Lay Rescuers: Try CPR without Mouth-to-Mouth Resuscitation

New data show that when bystanders without emergency medical training try CPR using only chest compression, the results can be better than if they also attempt mouth-to-mouth. Christopher Intagliata reports

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


You're in the supermarket, and a man collapses. He's gasping. It's CPR time. But wait, was it 20 compressions, two breaths, or 15 to every one breath? Can't remember? Well you may not have to. Because there’s hands-only CPR—pressing the chest fast and hard, about 100 times a minute, no mouth-to-mouth. And it saves at least as many lives as traditional CPR. That’s according to a study in the Journal of the American Medical Association. [Bentley Bobrow et al.,
Chest Compression–Only CPR by Lay Rescuers and Survival From Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest]

Five years ago the state of Arizona, with lots of senior citizens, launched a campaign to educate its people about hands-only CPR. They hoped bystanders would stop panicking about breath-to-compression ratios—and touching mouth to mouth—and possibly save more lives. It seems to have worked.

Looking at 4,400 cardiac arrest cases, researchers found that the rate of bystanders performing CPR shot up 50 percent. And the percentage of Arizonans surviving cardiac arrests went from 4 percent to 10. In fact, the odds of surviving were actually better when cardiac arrest victims received hands-only CPR, compared to mouth-to-mouth. So if it's hero time, think "Stayin' Alive"—it’s got the right 100 beats per minute. Call 911. And start pumping.

—Christopher Intagliata

[The above text is an exact transcript of this podcast.]

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe