Health – Page 17 – artdiamondblog.com

Sweden’s Restraint in Mandating Covid Lockdowns Resulted in Much Lower Excess Mortality Than the U.S. Suffered

(p. A17) The best measure of health performance during the pandemic is all-cause excess mortality, which captures the overall number of deaths relative to the expected level, encompassing Covid and lockdown-related deaths. On this measure Sweden—which kept most schools open and avoided strict lockdown orders—outperformed nearly every country in the world.

A recent study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found that the U.S. “would have had 1.60 million fewer deaths if it had the performance of Sweden, 1.07 million fewer deaths if it had the performance of Finland, and 0.91 million fewer deaths if it had the performance of France.” In America, states that imposed prolonged lockdowns had no better health outcomes when measured by all-cause excess mortality than those that stayed open. While no quantifiable relationship between lockdown severity and a reduction in Covid health harms has been found, states with severe lockdowns suffered significantly worse economic outcomes.

. . .

The economic costs of lockdowns were also staggering. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, as many as 49 million Americans were out of work in May 2020. This shock had health consequences. A National Bureau of Economic Research study found that the lockdown unemployment shock is projected to result in 840,000 to 1.22 million excess deaths over the next 15 to 20 years, disproportionately killing women and minorities.

For the full commentary see:

Scott W. Atlas and Steve H. Hanke. “Covid Lessons Learned, Four Years Later.” The Wall Street Journal (Tuesday, March 19, 2024): A17.

(Note: ellipsis added.)

(Note: the online version of the commentary has the date March 18, 2024, and has the same title as the print version.)

The “recent study” mentioned above is:

Ioannidis, John P. A., Francesco Zonta, and Michael Levitt. “Variability in Excess Deaths across Countries with Different Vulnerability During 2020–2023.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 120, no. 49 (Dec. 5, 2023): e2309557120.

The published version of the National Bureau of Economic Research study mentioned above is:

Bianchi, Francesco, Giada Bianchi, and Dongho Song. “The Long-Term Impact of the Covid-19 Unemployment Shock on Life Expectancy and Mortality Rates.” Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control 146 (Jan. 2023): 104581.

When Medical Insurers Own Doctor Practices, Medicare Advantage Creates “Conflicts of Interest and Opportunities to Game the System”

Through its Optum division health insurer UnitedHealth has 90,000 affiliated doctors. Under the federal government’s Medicare Advantage program, UnitedHealth received higher payments from the federal government for its customers who have more dire diagnoses. This creates an incentive for UnitedHealth to pressure its affiliated doctors to code their patients with dire diagnoses.

(p. A3) UnitedHealth has built a sprawling health services company that shows no sign of slowing down. With annual revenue of $372 billion in 2023, it ranks among the five largest companies in the U.S. on that measure. Its stock, meanwhile, has returned more than 600% in the past decade.

UnitedHealth’s success has been fueled by its expansion beyond insurance as its care delivery and solutions unit Optum steadily acquires a vast array of health services companies, from a pharmacy-benefits manager to specialty pharmacies to doctor groups and surgical centers. Over the past two decades, Optum has spent about $82 billion on nearly 100 acquisitions, according to a tally by Raymond James analysts.

Much like the rest of the U.S. economy, America’s healthcare system has consolidated in recent decades, creating giant hospital systems, chain-owned medical practices and vertically integrated insurance conglomerates. Immense scale can drive efficiencies and reduce the cost of care. But in the highly complex and opaque world of U.S. healthcare, where giant companies always seem to be a step ahead of regulators, it also raises potential conflicts of interest and opportunities to game the system. The benefits of size often flow to those companies, not patients or the employers and taxpayers footing much of the bill.

. . .

A key growth driver for UnitedHealth is Optum’s steady acquisitions of doctor practices. Optum now has ties with 90,000 doctors—about 10% of the country’s physician workforce.

. . .

Much of the vertical integration in the industry has focused on the Medicare Advantage business, the sector’s golden goose. These are the private plans in which the government pays insurers a fixed rate to manage the care of seniors. The sicker the patient, the more the government pays.

In recent years, some insurers’ acquisitions seem targeted at controlling the Medicare coding apparatus. If you control the doctors who code patients, you control how much you get paid, explains Loren Adler, a fellow at the Center on Health Policy at the Brookings Institution, a nonprofit research organization. UnitedHealth and other insurers argue that they are simply coding patients according to their risk profile and that they comply with Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services rules.

But they have been accused of abusing the system by coding patients too aggressively. An investigation by the Office of Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services found that Medicare insurers received $9 billion in questionable payments in a single year.

For the full commentary see:

David Wainer. “Insurers as Healthcare Providers Risk Conflict of Interest.” The Wall Street Journal (Friday, June 14, 2024): B10.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: the online version of the commentary has the date June 13, 2024, and has the title “What Happens When Your Insurer Is Also Your Doctor and Your Pharmacist.”)

Older Americans, Most at Risk from Covid-19, Were Often Excluded from Mandated Clinical Trials of Therapies and Vaccines

Mandating randomized double-blind clinical trials for Covid-19 candidate therapies or vaccines slowed down the ability of citizens to choose those therapies or vaccines in 2020. Arguably those most hurt by the delay were older Americans age 65 and older, who had the greatest risk of death from Covid-19. The mandated trials slowed availability, but did they at least provide older Americans more and better information about the safety and efficacy of the therapies and vaccines? Not as much as you might suppose. The clinical trials often excluded older Americans because their participation would make the trials more expensive, slower, and less likely to prove safety and efficacy at levels that would result in FDA approval.

(p. D3) “Ideally, the patients enrolled in a randomized clinical trial reflect the demographics of the disease,” said Dr. Mark Sloan, a hematologist leading a Covid-19 drug study at Boston Medical Center, in an email. “Unfortunately, this is seldom the case.”

Now, Dr. Sharon K. Inouye, a geriatrician at Harvard Medical School and Hebrew SeniorLife, is sounding an alarm. She points out that in the race to find drugs and vaccines to fight the pandemic — in which 80 percent of American deaths have occurred in people over age 65 — a substantial proportion of studies may be excluding older subjects, purposely or inadvertently.

“A year from now, when these trials are published, I don’t want to see that there’s no one in them over 75,” she said. “If they create a drug that works really well in healthy 50- and 60-year-olds, they’ve missed the boat.”

She and her team have reviewed 241 interventional Covid-19 studies undertaken in the United States and listed on clinicaltrials.gov, a site maintained by a division of the National Institutes of Health.

They found that 37 of these trials — testing drugs, vaccines and devices — set specific age limits and would not enroll participants older than 75, 80 or 85. A few even excluded those over 65.

. . .

Overall, when Dr. Inouye compiled preliminary results, which have not yet been published, she found that about one-quarter of interventional trials in the United States could exclude or underrepresent older adults.

“To have them be this gravely impacted and not include them is immoral,” said Dr. Louise Aronson, the author of the best-selling book “Elderhood” and a geriatrician at the University of California, San Francisco. “It seems crazy.”

. . .

In clinical trials, “you want to control as many factors as possible,” Dr. Aronson said. Most older adults have other illnesses and take multiple medications, so-called confounding variables that make it difficult to distinguish the effects of the drug or vaccine being studied.

Older people also suffer more side effects. “Nearly all drugs are less toxic when given to younger, healthier people,” Dr. Sloan said in an email. Focusing on them produces fewer adverse effects that must be reported, “and thereby improves chances for F.D.A. approval.”

Physical disabilities, which make it harder for seniors to reach study sites, or hearing and vision impairments requiring large-print forms or audio amplification, can further decrease participation. Investigators may need to take the extra step of obtaining family consent if a patient is incapacitated.

For the full story see:

Paula Span. “The New Old Age; Older Adults May Be Left Out of Some Covid-19 Trials.” The New York Times (Tuesday, June 23, 2020 [sic]): D3.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: the online version of the story has the date June 19, 2020 [sic], and has the same title as the print version.)

After the publication of the NYT article quoted above, Dr. Inouye’s results were published in:

Helfand, Benjamin K. I., Margaret Webb, Sarah L. Gartaganis, Lily Fuller, Churl-Su Kwon, and Sharon K. Inouye. “The Exclusion of Older Persons from Vaccine and Treatment Trials for Coronavirus Disease 2019—Missing the Target.” JAMA Internal Medicine 180, no. 11 (Nov. 2020): 1546-49.

Our Brains Learn in a Process of Continuous Bayesian Updating

(p. A13) First articulated in the 18th century by a hobbyist-mathematician seeking to reason backward from effects to cause, Bayes’ theorem spent the better part of two centuries struggling for recognition and respect. Yet today, argues Tom Chivers in “Everything Is Predictable,” it can be seen as “perhaps the most important single equation in history.” It drives the logic of spam filters, artificial intelligence and possibly our own brains. . . .

At its core, the theorem provides a quantitative method for getting incrementally wiser by continuously updating what you think you know—your prior beliefs, which initially might be subjective—with new information. Your refined belief becomes the new prior, and the process repeats.

. . .

At times Mr. Chivers, a London-based science journalist who now writes for Semafor, seems overwhelmed by an admittedly complex subject, and his presentation lacks the clarity of Sharon Bertsch McGrayne’s “The Theory That Would Not Die” (2011). Yet he is onto something, since Bayes’ moment has clearly arrived. He notes that Bayesian reasoning is popular among “people who come from the new schools of data science—machine learning, Silicon Valley tech folks.” The mathematician Aubrey Clayton tells him that, in the cutting-edge realms of software engineering, “Bayesian methods are what you’d use.”

. . .

It’s notoriously difficult for most people to grasp problems in a structured Bayesian fashion. Suppose there is a test for a rare disease that is 99% accurate. You’d think that, if you tested positive, you’d probably have the disease. But when you figure in the prior—the fact that, for the average person (without specific risk factors), the chance of having a rare disease is incredibly low—then even a positive test means you’re still unlikely to have it. When quizzed by researchers, doctors consistently fail to consider prevalence—the relevant prior—in their interpretation of test results. Even so, Mr. Chivers insists, “our instinctive decision-making, from a Bayesian perspective, isn’t that bad.” And indeed, in practice, doctors quickly learn to favor common diagnoses over exotic possibilities.

. . .

Our brains work by making models of the world, Mr. Chivers reminds us, assessing how our expectations match what we earn from our senses, and then updating our perceptions accordingly. Deep down, it seems, we are all Bayesians.

For the full review, see:

David A. Shaywitz. “Thinking Prior to Thought.” The Wall Street Journal (Thursday, May 15, 2024): A15.

(Note: the online version of the review has the date May 14, 2024, and has the title “‘Everything Is Predictable’ Review: The Secret of Bayes.” In the last quoted sentence I have replaced the word “earn” that appears in both the online and print versions, with the word “learn.”)

The book under review is:

Chivers, Tom. Everything Is Predictable: How Bayesian Statistics Explain Our World. New York: Atria/One Signal Publishers, 2024.

Patient-Reported Health Information Deserves Respect

Patients may have more accurate knowledge of their health than the information found in doctors’ blood tests, as reported in the study summarized below. The credibility of patient self-knowledge provides an added reason, besides respect for freedom, why government should not mandate an individual’s food and drug decisions.

(p. D4) . . . a . . . study . . . suggests that how patients say they feel may be a better predictor of health than objective measures like a blood test. The study, published in Psychoneuroendocrinology, used data from 1,500 people who took part in the Texas City Stress and Health Study, which tracked the stress and health levels of people living near Houston.

. . .

The study found that when people said they felt poorly, they had high virus and inflammation levels. People who reported feeling well had low virus and inflammation levels.

“I think the take-home message is that self-reported health matters,” said Christopher P. Fagundes, an assistant psychology professor at Rice University and a co-author of the study. “Physicians should pay close to attention to their patients. There are likely biological mechanisms underlying why they feel their health is poor.”

For the full story see:

Tara Parker-Pope. “Doctors, Listen to Patients.” The New York Times (Tuesday, July 19, 2016 [sic]): D4.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: the online version of the story has the date July 15, 2016 [sic], and has the title “Doctors Should Listen to Patient Instincts.”)

The academic paper co-authored by Fagundes and mentioned above is:

Murdock, Kyle W., Christopher P. Fagundes, M. Kristen Peek, Vansh Vohra, and Raymond P. Stowe. “The Effect of Self-Reported Health on Latent Herpesvirus Reactivation and Inflammation in an Ethnically Diverse Sample.” Psychoneuroendocrinology 72 (Oct. 2016): 113-18.

Following Salt Consumption Guidelines Increases Risk of Death

Official experts often turn out to be wrong, as in the salt consumption guidelines discussed below. The fallibility of expert knowledge provides an added reason, besides respect for freedom, why government should not mandate an individual’s food and drug decisions.

(p. D4) People with high blood pressure are often told to eat a low-sodium diet. But a diet that’s too low in sodium may actually increase the risk for cardiovascular disease, a review of studies has found.

Current guidelines recommend a daily maximum of 2.3 grams of sodium a day — the amount found in a teaspoon of salt — for most people, and less for the elderly or people with hypertension.

Researchers reviewed four observational studies that included 133,118 people who were followed for an average of four years. The scientists took blood pressure readings, and estimated sodium consumption by urinalysis. The review is in The Lancet.

Among 69,559 people without hypertension, consuming more than seven grams of sodium daily did not increase the risk for disease or death, but those who ate less than three grams had a 26 percent increased risk for death or for cardiovascular events like heart disease and stroke, compared with those who consumed four to five grams a day.

In people with high blood pressure, consuming more than seven grams a day increased the risk by 23 percent, but consuming less than three grams increased the risk by 34 percent, compared with those who ate four to five grams a day.

For the full story see:

Nicholas Bakalar. “Low-Salt Diet as a Heart Risk.” The New York Times (Tuesday, Oct. 11, 2016 [sic]): D4.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: the online version of the story has the date May 25, 2016 [sic], and has the title “A Low-Salt Diet May Be Bad for the Heart.”)

The academic paper reporting the results summarized above is:

Mente, Andrew, Martin O’Donnell, Sumathy Rangarajan, Gilles Dagenais, Scott Lear, Matthew McQueen, Rafael Diaz, Alvaro Avezum, Patricio Lopez-Jaramillo, Fernando Lanas, Wei Li, Yin Lu, Sun Yi, Lei Rensheng, Romaina Iqbal, Prem Mony, Rita Yusuf, Khalid Yusoff, Andrzej Szuba, Aytekin Oguz, Annika Rosengren, Ahmad Bahonar, Afzalhussein Yusufali, Aletta Elisabeth Schutte, Jephat Chifamba, Johannes F. E. Mann, Sonia S. Anand, Koon Teo, and S. Yusuf. “Associations of Urinary Sodium Excretion with Cardiovascular Events in Individuals with and without Hypertension: A Pooled Analysis of Data from Four Studies.” The Lancet 388, no. 10043 (2016): 465-75.

Techno-Optimist Claims AI Tools “Will Help Scientists Design Therapies Faster and Better”

(p. A13) It is said that triumphant Roman generals, to ensure that the rapture of victory didn’t go to their heads, would require a companion to whisper in their ear: “Remember, you are only a man.” Jamie Metzl worries that we may have learned all too well such lessons in humility. Given remarkable recent advances in technology—and the promise of more to come—we need to lean into our emerging godlike powers, he believes, and embrace the opportunity to shape the world into a better place. In “Superconvergence,” he sets out to show us how, after first helping us overcome our hesitations.

. . .

. . . the big advances will be in medicine—and indeed are already in evidence. Mr. Metzl points to the blisteringly fast development of the Covid-19 mRNA vaccine, from digital file to widespread immunization in less than a year; and to gene-editing technologies like Crispr. He cites the experience of Victoria Gray, a young woman from Mississippi who was suffering from sickle-cell disease until, in 2019, researchers in Nashville, Tenn., reinfused her with her own cells, which had been Crispr-edited; the treatment worked, liberating her from the disease’s tormenting pain and crippling fatigue. For Mr. Metzl, these are just the first intimations of a revolution to come. AI tools like DeepMind’s Alphafold, he says, will help scientists design therapies faster and better.

To get smarter about human health, though, AI will need more information, and here Mr. Metzl’s ebullience edges toward the willful suspension of disbelief. His imagined future of healthcare will require “collecting huge amounts of genetic and systems biology data in massive and searchable databases.” The details will include not only medical records and the results of laboratory tests but data from the sensors he anticipates will be everywhere—“bathrooms, bedrooms, and offices”—as information is hoovered up from “toilets, mirrors, computers, phones and other devices without the people even noticing.” While acknowledging that such a scenario sounds like “an authoritarian’s dream and a free person’s nightmare,” he suggests that the chance to catch disease early may offset the risks. This trade-off promises to be a tough sell.

More than many techno-optimists, Mr. Metzl seems to grasp the intricacy of biological systems; he notes that they are beyond our full understanding right now. Even so, a time will come when “the sophistication of our tools and understanding meets and then exceeds the complexity of biology.”

For the full review, see:

David A. Shaywitz. “Getting Better, Faster.” The Wall Street Journal (Thursday, July 11, 2024): A13.

(Note: the online version of the review has the date July 10, 2024, and has the title “‘Superconvergence’ Review: Getting Better, Faster.”)

The book under review is:

Metzl, Jamie. Superconvergence: How the Genetics, Biotech, and AI Revolutions Will Transform Our Lives, Work, and World. New York: Timber Press, 2024.

Copper Hospital Fixtures Would Reduce Bacterial Infections

If healthcare was unregulated, nimble entrepreneurs could make quick use of the findings summarized below. In our sclerotic hyper-regulated healthcare system, healthcare workers have neither the incentives nor the decision rights to make use of them.

(p. D6) Researchers equipped nine rooms in a small rural hospital with copper faucet handles, toilet flush levers, door handles, light switches and other commonly touched equipment. They left nine other rooms with traditional plastic, porcelain and metal surfaces.

. . .

. . . on average, fixtures in copper-equipped rooms had concentrations of bacteria about 98 percent lower than in rooms furnished with traditional equipment, whether the rooms were occupied or not. On half of the copper components, the researchers were unable to grow any bacteria at all.

“Copper in hospital rooms is not yet common,” said the lead author, Shannon M. Hinsa-Leasure, an associate professor of biology at Grinnell College in Iowa.

For the full story see:

Nicholas Bakalar. “Copper May Stem Infections.” The New York Times (Tuesday, Oct. 11, 2016 [sic]): D6.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: the online version of the story has the date Oct. 4, 2016 [sic], and has the title “Copper Sinks and Faucets May Stem Hospital Infections.”)

The academic paper reporting the results summarized above is:

Hinsa-Leasure, Shannon M., Queenster Nartey, Justin Vaverka, and Michael G. Schmidt. “Copper Alloy Surfaces Sustain Terminal Cleaning Levels in a Rural Hospital.” American Journal of Infection Control 44, no. 11 (Nov. 2016): e195-e203.

“Righteous Rage” Against “The Absence of a Cure”

The commentary quoted below advocates a productive rage against “the dying of the light” (Dylan Thomas); a sense of urgency.

(p. D6) Dr. Sacks, who recorded his heavenly highs and hellish lows in “A Leg to Stand On,” believes that those with a disability often oscillate between grateful rejoicing and bitter denouncing of their circumstances. The same dynamic may hold true for cancer patients. So how does one sustain the joy while avoiding the rancor?

There can be no simple answer, but I seek clues in works of art created by terminal cancer patients. Take, for example, the paintings of Hollis Sigler, which have been shown in hospitals across the country and collected in the volume “Hollis Sigler’s Breast Cancer Journal.”

. . . She depicts a shocking lack of control in a painting with food and silverware unexpectedly flying from a table in a tornado of debris. The image reminds me of Dr. Benedict B. Benigno’s perspective on cancer: “If life is a banquet, then cancer takes away the knife and fork and pulls the chair out from under us.”

To document the ravages of metastatic breast cancer, Ms. Sigler, who died of the disease in 2001, used spacers between frames for prose on the dire statistics and facts she had learned. On the edges of the paintings, she recorded additional words from her journals and those of the poet and breast cancer activist Audre Lorde. Bitterness and rancor certainly get expressed in these testimonies, but righteous rage is channeled toward the real enemies: the absence of a cure, the lack of preventive measures, inadequate detection tools, degrading and injurious treatments, miserable mortality rates, contaminants in the environment.

. . .

Not repressing but directing her anger, Ms. Sigler managed, through her dazzling artistry, to contest and revise the poet W. H. Auden’s advice: “Let your last thinks all be thanks.”

For the full commentary see:

Susan Gubar. “Living With Cancer: Curses and Blessings.” The New York Times (Tuesday, July 21, 2015 [sic]): D6.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: the online version of the commentary has the date July 16, 2015 [sic], and has the same title as the print version.)

The book of paintings by Hollis Sigler, mentioned above, is:

Sigler, Hollis, Susan M. Love, and James Yood. Hollis Sigler’s Breast Cancer Journal. New York: Hudson Hills Press, 1999.

Perfusion Eases the Scarcity of Organs for Transplantation

(p. A1) Surgeons are experimenting with organs from genetically modified animals, hinting at a future when they could be a source for transplants. But the field is already undergoing a paradigm shift, driven by technologies in widespread use that allow clinicians to temporarily store organs outside the body.

Perfusion, as its called, is changing every aspect of the organ transplant process, from the way surgeons operate, to the types of patients who can donate organs, to the outcomes for recipients.

. . .

(p. A12) Scientists have long experimented with techniques for keeping organs in more dynamic conditions, at a warmer temperature and perfused with blood or another oxygenated solution. After years of development, the first device for preserving lungs via perfusion won approval from the Food and Drug Administration in 2019. Devices for perfusing hearts and livers were approved in late 2021.

. . .

Now surgical teams can recover an organ, perfuse it overnight while they sleep and complete the transplant in the morning without fear that the delay will have damaged the organ.

Perhaps most important, perfusion has further opened the door to organ donation by comatose patients whose families have withdrawn life support, allowing their hearts to eventually stop. Each year, tens of thousands of people die this way, after the cessation of circulation, but they were rarely donor candidates because the dying process deprived their organs of oxygen.

. . .

By tapping this new cadre of donors, transplant centers said they could find organs more quickly for the excess of patients in urgent need. Dr. Shimul Shah said the organ transplant program he directs at the University of Cincinnati had essentially wiped out its waiting list for livers. “I never thought, in my career, I would ever say that,” he said.

. . .

Dr. Shaf Keshavjee, a surgeon at the University of Toronto whose lab was at the forefront of developing technologies to preserve lungs outside the body, said the devices could eventually allow doctors to remove, repair and return lungs to sick patients rather than replace them. “I think we can make organs that will outlive the recipient you put them in,” he said.

Dr. Ashish Shah, the chairman of cardiac surgery at Vanderbilt University, one of the busiest heart transplant programs in the country, agreed, calling that “the holy grail.”

“Your heart sucks,” he said. “I take it out. I put it on my apparatus. While you don’t have a heart, I can support you with an artificial heart for a little while. I then take your heart and fix it — cells, mitochondria, gene therapy, whatever — and then I sew it back in. Your own heart. That’s what we’re really working for.”

For the full story see:

Ted Alcorn. “Keeping Organs For Transplants Alive for Longer.” The New York Times (Wednesday, April 3, 2024): A1 & A12.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: the online version of the story has the date April 2, 2024, and has the title “The Organ Is Still Working. But It’s Not in a Body Anymore.”)

The Absence of a Randomized Double-Blind Clinical Trial Is Used as an Excuse to Ignore an Emergency Procedure That Saves Lives

In an urgent emergency the son and wife of a man with a stopped heart, improvised the use of a toilet plunger to get his heart to start pumping again. In his wonderful account of the sources of insight, Gary Klein told a different example of urgent emergency improvisation: “Wag” Dodge saved himself from a massive wildfire racing toward him by lighting a match to the grass at his feet to pre-burn a patch he could lie down in. When the wildfire reached him, it passed on both sides, avoiding the patch that now had no fuel. Neither the son-and-mother, nor Wag Dodge, got their insight from collaboration or a randomized double-blind controlled trial.

(p. D5) In 1988, a 65-year-old man’s heart stopped at home. His wife and son didn’t know CPR, so in desperation they grabbed a toilet plunger to get his heart going until an ambulance showed up.

Later, after the man recovered at San Francisco General Hospital, his son gave the doctors there some advice: Put toilet plungers next to all of the beds in the coronary unit.

The hospital didn’t do that, but the idea got the doctors thinking about better ways to do CPR, or cardiopulmonary resuscitation, the conventional method for chest compressions after cardiac arrest. More than three decades later, at a meeting of emergency medical services directors this week in Hollywood, Fla., researchers presented data showing that using a plunger-like setup leads to remarkably better outcomes for reviving patients.

. . .

The new procedure, known as neuroprotective CPR, has three components. First, a silicone plunger forces the chest up and down, not only pushing blood out to the body, but drawing it back in to refill the heart. A plastic valve fits over a face mask or breathing tube to control pressure in the lungs.

The third piece is a body-positioning device sold by AdvancedCPR Solutions, a firm in Edina, Minn., that was founded by Dr. Lurie. A hinged support slowly elevates a supine patient into a partial sitting position. This allows oxygen-starved blood in the brain to drain more effectively and to be replenished more quickly with oxygenated blood.

. . .

. . ., a study carried out in four states found . . . [p]atients who received neuroprotective CPR within 11 minutes of a 911 call were about three times as likely to survive with good brain function as those who received conventional CPR.

. . .

Dr. Karen Hirsch, a neurologist at Stanford University and a member of the CPR standards committee for the American Heart Association, said that the new approach was interesting and made physiological sense, but that the committee needed to see more research on patients before it could formally recommend it as a treatment option.

“We’re limited to the available data,” she said, adding that the committee would like to see a clinical trial in which people undergoing cardiac arrests are randomly assigned to conventional CPR or neuroprotective CPR. No such trials are happening in the United States.

Dr. Joe Holley, the medical director for the emergency medical service that serves Memphis and several surrounding communities, isn’t waiting for a larger trial. Two of his teams, he said, were getting neurologically intact survival rates of about 7 percent with conventional CPR. With neuroprotective CPR, the rates rose to around 23 percent.

His crews are coming back from emergency calls much happier these days, too, and patients are even showing up at fire stations to thank them for their help.

“That was a rare occurrence,” Dr. Holley said. “Now it’s almost a regular thing.”