Tibballs James, Russell Philip
Intensive Care Unit, Royal Children's Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Resuscitation. 2009 Jan;80(1):61-4. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2008.10.002. Epub 2008 Nov 6.
To determine the reliability of pulse palpation to diagnose paediatric cardiac arrest.
With all cardiovascular information obscured, 209 doctors and nurses (rescuers) were requested once each to determine if a pulse was present in 1 of 16 infants and children (average age 1.8 years, range 1 week-13 years) provided with non-pulsatile circulation with veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation or left ventricular assistance for cardiac arrest or failure. Rescuers did not know the stage of recovery of the heart and did not if a true pulse was present or absent. Rescuer decisions "pulse absent" or "pulse present" were compared with concurred decisions of investigators and bedside nurse who knew cardiovascular data and had unlimited time to palpate pulses.
Rescuer pulse palpation accuracy was 78% (95% CI 70-82), sensitivity 0.86 (95% CI 0.77-0.90) and specificity 0.64 (95% CI 0.53-0.74). When investigators diagnosed cardiac arrest pulse pressure was 6+/-5mmHg (range 0-20) compared with 9+/-8mmHg (range 0-29) with rescuers (p=0.0004). With pulse pressure zero, rescuer accuracy was 89% and sensitivity 0.89. Sixty per cent of rescuers chose a brachial pulse, 33% a femoral pulse with respective accuracies of 78% and 77%, sensitivities 0.86 and 0.85 and specificities 0.67 and 0.56.
Pulse palpation is unreliable to diagnose paediatric cardiac arrest. Rescuers misdiagnose on 22% of occasions and which may lead them to withhold external cardiac compression on 14% of occasions when needed and on 36% to give it when not needed. Brachial palpation is slightly more reliable than femoral palpation.
确定通过脉搏触诊诊断小儿心脏骤停的可靠性。
在所有心血管信息均被遮挡的情况下,要求209名医生和护士(救援人员)分别对16名婴儿和儿童(平均年龄1.8岁,范围为1周 - 13岁)中的1名进行脉搏检查,这些患儿因心脏骤停或心力衰竭接受静脉 - 动脉体外膜肺氧合或左心室辅助,处于无脉搏循环状态。救援人员不知道心脏的恢复阶段,也不知道是否存在真正的脉搏。将救援人员判断“无脉搏”或“有脉搏”的结果与知晓心血管数据且有无限时间触诊脉搏的调查人员和床边护士的一致判断进行比较。
救援人员脉搏触诊的准确率为78%(95%置信区间70 - 82),敏感性为0.86(95%置信区间0.77 - 0.90),特异性为0.64(95%置信区间0.53 - 0.74)。当调查人员诊断为心脏骤停时,脉压为6±5mmHg(范围0 - 20),而救援人员诊断时脉压为9±8mmHg(范围0 - 29)(p = 0.0004)。当脉压为零时,救援人员的准确率为89%,敏感性为0.89。60%的救援人员选择触诊肱动脉脉搏,33%选择触诊股动脉脉搏,各自的准确率分别为78%和77%,敏感性分别为0.86和0.85,特异性分别为0.67和0.56。
通过脉搏触诊诊断小儿心脏骤停并不可靠。救援人员在22%的情况下会误诊,这可能导致他们在14%需要进行胸外心脏按压的情况下不进行按压,而在36%不需要按压的情况下进行按压。肱动脉触诊比股动脉触诊稍可靠一些。