Conventional CPR, as we've learned from TV if not from experts, involves mouth-to-mouth ventilation interspersed with chest compressions, with 30 chest compressions every 2 mouth-to-mouth breaths. Now two reports have been published that describe the results of a "simpler version of CPR" in which the mouth-to-mouth ventilations are omitted in favor of continuous chest compressions.

In the first analysis, made in Sweden, the results of one or other method of bystander resuscitation in almost 10,000 victims were compared; 73% of them got the standard CPR, and 10% got chest compressions only. There was no significant difference in the likelihood that patients would survive to be hospitalized or in their mortality at one month.

In the second study, which came from Japan, 72% of cases receiving compression-only or "cardiac-only" resuscitation survived at least one year, compared with 57% receiving standard CPR. The researchers conclude that mouth-to-mouth ventilation may only be of value in prolonged cardiac arrest - by which they mean duration of more than 15 minutes.

We must emphasize that these findings are only relevant for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest; in-hospital arrest can obviously be treated by more sophisticated techniques. And in case there may be some skepticism about 'results from abroad', there's a large prospective randomized trial ongoing in the USA. Results should be available soon. In the meantime, don't feel bad if you omit the mouth-to-mouth part of CPR; getting the blood to the brain is what's important, and chest compressions will do this.