Key result
Prehospital transcutaneous cardiac pacing fails to improve hospital admission or discharge outcomes in cardiac arrest.
Why the study?
This trial evaluated prehospital transcutaneous cardiac pacing for hemodynamically significant bradycardia and asystole.
Does prehospital transcutaneous cardiac pacing added to standard ACLS improve survival and hospital outcomes in patients with hemodynamically significant bradycardia and asystole and a Glasgow coma scale score ≤12?
Does prehospital transcutaneous cardiac pacing added to standard ACLS improve survival and hospital outcomes in patients with hemodynamically significant bradycardia and asystole and a Glasgow coma scale score ≤12?
Prehospital transcutaneous cardiac pacing in neurologically impaired patients with bradycardia or asystole was associated with long delays to pacing and did not improve survival or hospital discharge rates compared to standard ACLS alone.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Prehospital pacing did not improve outcomes in bradycardic arrest; leaves open whether earlier application or integrated devices would alter results.
A prospective alternate-day controlled trial of prehospital transcutaneous cardiac pacing (PACE) of hemodynamically significant bradycardia and asystole was undertaken. All patients had a Glasgow coma scale score of 12 or less. Patients in the control group (n = 101) received standard advanced cardiac life support (ACLS) care. Patients in the pacing group (n = 101) were to receive PACE in addition to standard ACLS treatment; 89 patients were actually paced. The two groups were comparable in terms of age, sex, presenting rhythm, and mean times to cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and ACLS. For the 144 patients in whom the time of arrest could be estimated, the mean times to CPR and ACLS were 5.3 +/- 4.0 and 10.9 +/- 7.1 min, respectively. For the 65 paced patients in whom the time of arrest could be estimated, the mean time from arrest to pacing was 21.8 +/- 8.8 min (range 2 to 43). Multivariate analysis of outcome variables (presentation to emergency department with a pulse, admission to the hospital, and discharge from the hospital) revealed that an initial rhythm of ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation and a short time to ACLS were correlated with a favorable outcome (p less than .05; logistic regression analysis). A short time to PACE was associated with admission to the hospital (p = .20; logistic regression analysis). The use of a stand-alone transcutaneous pacing device in the prehospital arrest setting was associated with generally long times until pacing and did not appreciably improve outcome. Use of PACE in patients demonstrating prehospital bradycardia without neurologic impairment remains to be evaluated.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hedges et al. (1987) studied Prehospital hemodynamically significant bradycardia and asystole (n=202). Prehospital transcutaneous cardiac pacing (PACE) plus standard advanced cardiac life support (ACLS) vs. Standard advanced cardiac life support (ACLS) care alone was evaluated on Presentation to emergency department with a pulse, admission to the hospital, and discharge from the hospital. Prehospital transcutaneous cardiac pacing had a mean arrest-to-pacing time of 21.8 +/- 8.8 min and did not appreciably improve hospital admission or discharge outcomes.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: