Though those numbers strongly hint at over simplified variables. Is there other medical help available? (E.G. an AED, maybe combined with CPR?) Is EMS close? Are they near a medivac capable landing site and a level 1 trauma center? How does this change across patient demographics?
For my own health, this goes back to end of life management questions, can I recover or even improve to a degree if a procedure is done? As someone with hopefully decades and maybe even a chance at upload or archival if I live long enough CPR probably is worth it for the cases where survival is improved; but only if all the other options are exhausted first.
For a good visual of this take a look at a LUCAS machine in operation [1]. I'm a volunteer firefighter and have seen paramedics deploy a LUCAS - it's quite a thing to behold.
> If there's an AED around to use instead that would be FAR more preferable.
Sadly AED's aren't always appropriate. They need a "shockable rhythm" - that is if your heart is in ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation [2].
One interesting fact I recall reading (source long forgotten ...) is that collapsed women are less likely to be helped with AED's by passers by. This is because they feel uncomfortable uncovering the chest to apply the AED pads.
[1]: https://youtu.be/G-oPJV1LYaE?t=314
[2]: https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/heart-arrhyth...
Having said that AED's do save a lot of lives, but like CPR they aren't magic.
I had read that chest compressions for CPR are much more aggressive than people imagine and rips being broken is not uncommon.
The first few seconds of that clip though made me physically wince with discomfort... wow!
AEDs still require chest compressions. In fact, they'll give you rhythm to follow and talk you through it.
I would expect a very similar rate of injuries from compressions - perhaps a bit less if the AED means the compressions don't need to be performed for the same length of time.
I will certainly peform CPR. Even after reading the article. Why? Most likely the person is dead anyway, no harm done. But if I don't do it, chances are their family sue me for millions. Especially in the US. Unlikely to succeed, but the risk is far from 0. If they win, my life is ruined. I the face of that, I might even consider a settlement for a large sum. Also terrible. So yeah, sorry old ladies.
Such articles, a much as I appreciate the educative effects, could even make this worse, since if it's more widely known then I could get sued in either case. Like, I did CPR, lady dies anyway but there were clear signs that she suffered. Great, now I'll have a lawsuit in addition to the trauma of having crushed the ribs of an old lady.
In an emergency my support role would be better spent on comms support or managing other trauma.
TL;DR CPR slightly increases the odds for someone otherwise healthy and young but is much less effective for the old and the chronically ill.
IIRC from prior CPR classes (own life data), 'correctly done' chest compressions are extremely violent, they often break ribs to get that compression of the heart between the rib cage and spine. It's a last-ditch effort with COSTS. If there's an AED around to use instead that would be FAR more preferable.
""" But the true odds are grim. In 2010 a review of 79 studies, involving almost 150,000 patients, found that the overall rate of survival from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest had barely changed in thirty years. It was 7.6%.
Bystander-initiated CPR may increase those odds to 10%. Survival after CPR for in-hospital cardiac arrest is slightly better, but still only about 17%. The numbers get even worse with age. A study in Sweden found that survival after out-of-hospital CPR dropped from 6.7% for patients in their 70s to just 2.4% for those over 90. Chronic illness matters too. One study found that less than 2% of patients with cancer or heart, lung, or liver disease were resuscitated with CPR and survived for six months. """