Is CCR Better Than CPR For Heart Attack Emergency?
Posted Aug 25 2008 3:05pm
When one has heart attack (cardiac arrest), his or her chance of survival depends on whether there is qualified personnel around to help revive the heart.
So how many methods can we used to revive the heart in case of emergency? The answer is 2: cardio-cerebral resuscitation (CCR) and cardio-pulmonary resuscitation (CPR).
However, there were debate over which was the most effective. Heart specialists are supporting CCR while emergency doctors are in favor of CPR.
CCR involves administering 100 rapid chest pounds a minute without any mouth-to-mouth resuscitation, whereas CPR involves giving mouth-to-mouth, followed by 30 chest compressions.
Based on a 2006 study at the University of Arizona Sarver Heart Centre in the United States, the survival rates following cardiac arrest went up 300 per cent when CCR was applied. The report also found that in the absence of mouth-to-mouth contact, chances of a passer-by attempting the technique on a stranger are in fact higher.
As the main life-saving technique taught outside the hospital, CPR can also be used to save those who stop breathing during an asthma attack, drug overdose, choking incident or drowning.
According to health experts, continuous pounding of CCR keeps blood moving through the body. The consensus is that pounding the chest continuously for the initial 2 minutes would be okay, but anything longer than that would be risky. It is important then to get air into the lungs, and this requires pulmonary resuscitation.
A consultant cardiologist did save life for two men on two separate occasions: one at airport and the other at a rally. What he used was CCR, a technique that he has advocated.