Hands-only CPR is indeed better than no CPR at all. It can significantly increase the chances of survival for a person experiencing a cardiac arrest.
When comparing hands-only CPR to conventional CPR (which includes rescue breaths), studies have shown that for untrained bystanders, hands-only CPR is often more effective because they may be less likely to perform CPR if they are unsure about how to give rescue breaths.
As for comparing hands-only CPR to an automated external defibrillator (AED), both are important components of the chain of survival in cardiac arrest situations, but they serve different purposes. Hands-only CPR keeps blood circulating until an AED can be used to shock the heart back into a normal rhythm.
In summary:
- Better than No CPR: Yes, hands-only CPR is better than no action.
- Better than Conventional CPR: It may be more effective for untrained bystanders.
- Better than an AED: Not directly comparable; both are crucial in emergency response.
In any case of cardiac arrest, acting quickly and providing either hands-only CPR or using an AED can save lives.
1 answer