What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Can't get enough Dragon Age: Origins? Check out new footage. view!
DragonAge.BioWare.com - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
90 Comments
- james45932, on 02/24/2008, -2/+49The main problem that i see with this device is that most people will think that they will no longer need to be trained in how to do CPR. what happens the first time someone goes down and no one around knows how to perform CPR without this machine, the person will probably die. Yes it could be a good life saving tool, just like a AED. But having the knowledge of how to do CPR properly is a wonderful thing and should never be underestimated.
- IvanB, on 02/24/2008, -1/+24It has to be Lupus anyway.
- H2Glitch2007, on 02/24/2008, -2/+25LIke you would really carry it around with you everywhere.
- thesilvershadow, on 02/24/2008, -0/+23I'd say the title is a bit misleading though - these machines don't mean CPR is no longer needed, they are just able to perform one component of CPR (chest compressions) and therefore free someone up to do something else. Also, machines like this have been around for a while now, so I'd hardly describe it as a new gadget:
http://www.jolife.se/site.php?sid=c&ref=45&cat=45& ...
Seeing them in action is quite disturbing, they can be very forceful and break ribs a lot more commonly than with standard chest compressions. The major advantage is that unlike people they do not get fatigued so the compressions they provide are good quality throughout. Also, (at least of the LUCAS machine I've seen in action) they can expand the chest as well as compress it thanks to the suction cup attachment, which improves cardiac output. - mattes5, on 02/24/2008, -1/+21I am a paramedic. We don't have these at my service as of yet. But I have seen them at conventions. I think they are a great innovation It allows medics to push drugs and ventilate without having to worry about compressions which is alot of stuff to deal with if you are in the back of an ambulance alone with the patient. Also it ensures better compression efficiency.
- TheShom, on 02/24/2008, -2/+17Hmm, i wonder what this thing would do if it ever malfunctioned while performing cpr?
CPR by humans FTW... - Xavious85, on 02/24/2008, -2/+15I agree 100%
- funkyflea, on 02/24/2008, -0/+13What happens when it becomes self aware?
- DermDoc, on 02/24/2008, -4/+16Soon, you won't need me at all ....
- TheImmigrant, on 02/24/2008, -0/+12Im a Medic, and this has been around for yrs in the US. its just really expensive, so they don't want to use it. (up wards of $5000). It also doesn't provide breaths.
- Ryan0617, on 02/24/2008, -0/+10To be honest, i think machines are good an all(i.e personal computers etc), but i actually hate the fact that one day computers would be doing alot of the things we do now, i like to keep some things hands on.
- openbah, on 02/24/2008, -1/+10Did I read the wrong article? I don't remember reading anything about dermatology...
- BryanJK, on 02/24/2008, -0/+8its never lupus
- slevit1, on 02/24/2008, -0/+6I am a paramedic as well and fire stations in my area have been testing this device. It is not a new idea at all and will definitely not negate the need for human CPR. First, another device, known as the thumper, has been around on the ambulances for at least 9 years (as long as I've been riding). It does exactly the same thing as this device, but is a lot bulkier and a bit harder to set up. Actually, the old thumpers even had the ability to ventilate for you. Second, the device, while more compact than the thumper, is still pretty large and expensive; you're not going to be carrying it around with you.
Most importantly, you still need to know how to do CPR in order to know how to position this device, when to use it, and how to provide the rescue breathing. Also, you will need to know how to do full CPR before this device arrives at the scene, while it is being set up, and in other situations when it is not available. These devices can be very useful on the ambulance or in the ER as they free up a person to ventilate, push drugs, or perform other tasks. But, they will certainly never make human CPR unnecessary. - ShyGuy91284, on 02/24/2008, -0/+6:-( Then how are young teens of future generations going to trick that hot life guard at the pool to be mouth-to-mouth with them?
- openbah, on 02/24/2008, -0/+5Umm, no it doesn't. This machine does NOT provide breaths, only compressions.
- slevit1, on 02/24/2008, -0/+4As a paramedic and CPR instructor, I have seen these in action and done CPR on more people than I can remember. While they can look a little rough since you're just watching a little mechanical arm thump on someone's chest, they are no rougher than a human. They don't teach you this in CPR class, but if you are doing CPR effectively, you will break multiple ribs just about every time you do it.
Think about it...the ribs are fairly inflexible bones which [almost all] attach directly to the sternum. When you push the sternum down 2-3 inches in CPR, it only makes sense that many of the ribs would break. However, if you're doing CPR on someone, breaking ribs is the least of their worries. - GoDawgs7, on 02/24/2008, -0/+4*****
- punchingjudy, on 02/24/2008, -0/+4Are you kidding? CPR is the biggest step, otherwise they wouldn't EMPHASIZE 2 minutes of CPR prior to epi admin in a Vfib patient. Those are the patients you get back, not asystoles. If they're that far, they're 99.9% screwed.
- mattes5, on 02/24/2008, -0/+3Well when you work in an urban area its hardly ever a problem. But when you work in a rural area with 10 min transport times and almost no help its great to have.
- punchingjudy, on 02/24/2008, -0/+3I'm a paramedic for a large city 911 service. Automated CPR machines have been around for MANY years now in various incarnations. Our service uses the Thumper, which has a hydraulically based arm that extends over the patient. The fact that it's an adjustable arm and not something that wraps entirely around the patient makes it extremely versatile, particularly with our ever widening population.
By no means does this replace CPR. It takes much more time to set the damn thing up than it does to just start manual chest compressions on your own. And when you're 3 minutes from the hospital, it's much easier to just do it on your own.
My experience with other Zoll products hasn't been too fabulous. I'm a bigger fan of Philips.
This article was just one giant puff piece. - Magnus150, on 02/25/2008, -0/+3I'd say being alive with broken ribs beats the ***** out of dead and intact ribs. But thats just me...
- expatcatalyst, on 02/24/2008, -0/+3I agree. In the AF something similar happened in the world of navigation when the B-1 came out. Since the navigation computer was so sophisticated, there was a fear that navigators wouldn't retain the basic skills to navigate the aircraft when the inevitable happened and the computer needed a re-boot. Having no one with the basic skills needed is not very fun when you are either hurtling through the air at 600 knots or laying on the floor suffering a heart attack.
- Gabberwok, on 02/25/2008, -0/+3Doing CPR properly will often result in breaking ribs. Especially with elderly people with fragile bones.
- Metasquares, on 02/25/2008, -0/+3If you're in a state of cardiac arrest, broken ribs are the least of your problems.
- carpespasm, on 02/24/2008, -0/+3it has high self-esteem knowing that it's purpose in life is to save lives.
- CaviMike, on 02/24/2008, -0/+3CPR no longer needed?! Yeah, sure. Buried.
- chubbybubba, on 02/24/2008, -2/+5I too am in emergency medicine. CPR does not save lives! It can delay death but the heart needs to be kick started. Epinephrine injection is needed to push a rhythm out of asystole (flat line of death), and a shock is needed to push a rhythm out of a vent tach (rhythm just before flatlining.) Forget trying to strap an auto-chest compressor on! An auto defibrillator should be the priority!
Step #1 -always Call for help. - mattes5, on 02/24/2008, -0/+3You most of the time break ribs while giving cpr. It happens doesn't mean you are doing anything wrong. I would like for you to work full arrest alone because even with the compressors there alot to deal with.
- mxxx, on 02/24/2008, -0/+3I've just got home from doing an AED course. They're wonderful things, but they take time to set up. Granted, only a few seconds if you know what you're doing but adding more equipment that needs to be set up just adds time when you could be defibrilating. I worry about the time it's going to take for people to stop panicking and get help, set this up, set up an AED and adminster the shocks. Your patient could be asystolic by the time you get round to actually doing anything. Time will tell though.
- punchingjudy, on 02/24/2008, -0/+3On the truck with our other equipment. It's not meant for the layperson.
- TX972, on 02/24/2008, -0/+3"Those USING [my caps] the machine are able to administer just two breaths for every 30 chest compressions carried out by the device, freeing them up to perform other tasks." I.e., read the article!!
- copypasterepeat, on 02/24/2008, -0/+3Everyone needs a bit of CPR in their lives [/horrible self-promotion]
- inactive, on 02/24/2008, -0/+2http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/16/health/w ...
"Now, for adults who suddenly collapse, there's powerful evidence that chest compression alone is far better than doing nothing. In fact, the new evidence suggests that by interrupting lifesaving chest compressions, mouth-to-mouth resuscitation may do more harm than good."
So, the compressions were more important than the breaths.
Another interesting thing, the article says that many bystanders won't give CPR because of the mouth-to-mouth stuff. I always thought that in a joking way but I never thought it would actually happen. - Magnus150, on 02/25/2008, -0/+2You can take CPR training everywhere - to the artic, on a plane, in the plains, on the highway, in the middle of a mall. These machines, while handy, do NOT replace adequate CPR training.
- iankino, on 02/24/2008, -0/+2I can just picture this thing malfunctioning and squeezing someone like an Anaconda.
- mellowcool, on 02/24/2008, -0/+2Revive the person and kill them again! lol!
- Bigheadaus, on 02/24/2008, -0/+2Although I prefer having defibrillators around. 5% success rate for CPR alone. Goes up to 70% with a defibrillator on hand. Then again you only have 10 minutes, which is why knowing CPR is so much more important.
I have to admit, the new CPR that has been brought in here in Australia is quite hard work. Hopefully volunteers of first aid will get these machines sooner rather than later. I can only imagine what the day will be like if I ever have to perform it. - thesilvershadow, on 02/24/2008, -0/+2Here's a video of a similar machine known as LUCAS performing chest compressions on a mannequin:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIBOxaTd9_A - kodek, on 02/24/2008, -0/+2... you don't.
You do CPR until a defibrillator is available. This machine would do CPR on the person because after a while, one can become tired of doing the compressions. - slevit1, on 02/24/2008, -0/+2Umm...you may be in emergency medicine, but my guess is that you're not very good at it. CPR is a vitally important link in the chain of survival and absolutely does save lives. Have you never run a code? If a patient is in asystole, chances are that they're already dead and epi isn't going to do anything to help. Moreover, how do you think that epi is going to circulate without CPR?! Please, nobody listen to this guy.
- mattes5, on 02/24/2008, -0/+2it was design more for ERs, hospitals, and EMS. I don't think they will be retailing it for civilian use. Maybe eventually like they are doing with the AEDs but I don't forsee it anytime soon. My ambulance service doesn't even carry them.
but notice in the article "Australian Advanced Life Support Committee chairman Tony Padley said the hands-free nature of the machine was a huge advantage for health workers." - warriorscot, on 02/24/2008, -0/+1I always find CPR training so confusing, Ive been trained and qualified in it but in the years since I've done it the ratio to breaths to compressions that is taught and used have changed at least half a dozen times.
- davidlt, on 08/28/2009, -0/+1Wow that's crazy! Leave it up to the folks at Zoll. I just wrote an article about:
Zoll AED Pro Defibrillator http://comparedefibrillators.com/
Zoll AED Plus Defibrillator http://comparedefibrillators.com/aed-brands/zoll-a ...
In my opinion, Zoll is the way to go. Their products are very well thought out and they are a leader in the industry. I am sure the Zoll AutoPulse will be a big hit too. - copperp, on 02/25/2008, -0/+1I just saw this used in the hospital to try and resuscitate a patient. Towards the end they decided to take it off because the doctor didn't like how it was working. Later, we saw the nurse in the hall and she said after the code was ran, they discussed it and decided they wouldn't be using the machine again. I think one problem was that it needs to be stopped quickly and only momentarily every now and then for someone to take a manual pulse and see if the heart's beating or not (never completely trust the monitor). Maybe the machine isn't convenient enough in that respect. I really don't see the benefit of this especially if you're following protocol and switching who's administering the chest compressions every couple minutes (I forget the exact number).
- burley25, on 02/24/2008, -0/+1this was a truimp, im making a note here, huge success!
- inactive, on 03/29/2008, -0/+1We don't?
- inactive, on 03/29/2008, -0/+1Try vasopressin, it'll resuscitate a rock.
- Magnus150, on 02/25/2008, -0/+1Well put sir.
- sharp357, on 02/24/2008, -0/+1I'm on chubbybubba's side on this one. Most of you need to read carefully. He states clearly "CPR does not save lives! It can delay death". While important, by itself it will not save lives. CPR all you want away from help and you'll feel great and know you tried. But it won't bring them back. After 30years as a medic I question epi as a real treatment though. I've given enough epi to make a steak walk and its mostly useless.
As to the machine, others have done this before. The problem is that conventional CPR is ineffective. Right now a study is ongoing using the "ResQPOD and ResQPump". These are proving to be unbelievably effective. By the end of the study I may be eating my words about CPR not saving lives. But at this point it does not. If you have more than my 30 years experience then feel free to educate me with some solid evidence. -
Show 51 - 94 of 94 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is