Literature DB >> 9025126

Checking the carotid pulse check: diagnostic accuracy of first responders in patients with and without a pulse.

B Eberle1, W F Dick, T Schneider, G Wisser, S Doetsch, I Tzanova.   

Abstract

International guidelines for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) in adults advocate that cardiac arrest be recognized within 5-10 s, by the absence of a pulse in the carotid arteries. However, validation of first responders' assessment of the carotid pulse has begun only recently. We aimed (1) to develop a methodology to study diagnostic accuracy in detecting the presence or absence of the carotid pulse in unresponsive patients, and (2) to evaluate diagnostic accuracy and time required by first responders to assess the carotid pulse. In 16 patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting, four groups of first responders (EMT-1: 107 laypersons with basic life support (BLS) training; EMT-2: 16 emergency medical technicians (EMTs) in training; PM-1: 74 paramedics in training; PM-2: 9 certified paramedics) performed, single-blinded and randomly allocated, carotid pulse assessment either during spontaneous circulation, or during non-pulsatile cardiopulmonary bypass. Time to diagnosis of carotid pulse status, concurrent haemodynamics and diagnostic accuracy were recorded. In 10% (6/59), an absent carotid pulse was not recognized as pulselessness. In 45% (66/147), a pulse was not identified despite a carotid pulse with a systolic pressure > or = 80 mmHg. Thus, although sensitivity of all participants for central pulselessness approached 90%, specificity was only 55%. Both sensitivity and, to a lesser degree, specificity improved with increasing training; blood pressure or heart rate had no significant effect. The median diagnostic delay was 24 s (minimum 3 s). When no carotid pulse was found, delays were significantly longer (30 s: minimum 13 s), than when a carotid pulse was identified (15 s; minimum 3 s) (P < 0.0001). Of all participants, only 15% (31/206) produced correct diagnoses within 10 s. Only 1/59 (2%) identified pulselessness correctly within 10 s. Our cardiopulmonary bypass model of carotid pulse assessment proved to be feasible and realistic. We conclude that recognition of pulselessness by rescuers with basic CPR training is time-consuming and inaccurate. Both intensive retraining of professional rescuers and reconsideration of guidelines about carotid pulse assessment are warranted.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1996        PMID: 9025126     DOI: 10.1016/s0300-9572(96)01016-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Resuscitation        ISSN: 0300-9572            Impact factor:   5.262


  28 in total

1.  [Guidelines of the European Resuscitation Council 2000 on advanced adult life support. A statement of the Advanced Life Support Working Group as approved by the Executive Committee of the European Resuscitation Council].

Authors: 
Journal:  Anaesthesist       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 1.041

2.  [Guidelines of the European Resuscitation Council 2000 for basic pediatric life support. A statement of the Pediatric Life Support Working Group following approval by the executive committee of the European Resuscitation Council].

Authors: 
Journal:  Anaesthesist       Date:  2002-05       Impact factor: 1.041

3.  Part 10: Pediatric basic and advanced life support: 2010 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations.

Authors:  Monica E Kleinman; Allan R de Caen; Leon Chameides; Dianne L Atkins; Robert A Berg; Marc D Berg; Farhan Bhanji; Dominique Biarent; Robert Bingham; Ashraf H Coovadia; Mary Fran Hazinski; Robert W Hickey; Vinay M Nadkarni; Amelia G Reis; Antonio Rodriguez-Nunez; James Tibballs; Arno L Zaritsky; David Zideman
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2010-10-19       Impact factor: 29.690

4.  Pediatric basic and advanced life support: 2010 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science with Treatment Recommendations.

Authors:  Monica E Kleinman; Allan R de Caen; Leon Chameides; Dianne L Atkins; Robert A Berg; Marc D Berg; Farhan Bhanji; Dominique Biarent; Robert Bingham; Ashraf H Coovadia; Mary Fran Hazinski; Robert W Hickey; Vinay M Nadkarni; Amelia G Reis; Antonio Rodriguez-Nunez; James Tibballs; Arno L Zaritsky; David Zideman
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  2010-10-18       Impact factor: 7.124

Review 5.  Recent advances and controversies in adult cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

Authors:  Wanis H Ibrahim
Journal:  Postgrad Med J       Date:  2007-10       Impact factor: 2.401

6.  1998 European guidelines on resuscitation. Simplifications should make them easier to teach and implement.

Authors:  J Nolan; C Gwinnutt
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1998-06-20

7.  Basic Cardiac Life Support: 2016 Singapore Guidelines.

Authors:  Swee Han Lim; Fong Chi Wee; Tek Siong Chee
Journal:  Singapore Med J       Date:  2017-07       Impact factor: 1.858

Review 8.  Cardio-pulmonary Resuscitation : an overview of Recent Advances in Concepts and Practices.

Authors:  D K Sreevastava; P K Roy; S K Dass; A Bhargava; A Chakrabarty; V Rai; V K Tarneja
Journal:  Med J Armed Forces India       Date:  2011-07-21

9.  Handheld Doppler to improve pulse checks during resuscitation of putative pulseless electrical activity arrest.

Authors:  Robert B Schonberger; Rachel J Lampert; Ernest I Mandel; Jessica Feinleib; Zhaodi Gong; Shyoko Honiden
Journal:  Anesthesiology       Date:  2014-04       Impact factor: 7.892

Review 10. 

Authors:  J P Nolan; C D Deakin; J Soar; B W Böttiger; G Smith; M Baubin; B Dirks; V Wenzel
Journal:  Notf Rett Med       Date:  2006-02-01       Impact factor: 0.826

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.