Are rescue breaths still used in CPR?

As an expert in emergency medical services, I can confirm that the practice of CPR has evolved over the years based on scientific research and evidence. While rescue breaths were once a standard part of CPR, current guidelines from organizations like the American Heart Association (AHA) have shifted towards compression-only or hands-only CPR, especially for bystanders who are not trained in CPR. The rationale behind this change is that the primary goal of CPR is to circulate oxygenated blood to the brain and heart. Even without rescue breaths, chest compressions can help achieve this by creating artificial circulation. Additionally, there is a concern that bystanders may be hesitant to perform CPR if they are not confident in their ability to give rescue breaths correctly, which can delay the initiation of life-saving chest compressions. However, it's important to note that for certain situations, such as when a person is unresponsive due to drowning or a drug overdose, rescue breaths may still be indicated. Professional rescuers and those with CPR training are typically taught to perform "full CPR," which includes both chest compressions and rescue breaths. In summary, while rescue breaths are not emphasized in the general guidelines for bystander CPR, they still have a place in certain scenarios and are part of the training for professional rescuers and those with advanced CPR certification.

The person's body is still loaded with oxygen, it's just that the heart has stopped beating and the oxygen is not being circulated. 'Compression-only' or 'hands-only' CPR is chest compressions without rescue breaths. ... Besides, rescue breaths are tough enough for trained rescuers, let alone untrained.