This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Is It Effective?

Richard O. Cummins, MD, MPH, MSc; Mickey S. Eisenberg, MD, PhD

JAMA. 1985;253(16):2408-2412.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

TWO PARADOXES lie behind the question posed in the title of this article. First, rapid and widespread dissemination of the technique of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) occured before the underlying physiology was fully understood. Second, data that indicate discouragingly low coronary and carotid artery flow rates contrast sharply with the obvious lifesaving capacity of basic CPR.

CPR

In the early 1960s, Kouwenhoven et al¹ demonstrated the effectiveness of closed-chest compressions for cardiac arrest; rapid worldwide dissemination of the technique soon followed. By 1974, the endorsement of influential groups such as the American Heart Association secured broad acceptance for standard CPR.² Kouwenhoven and co-workers thought that during CPR blood was expelled by compression of the heart between the sternum and vertebral bodies. Later, however, various research laboratories conducted what were, in effect, post hoc investigations into the physiology of CPR; by the 1980s, few researchers subscribed to Kouwenhoven and co-workers' . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
From the Department of Medicine, University of Washington, and the King County Emergency Medical Services Division, King County Health Department, Seattle.

Footnotes
Reprint requests to Room 508 Smith Tower, 506 Second Ave, Seattle, WA 98104 (Dr Cummins).

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?