think of that sooner?" things. When
the cellular machinery that uses oxygen in a way that doesn't damage the
rest of the cell is itself damaged, trying to restore oxygen delivery as
fast as possible has many deliterious effects. Of course, continuing
anoxia is pretty damaging as well.
On the same topic, recent recommendations for CPR are that one ONLY
performs the chest compression, and no longer interrupt it to force
air into the patient's lungs.
Extensive testing has show that the survival rate improves noticably
WITHOUT the perfusion of air.
(Enough gets circulated during the chest compression as it is and, as
has been conclusively shown, too much oxygen is actually BAD in this
situation.
A bit of oxygen deprivation saves lives.)
Of course, it will take a generation for this modified method to seep
through to educators and medicos, wuch is the way of habit.
Actually, it's probably about to be taught fairly soon. As an
educator, I'm required to be recertified in CPR annually, and at my
most recent recert last month, we were taught that the breaths to
compressions ratio had been changed from 2:15 to 2:30, with the
instructor stating pretty confidently that the no-breaths protocol
would probably be in place next time around.
/artie johnson voice
Veeerrrry iiiinnteresting
But stoopid!
Changes in CPR training?
--
Atheist n A person to be pitied in that he is
unable to believe things for which there is
no evidence, and who has thus deprived himself of
a convenient means of feeling superior to others.
—Chaz Bufe, The American Heretic’s Dictionary
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: To Treat the Dead The new science of resuscitation |
20 May 2007 07:53:01 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 20 May 2007 08:38:45 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <frq053lqckdjnvu7q4n1sir2p727n0vvd7@4ax.com>
On Wed, 16 May 2007 17:21:09 +0930, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com>
wrote in alt.atheism
On Tue, 15 May 2007 18:37:12 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <i1ok43hogcot3ehdces732aspnv5aer2r3@4ax.com>
On Wed, 02 May 2007 22:49:39 -0400, raven1 <quoththeraven@nevermore.com>
wrote in alt.atheism
On Thu, 03 May 2007 10:16:54 +0930, Michael Gray
<mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Wed, 02 May 2007 09:26:15 -0400, MarkA <toor@nowhere.com> wrote:
- Refer: <pan.2007.05.02.13.26.13.727904@nowhere.com>
On Tue, 01 May 2007 21:27:25 -0700, stoney wrote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18368186/site/newsweek?GT1=9951
To Treat the Dead
The new science of resuscitation is changing the way doctors think about
heart attacks—and death itself.
By Jerry Adler
Newsweek
May 7, 2007 issue - Consider someone who has just died of a heart attack.
His organs are intact, he hasn't lost blood. All that's happened is his
heart has stopped beating—the definition of "clinical death"—and his
brain has shut down to conserve oxygen. But what has actually died?
Oxygen is very toxic stuff. "Reperfusion injury" is a relatively new idea
that is one of those "Why didn't I think of that sooner?" things. When
the cellular machinery that uses oxygen in a way that doesn't damage the
rest of the cell is itself damaged, trying to restore oxygen delivery as
fast as possible has many deliterious effects. Of course, continuing
anoxia is pretty damaging as well.
On the same topic, recent recommendations for CPR are that one ONLY
performs the chest compression, and no longer interrupt it to force
air into the patient's lungs.
Extensive testing has show that the survival rate improves noticably
WITHOUT the perfusion of air.
(Enough gets circulated during the chest compression as it is and, as
has been conclusively shown, too much oxygen is actually BAD in this
situation.
A bit of oxygen deprivation saves lives.)
Of course, it will take a generation for this modified method to seep
through to educators and medicos, wuch is the way of habit.
Actually, it's probably about to be taught fairly soon. As an
educator, I'm required to be recertified in CPR annually, and at my
most recent recert last month, we were taught that the breaths to
compressions ratio had been changed from 2:15 to 2:30, with the
instructor stating pretty confidently that the no-breaths protocol
would probably be in place next time around.
/artie johnson voice
Veeerrrry iiiinnteresting
But stoopid!
Changes in CPR training?
No, I was doing a "Laugh In" gag.
You might be too young to be familiar with it? ;)
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: To Treat the Dead The new science of resuscitation |
26 May 2007 01:34:44 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 21 May 2007 10:23:01 +0930, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com>
wrote in alt.atheism
On Sun, 20 May 2007 08:38:45 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <frq053lqckdjnvu7q4n1sir2p727n0vvd7@4ax.com>
On Wed, 16 May 2007 17:21:09 +0930, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com>
wrote in alt.atheism
[]
Actually, it's probably about to be taught fairly soon. As an
educator, I'm required to be recertified in CPR annually, and at my
most recent recert last month, we were taught that the breaths to
compressions ratio had been changed from 2:15 to 2:30, with the
instructor stating pretty confidently that the no-breaths protocol
would probably be in place next time around.
/artie johnson voice
Veeerrrry iiiinnteresting
But stoopid!
Changes in CPR training?
No, I was doing a "Laugh In" gag.
You might be too young to be familiar with it? ;)
Is that what it is? ;)
--
Atheist n A person to be pitied in that he is
unable to believe things for which there is
no evidence, and who has thus deprived himself of
a convenient means of feeling superior to others.
—Chaz Bufe, The American Heretic’s Dictionary
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: To Treat the Dead The new science of resuscitation |
26 May 2007 07:25:26 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 26 May 2007 11:34:44 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <9cvg53hkdua2l8i7g0ou11g8ib19atntaj@4ax.com>
On Mon, 21 May 2007 10:23:01 +0930, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com>
wrote in alt.atheism
On Sun, 20 May 2007 08:38:45 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <frq053lqckdjnvu7q4n1sir2p727n0vvd7@4ax.com>
On Wed, 16 May 2007 17:21:09 +0930, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com>
wrote in alt.atheism
[]
Actually, it's probably about to be taught fairly soon. As an
educator, I'm required to be recertified in CPR annually, and at my
most recent recert last month, we were taught that the breaths to
compressions ratio had been changed from 2:15 to 2:30, with the
instructor stating pretty confidently that the no-breaths protocol
would probably be in place next time around.
/artie johnson voice
Veeerrrry iiiinnteresting
But stoopid!
Changes in CPR training?
No, I was doing a "Laugh In" gag.
You might be too young to be familiar with it? ;)
Is that what it is? ;)
That is what it was.
How was that?
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: To Treat the Dead The new science of resuscitation |
31 May 2007 11:06:15 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 27 May 2007 09:55:26 +0930, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com>
wrote in alt.atheism
On Sat, 26 May 2007 11:34:44 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <9cvg53hkdua2l8i7g0ou11g8ib19atntaj@4ax.com>
On Mon, 21 May 2007 10:23:01 +0930, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com>
wrote in alt.atheism
On Sun, 20 May 2007 08:38:45 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <frq053lqckdjnvu7q4n1sir2p727n0vvd7@4ax.com>
On Wed, 16 May 2007 17:21:09 +0930, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com>
wrote in alt.atheism
[]
Actually, it's probably about to be taught fairly soon. As an
educator, I'm required to be recertified in CPR annually, and at my
most recent recert last month, we were taught that the breaths to
compressions ratio had been changed from 2:15 to 2:30, with the
instructor stating pretty confidently that the no-breaths protocol
would probably be in place next time around.
/artie johnson voice
Veeerrrry iiiinnteresting
But stoopid!
Changes in CPR training?
No, I was doing a "Laugh In" gag.
You might be too young to be familiar with it? ;)
Is that what it is? ;)
That is what it was.
How was that?
The Fickle Finger of Fate®
--
Atheist n A person to be pitied in that he is
unable to believe things for which there is
no evidence, and who has thus deprived himself of
a convenient means of feeling superior to others.
—Chaz Bufe, The American Heretic’s Dictionary
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: To Treat the Dead The new science of resuscitation |
31 May 2007 07:21:18 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 31 May 2007 09:06:15 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <eist5390lgsj8700sblrd26dbbt7scrbpt@4ax.com>
On Sun, 27 May 2007 09:55:26 +0930, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com>
wrote in alt.atheism
On Sat, 26 May 2007 11:34:44 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <9cvg53hkdua2l8i7g0ou11g8ib19atntaj@4ax.com>
On Mon, 21 May 2007 10:23:01 +0930, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com>
wrote in alt.atheism
On Sun, 20 May 2007 08:38:45 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <frq053lqckdjnvu7q4n1sir2p727n0vvd7@4ax.com>
On Wed, 16 May 2007 17:21:09 +0930, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com>
wrote in alt.atheism
[]
Actually, it's probably about to be taught fairly soon. As an
educator, I'm required to be recertified in CPR annually, and at my
most recent recert last month, we were taught that the breaths to
compressions ratio had been changed from 2:15 to 2:30, with the
instructor stating pretty confidently that the no-breaths protocol
would probably be in place next time around.
/artie johnson voice
Veeerrrry iiiinnteresting
But stoopid!
Changes in CPR training?
No, I was doing a "Laugh In" gag.
You might be too young to be familiar with it? ;)
Is that what it is? ;)
That is what it was.
How was that?
The Fickle Finger of Fate®
Say goodnight *****.
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: To Treat the Dead The new science of resuscitation |
01 Jun 2007 10:42:37 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 09:51:18 +0930, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com>
wrote in alt.atheism
On Thu, 31 May 2007 09:06:15 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <eist5390lgsj8700sblrd26dbbt7scrbpt@4ax.com>
On Sun, 27 May 2007 09:55:26 +0930, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com>
wrote in alt.atheism
On Sat, 26 May 2007 11:34:44 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <9cvg53hkdua2l8i7g0ou11g8ib19atntaj@4ax.com>
On Mon, 21 May 2007 10:23:01 +0930, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com>
wrote in alt.atheism
On Sun, 20 May 2007 08:38:45 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <frq053lqckdjnvu7q4n1sir2p727n0vvd7@4ax.com>
On Wed, 16 May 2007 17:21:09 +0930, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com>
wrote in alt.atheism
[]
Actually, it's probably about to be taught fairly soon. As an
educator, I'm required to be recertified in CPR annually, and at my
most recent recert last month, we were taught that the breaths to
compressions ratio had been changed from 2:15 to 2:30, with the
instructor stating pretty confidently that the no-breaths protocol
would probably be in place next time around.
/artie johnson voice
Veeerrrry iiiinnteresting
But stoopid!
Changes in CPR training?
No, I was doing a "Laugh In" gag.
You might be too young to be familiar with it? ;)
Is that what it is? ;)
That is what it was.
How was that?
The Fickle Finger of Fate®
Say goodnight *****.
Free Willy!
--
Atheist n A person to be pitied in that he is
unable to believe things for which there is
no evidence, and who has thus deprived himself of
a convenient means of feeling superior to others.
—Chaz Bufe, The American Heretic’s Dictionary
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: To Treat the Dead The new science of resuscitation |
01 Jun 2007 08:17:50 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 08:42:37 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <3jf06314paq1ip6epss99uur5ugcdpkjmt@4ax.com>
On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 09:51:18 +0930, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com>
wrote in alt.atheism
On Thu, 31 May 2007 09:06:15 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <eist5390lgsj8700sblrd26dbbt7scrbpt@4ax.com>
On Sun, 27 May 2007 09:55:26 +0930, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com>
wrote in alt.atheism
On Sat, 26 May 2007 11:34:44 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <9cvg53hkdua2l8i7g0ou11g8ib19atntaj@4ax.com>
On Mon, 21 May 2007 10:23:01 +0930, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com>
wrote in alt.atheism
On Sun, 20 May 2007 08:38:45 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <frq053lqckdjnvu7q4n1sir2p727n0vvd7@4ax.com>
On Wed, 16 May 2007 17:21:09 +0930, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com>
wrote in alt.atheism
[]
Actually, it's probably about to be taught fairly soon. As an
educator, I'm required to be recertified in CPR annually, and at my
most recent recert last month, we were taught that the breaths to
compressions ratio had been changed from 2:15 to 2:30, with the
instructor stating pretty confidently that the no-breaths protocol
would probably be in place next time around.
/artie johnson voice
Veeerrrry iiiinnteresting
But stoopid!
Changes in CPR training?
No, I was doing a "Laugh In" gag.
You might be too young to be familiar with it? ;)
Is that what it is? ;)
That is what it was.
How was that?
The Fickle Finger of Fate®
Say goodnight *****.
Free Willy!
A generous gigolo?
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: To Treat the Dead The new science of resuscitation |
04 Jun 2007 01:54:22 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 10:47:50 +0930, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com>
wrote in alt.atheism
On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 08:42:37 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <3jf06314paq1ip6epss99uur5ugcdpkjmt@4ax.com>
On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 09:51:18 +0930, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com>
wrote in alt.atheism
[]
/artie johnson voice
Veeerrrry iiiinnteresting
But stoopid!
Changes in CPR training?
No, I was doing a "Laugh In" gag.
You might be too young to be familiar with it? ;)
Is that what it is? ;)
That is what it was.
How was that?
The Fickle Finger of Fate®
Say goodnight *****.
Free Willy!
A generous gigolo?
Who only eats clams....
--
Atheist n A person to be pitied in that he is
unable to believe things for which there is
no evidence, and who has thus deprived himself of
a convenient means of feeling superior to others.
—Chaz Bufe, The American Heretic’s Dictionary
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: To Treat the Dead The new science of resuscitation |
20 May 2007 11:35:10 PM |
|
|
stoney wrote:
<snip>
Changes in CPR training?
Not really. If you read the reports they essentially say to do what we are
doing under the 2005 guidelines. This is especially true at the First
responder and above level with "CPR for the professional"
There was a lot of people who thought the 2005 guidelines might be
compression only but the need for rescue breathing in the young and drowning
plus the need to be consistent prevented this. People tend not to learn well
in a four hour class with different ways of doing things for infants,
children, and adults.
The next changes will be in 2010 and make only after a lot of studies are
made
Push hard, push fast and don't stop when EMS gets there until they ask you
to.
Since it's probably not going to save the person, our big new thing is to
keep the family involved and let them make the (informed) decision as to
when to stop.
More and more departments are going to 12 lead EKG to save those who just
have heart attacks.
Going to the hospital with a heart attack, then going home after the
hospital has run exhaustive tests with negative results and dropping dead is
the most common malpractice suit in a hospital.
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: To Treat the Dead The new science of resuscitation |
26 May 2007 01:45:57 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 21 May 2007 04:35:10 GMT, "Mike Painter"
<mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote in alt.atheism
stoney wrote:
<snip>
Changes in CPR training?
Not really. If you read the reports they essentially say to do what we are
doing under the 2005 guidelines. This is especially true at the First
responder and above level with "CPR for the professional"
There was a lot of people who thought the 2005 guidelines might be
compression only but the need for rescue breathing in the young and drowning
plus the need to be consistent prevented this. People tend not to learn well
in a four hour class with different ways of doing things for infants,
children, and adults.
The next changes will be in 2010 and make only after a lot of studies are
made
Push hard, push fast and don't stop when EMS gets there until they ask you
to.
Since it's probably not going to save the person, our big new thing is to
keep the family involved and let them make the (informed) decision as to
when to stop.
More and more departments are going to 12 lead EKG to save those who just
have heart attacks.
Going to the hospital with a heart attack, then going home after the
hospital has run exhaustive tests with negative results and dropping dead is
the most common malpractice suit in a hospital.
Why? If exhaustive tests have come back negative they come back
negative. There's nought to be done until a problem is detected.
--
Atheist n A person to be pitied in that he is
unable to believe things for which there is
no evidence, and who has thus deprived himself of
a convenient means of feeling superior to others.
—Chaz Bufe, The American Heretic’s Dictionary
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: To Treat the Dead The new science of resuscitation |
26 May 2007 06:31:30 PM |
|
|
stoney wrote:
More and more departments are going to 12 lead EKG to save those who
just have heart attacks.
Going to the hospital with a heart attack, then going home after the
hospital has run exhaustive tests with negative results and dropping
dead is the most common malpractice suit in a hospital.
Why? If exhaustive tests have come back negative they come back
negative. There's nought to be done until a problem is detected.
True and that's one reason the 12 lead is becoming the standard.
X-ray a broken arm in the field, in the ambulance, in teh ER and in the OR.
It's still broken.
A 12 lead EKG may show serious problems in the field that absolutely
disappear until the autopsy.
However when a person has a heart attack showing all the signs in the field
and they get sent home only to die a day or so later most juries ignore the
reasons why. Apparently the insurance companies no longer find it worthwhile
to fight.
Remember what Mark Twain said about juries...
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: To Treat the Dead The new science of resuscitation |
31 May 2007 11:08:18 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 26 May 2007 16:31:30 -0700, "Mike Painter"
<mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote in alt.atheism
stoney wrote:
More and more departments are going to 12 lead EKG to save those who
just have heart attacks.
Going to the hospital with a heart attack, then going home after the
hospital has run exhaustive tests with negative results and dropping
dead is the most common malpractice suit in a hospital.
Why? If exhaustive tests have come back negative they come back
negative. There's nought to be done until a problem is detected.
True and that's one reason the 12 lead is becoming the standard.
X-ray a broken arm in the field, in the ambulance, in teh ER and in the OR.
It's still broken.
A 12 lead EKG may show serious problems in the field that absolutely
disappear until the autopsy.
However when a person has a heart attack showing all the signs in the field
and they get sent home only to die a day or so later most juries ignore the
reasons why. Apparently the insurance companies no longer find it worthwhile
to fight.
So its cheaper for them to provide the equipment....
Remember what Mark Twain said about juries...
....and politicians.
--
Atheist n A person to be pitied in that he is
unable to believe things for which there is
no evidence, and who has thus deprived himself of
a convenient means of feeling superior to others.
—Chaz Bufe, The American Heretic’s Dictionary
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: To Treat the Dead The new science of resuscitation |
03 May 2007 12:52:48 AM |
|
|
raven1 wrote:
<snip>
Actually, it's probably about to be taught fairly soon. As an
educator, I'm required to be recertified in CPR annually, and at my
most recent recert last month, we were taught that the breaths to
compressions ratio had been changed from 2:15 to 2:30, with the
instructor stating pretty confidently that the no-breaths protocol
would probably be in place next time around.
In case you skipped my long winded comment.
If there is a change it will almost certainly not be changed for kids since
the mechanism for heart failure is usually different.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
