Madsen C D, Pointer J E, Lynch T G
City and County of San Francisco, Department of Public Health, Emergency Medical Services Agency, CA, USA.
Ann Emerg Med. 1995 May;25(5):649-55. doi: 10.1016/s0196-0644(95)70179-6.
To compare the efficacy and base hospital physician use of adenosine with that of verapamil in the prehospital treatment of supraventricular tachycardia (SVT).
A 12-month prospective chart review of adenosine administration and a 12-month retrospective chart review of verapamil administration.
A single-tier advanced life support emergency medical service system.
Prehospital adult patients presenting with narrow-complex SVT.
Field paramedics identified SVT. They then administered verapamil or adenosine under on-line physician medical control. Paramedics administered up to two i.v. doses of verapamil, 2.5 mg and 5 mg, or up to two i.v. doses of adenosine, 6 mg and 12 mg. They recorded ECG readings; blood pressure; pulse; respirations; and symptoms before, during, and after drug administration.
During the verapamil period, paramedics identified 102 cases of SVT and administered verapamil to 17 patients. Review by a cardiologist revealed 6 of the 17 patients to have been in atrial fibrillation, atrial tachycardia, or sinus tachycardia. Of the remaining 11 patients, 7 (64%) converted from SVT to sinus rhythm. During the adenosine period, paramedics identified 89 cases of SVT, and they administered adenosine to 64 patients. Eight patients had no review because prehospital rhythm strips were lost. Of the remaining 56 patients, 24 were later determined to have been in atrial fibrillation, atrial tachycardia, sinus tachycardia, atrial flutter, or ventricular tachycardia. Of the remaining 32 patients who were in SVT, adenosine converted 25 (78%) to sinus rhythm. An important incidental finding was the misinterpretation of tachydysrhythmias in 30 of 73 patients by paramedics and base hospital physicians.
Our study showed no difference in conversion rates between verapamil and adenosine. Base hospital physicians were more likely to order adenosine than verapamil. Paramedics and base hospital physicians often misinterpret tachydysrhythmias.
比较腺苷与维拉帕米在院前治疗室上性心动过速(SVT)中的疗效及基层医院医生的使用情况。
对腺苷给药进行为期12个月的前瞻性病历回顾,对维拉帕米给药进行为期12个月的回顾性病历回顾。
单层高级生命支持紧急医疗服务系统。
表现为窄QRS波群SVT的院前成年患者。
现场护理人员识别出SVT。然后他们在在线医生医疗指导下给予维拉帕米或腺苷。护理人员给予高达两剂静脉注射的维拉帕米,剂量分别为2.5毫克和5毫克,或高达两剂静脉注射的腺苷,剂量分别为6毫克和12毫克。他们记录了心电图读数、血压、脉搏、呼吸以及给药前、给药期间和给药后的症状。
在维拉帕米治疗期间,护理人员识别出102例SVT,并对17例患者给予维拉帕米。心脏病专家复查发现,17例患者中有6例为房颤、房性心动过速或窦性心动过速。在其余11例患者中,7例(64%)从SVT转为窦性心律。在腺苷治疗期间,护理人员识别出89例SVT,并对64例患者给予腺苷。8例患者因院前心律条丢失未进行复查。在其余56例患者中,24例后来被确定为房颤、房性心动过速、窦性心动过速、房扑或室性心动过速。在其余32例处于SVT的患者中,腺苷使25例(78%)转为窦性心律。一个重要的偶然发现是,73例患者中有30例的快速性心律失常被护理人员和基层医院医生误诊。
我们的研究表明,维拉帕米和腺苷的转复率没有差异。基层医院医生开具腺苷的可能性比维拉帕米更大。护理人员和基层医院医生经常误诊快速性心律失常。