van der Watt M J, Aboo A A, Millar R N
Department of Medicine, University of Cape Town.
S Afr Med J. 1995 Jun;85(6):508-11.
Acute symptomatic tachyarrhythmias are commonly seen by emergency unit personnel. Electrical cardioversion is often used at Groote Schuur Hospital to treat such patients because of concerns about the safety and efficacy of intravenous anti-arrhythmic agents. All patients presenting with acute symptomatic tachyarrhythmias who were managed only by the staff of the Emergency Unit were entered into the study to assess the efficacy and safety of direct current (DC) cardioversion. Those with sinus tachycardia or atrial fibrillation of more than 24 hours' duration were excluded. Staff, on joining the unit, were instructed in the use and technique of DC cardioversion, and given simple guidelines for the management of acute tachyarrhythmias. Fifty-three patient events were seen over a period of 16 months: 7 patients had ventricular tachycardia, 21 had atrial flutter, 20 had paroxysmal junctional re-entry tachycardia, 4 had atrial fibrillation and 1 had multifocal atrial tachycardia. Fifty-two were successfully converted to sinus rhythm. One patient with atrial flutter and 9 with paroxysmal junctional re-entry tachycardia reverted after undergoing vagal manoeuvres or receiving intravenous verapamil. Of the remaining 43 patients, 42 (98%) were cardioverted with synchronised DC shock under midazolam sedation (7/7 ventricular tachycardia, 20/20 atrial flutter, 11/11 paroxysmal junctional re-entry tachycardia, 4/4 atrial fibrillation, 0/1 multifocal atrial tachycardia). Four patients had their sedation electively reversed with flumazenil. No complications occurred. DC cardioversion was only considered inappropriate in the 1 patient with multifocal atrial tachycardia. This study shows that if simple guidelines are followed, non-cardiologist junior medical personnel can safely and effectively manage sustained, acute, symptomatic tachyarrhythmias by employing DC cardioversion as and when appropriate.
急性症状性快速心律失常在急诊科人员中很常见。由于担心静脉注射抗心律失常药物的安全性和有效性,格罗特·舒尔医院经常使用电复律来治疗此类患者。所有仅由急诊科工作人员处理的急性症状性快速心律失常患者均纳入本研究,以评估直流电(DC)复律的有效性和安全性。排除窦性心动过速或持续时间超过24小时的心房颤动患者。工作人员入职时,接受了DC复律的使用和技术培训,并获得了急性快速心律失常管理的简单指南。在16个月的时间里共观察到53例患者事件:7例为室性心动过速,21例为心房扑动,20例为阵发性交界性折返性心动过速,4例为心房颤动,1例为多源性房性心动过速。52例成功转为窦性心律。1例心房扑动患者和9例阵发性交界性折返性心动过速患者在进行迷走神经操作或接受静脉注射维拉帕米后恢复正常。在其余43例患者中,42例(98%)在咪达唑仑镇静下通过同步DC电击复律(7/7室性心动过速,20/20心房扑动,11/11阵发性交界性折返性心动过速,4/4心房颤动,0/1多源性房性心动过速)。4例患者选择性地用氟马西尼逆转镇静。未发生并发症。仅1例多源性房性心动过速患者被认为不适合DC复律。本研究表明,如果遵循简单的指南,非心脏病专家的初级医务人员可以在适当的时候安全有效地采用DC复律来处理持续性、急性、症状性快速心律失常。