2019
DOI: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2019.03.009
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The POCUS pulse check: A randomized controlled crossover study comparing pulse detection by palpation versus by point-of-care ultrasound

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
15
0
1

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 37 publications
(16 citation statements)
references
References 34 publications
0
15
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…[2][3][4][5] Point-of-care ultrasound is a noninvasive technique to visualize the heart and central vessels during resuscitation. 4,6 It can help determine the presence or absence of cardiac activity in conjunction with, or instead of, manual pulse checks, as is demonstrated in case 1. 7,8 By demonstrating clear, organized cardiac activity, POCUS enabled the medical team to halt compressions and initiate post-ROSC care.…”
Section: Discussion and Review Of The Literaturementioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…[2][3][4][5] Point-of-care ultrasound is a noninvasive technique to visualize the heart and central vessels during resuscitation. 4,6 It can help determine the presence or absence of cardiac activity in conjunction with, or instead of, manual pulse checks, as is demonstrated in case 1. 7,8 By demonstrating clear, organized cardiac activity, POCUS enabled the medical team to halt compressions and initiate post-ROSC care.…”
Section: Discussion and Review Of The Literaturementioning
confidence: 99%
“…1 Manual central pulse checks are unreliable and may erroneously miss the presence of a pulse or fail to recognize the absence of one. [2][3][4][5] Point-of-care ultrasound is a noninvasive technique to visualize the heart and central vessels during resuscitation. 4,6 It can help determine the presence or absence of cardiac activity in conjunction with, or instead of, manual pulse checks, as is demonstrated in case 1.…”
Section: Discussion and Review Of The Literaturementioning
confidence: 99%
“…頸動脈の触診などによる自己心拍の有無の判断は必ずしも信頼できるものではなく,医療従事者の最大45%が正確に検出できないと言われている 280), 281), 282)。その結果,胸骨圧迫の中断時間が長くなったり,蘇生の不適切な中止につながったりする可能性が否定できない。頸動脈の拍動をPOCUSで評価することで触知よりも正確に評価できたとする研究がいくつかあるが,規模が小さいものが多く追試験が待たれる 283), 284)。また,頸動脈以外の方法として動脈ラインの留置は正確性に優れるが,心停止時は困難で時間もかかる。超音波検査では心停止中の心臓の収縮活動を容易に評価できるため,脈拍触知よりも正確かつ迅速に評価できる可能性がある。また,臨床的には心停止でも認めることがある規則的な心収縮は,高い心拍再開率と関連することが示されている 285)。しかしJapan Resuscitation Council(JRC)蘇生ガイドライン2020とAmerican Heart Association(以下AHA)のACLSガイドライン2020では,cardiopulmonary resuscitation(以下CPR)中の予後評価として心エコーは行わないことを弱く推奨している 277), 278)。これは主にバイアスの高い研究が多いことや,研究の質が一定しないことによるものであり,超音波検査のみをもって心拍再開などの判定を行うことは注意が必要であろう。一方,以下に述べるような原因疾患の同定に関しては,AHAのACLSガイドライン2020において,潜在的に可逆的な原因を特定するための追加的な診断ツールとして検討してもよいと弱く推奨されている。…”
Section: 第3章 各論Ii —領域横断的活用unclassified
“…Carotid ultrasound (US) is currently seen as a potential non-invasive monitoring tool for CC efficacy [5,6]. Furthermore, it facilitates the detection of a pulse during rhythm checks [7,8]. The main objective of this study was to investigate the general feasibility of carotid US during CPR measures, as well as its potential as a novel therapeutic target.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%