Technology Differences in Cardiopulmonary Cerebral Resuscitation (CPCR)

When we talk about health inequalities, we are talking about socially disadvantaged populations. The disadvantages can be defined locally when we are talking about local communities, regional when we are talking about regional populations, national when we are talking about national residents, and global when we are talking about global people. Local, regional, national, and global economic disparities can define corresponding health disparities.

One of the economic differences may be technological differences in cardiopulmonary cerebral resuscitation (CPCR). At the rate at which CPCR guidelines are evolving, it can be difficult for local, regional, national, and global institutions to apply CPCR guidelines consistently, especially when CPCR guidelines are recommended rather than mandated. While it is understandable that local, regional, national, and global institutions have options to adhere to, and operate according to, recommended and non-mandatory CPCR guidelines, the business community of local, regional, national, and global institutions can play an important role in this play they can afford unless their economy dictates what and how much they choose to keep up with rapidly evolving CPCR guidelines. The technological differences emerging from the economic realities of local, regional, national, and global institutions may include, but are not limited to:

The unavailability of automated external defibrillators (AEDs), forcing CPCR providers to rarely, if ever, resort to metaphorical and historical precordial beats to release electricity mechanically generated therein in hopes of potentially defibrillating those in need of CPCR , without using the unavailable AEDs.

The unavailability of continuous quantitative end-tidal waveform capnography has forced CPCR providers to resort to visual chest rise to subjectively quantify the adequacy of ventilation during CPCR when continuous quantitative end-tidal waveform capnography not only monitors ventilation during CPCR, but also would have objectively quantified the circulation-induced by high-quality chest compressions during CPCR with early detection of return of spontaneous circulation during CPCR.

The unavailability of mechanical chest compressors is forcing CPCR providers to resort to themselves, who humanely cannot deliver high quality chest compressions continuously for long periods of time, unlike mechanical chest compressors, which are only limited by the availability of their replaceable rechargeable battery power

The unavailability of automated head-up position (AHUP) devices is forcing CPCR providers to resort to traditional supine CPCR, which may not achieve survival outcomes comparable to AHUP-CPCR. This is especially true when manual AHUP CPCR may lag behind mechanical AHUP CPCR depending on available CPCR providers who are slowly adapting to deliver high-quality chest compressions on inclined planes, depending on the availability of mechanical chest compressors who are rapidly adapting to deliver high quality chest compressors compressions on inclined planes.

The bottom line is that technological differences can potentially lead to premature terminations of CPCR efficiency without recommended tools for efficient CPCR being available unless such tools have been mandated in due course, allowing local, regional, national and global institutional economies don’t do this or you can choose what and how much when it comes to technological differences during the CPCR.

Deepak Gupta is an anesthetist.

Photo credit:



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *