Jump to content
Matthew99

Chest compressions rate - if you're not at 100 per minute, is it better than you're over or under?

Recommended Posts

Question is at topic title.

I'll reiterate. Let's say someone is doing chest compressions but he's not hitting 100 per minute exactly. Is it better than he'd be at 110 or 90? Or 120 VS 80.... etc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Best to do more then less. But the past has shown, that most likely you`re gonna be too fast than too slow -> adrenaline excitement, etc.

Look up the AHA page or the ERCs site for detailed abstracts on that topic.

What can be helpful - remember a song where the beat is exactly 100 beats/compressions per minute. If I think I`m off the rythm, I just hum that song out of a beer commercial in my mind. You just gotta be careful not to hum or sing it too loudly - that can give you strange looks in that sort of situation... ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

;)

With the dummy in school, me and my pratice partner tried out a various number of songs, just for fun.

When the algorithm was 120 compressions per minute, Highway the hell fitted perfectly - a little macaber... ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL.

BTW, why is it better than be faster than slower (if these are the only 2 options)?

Edited by Matthew99

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Beetles "Yellow submarine" is 96 beats per minute :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LOL.

BTW, why is it better than be faster than slower (if these are the only 2 options)?

The best would be to hit the advised 100 compressions per minute.

To get statistics about individual outcomes with varying rates you have to look

up some studies (search for it in the internet).

You want to get a continuous flow to supply the inner organs with enough oxygen (above all the brain), in a CPR situation studies have shown that 100 compressions is your best way to reach that goal. To increase or decrease the number will have a worse influence on the outcome, out of obvious reasons -> less compressions means less flow, more compressions means less stroke volume.

But I can remember a lecture from a Doc who, I think, said that a slightly higher rate would be better than a slower one (leaving aside, that, as I said, in most cases you will automoatically be higher).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

current guidelines suggest that faster and deeper is better and that 100 is perhaps too slow ....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
current guidelines suggest that faster and deeper is better and that 100 is perhaps too slow ....

True, but they still teach the 100 compressions as a number in the algorithm - that`s why I pointed out that faster is better than slower.

Even though the trend may point towards a faster rate in the next guidelines, they haven`t really changed the number of 100 in a definite way (while they changed the depth from 4-5cm to 5-6 cm).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe Stayin' Alive by the Bee Gees is the song you're looking for. This only works, however, if you take the patient's arms, move one of them down to the hip, and the other one pointing straight up...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...