Why the study?
Does prehospital transcutaneous cardiac pacing improve survival to hospital discharge in patients with witnessed cardiovascular decompensation and initial bradycardia?
Does prehospital transcutaneous cardiac pacing improve survival to hospital discharge in patients with witnessed cardiovascular decompensation and initial bradycardia?
Prehospital transcutaneous cardiac pacing is most beneficial for survival in symptomatic bradycardia patients who present with a palpable pulse.
May support prehospital pacing in bradycardic patients with palpable pulse; hypothesis-generating and requires randomized confirmation.
We studied patients with symptomatic bradycardia to determine the importance of presenting hemodynamic status and prehospital transcutaneous cardiac pacing (TCP) upon patient survival. Of 51 patients with witnessed cardiovascular decompensation and initial bradycardia, 27 (53%) received TCP. There were no significant differences between the paced patients and those without TCP for mean times from collapse until cardiopulmonary resuscitation, paramedic arrival and a paceable rhythm, or from paramedic arrival until a paceable rhythm. Overall, emergency department arrival with a palpable pulse (26% in paced vs 13% in nonpaced group; P = 0.20) and survival to hospital discharge (15% in paced vs 0% nonpaced group; P = 0.07) tended to be better for the paced group. No patient without a palpable pulse on paramedic arrival survived to leave the hospital. Of patients with a palpable pulse upon paramedic arrival, survival to hospital discharge was greater for the paced group (80% in paced vs 0% in nonpaced group; P = 0.024). TCP appears to be most beneficial in those patients with bradycardia who have a palpable pulse when first seen.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hedges et al. (1991) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: