3
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      A prehospital treat-and-release protocol for supraventricular tachycardia

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisher
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          ABSTRACT

          Objective

          Paroxysmal supraventricular tachycardia (SVT) is a common dysrhythmia treated in the prehospital setting. Emergency medical service (EMS) agencies typically require patients treated for SVT to be transported to the hospital. This retrospective cohort study evaluated the impact, paramedic adherence, and patient re-presentation rates of a treat-and-release (T+R) protocol for uncomplicated SVT.

          Methods

          Data were linked from the Alberta Health Services EMS electronic patient care record (EPCR) database for the City of Calgary to the Regional Emergency Department Information System (REDIS). All SVT patients treated by EMS between September 1, 2010, and September 30, 2012, were identified. Databases were queried to identify re-presentations to EMS or an emergency department (ED) within 72 hours of T+R.

          Results

          There were 229 confirmed SVT patient encounters, including 75 T+R events. Of these 75 T+R events, 10 (13%, 95% confidence interval [CI] [7.4, 23]) led to an EMS re-presentation within 72 hours, and 4 (5%, 95% CI [2.1, 13]) led to an ED. All re-presentations were attributed to a single individual. After excluding 15 records that were incomplete due to limitations in the EPCR platform, 43 of 60 (72%) T+R encounters met all protocol criteria for T+R.

          Conclusion

          The T+R protocol evaluated in this study applied to a significant proportion of patients presenting to EMS with SVT. Risk of re-presentation following T+R was low, and paramedic protocol adherence was reasonable. T+R appears to be a viable option for uncomplicated SVT in the prehospital setting.

          RÉSUMÉ

          Objectif

          La tachycardie supraventriculaire paroxystique (TSV) est un trouble du rythme fréquent, traité en milieu préhospitalier. Les organismes de services médicaux d’urgence (SMU) demandent généralement que les patients traités pour de la TSV soient transportés à l’hôpital. Il sera question ici d’une étude de cohortes, rétrospective, qui visait à évaluer la portée d’un protocole de traitement préhospitalier seul (TPHS), sur place, de TSV simple; le respect de ce protocole par les ambulanciers paramédicaux et le taux de deuxième consultation par les patients ainsi traités.

          Méthode

          Un lien a été établi entre la base de données de l’Alberta Health Services EMS Electronic Patient Care Record (EPCR), située à Calgary, et le système Regional Emergency Department Information System (REDIS). Ont ainsi été dégagés tous les cas de TSV traités par les SMU, entre le 1 er septembre 2010 et le 30 septembre 2012. La recherche dans les bases de données visait à relever les deuxièmes appels aux SMU ou les nouvelles consultations dans des services d’urgence (SU) dans les 72 heures suivant l’application du protocole TPHS.

          Résultats

          Il y a eu 229 cas confirmés de TSV, dont 75 traités selon le protocole TPHS. Sur ces derniers, 10 (13 %, CI à 95 %: 7,4–23) se sont soldés par un deuxième appel aux SMU dans les 72 heures et 4 (5 %; CI à 95 %: 2,1–13]), par une consultation dans des SU. Toutes ces nouvelles consultations ne concernaient qu’une seule personne. Après le rejet de 15 dossiers incomplets en raison de restrictions de la plateforme EPCR, 43 consultations sur 60 (72 %) répondaient à tous les critères du protocole TPHS.

          Conclusions

          Le protocole TPHS évalué dans l’étude décrite ici a été appliqué à une proportion importante de patients ayant appelé les SMU pour de la TSV. Le risque de nouvelle consultation après le protocole TPHS était faible, et les ambulanciers paramédicaux ont fait preuve d’une application judicieuse du protocole. Bref, le protocole TPHS semble une solution viable pour les cas simples de TSV en milieu préhospitalier.

          Related collections

          Most cited references17

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Part 8: Advanced life support: 2010 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science with Treatment Recommendations.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Assessment for deaths in out-of-hospital heroin overdose patients treated with naloxone who refuse transport.

            Naloxone frequently is used to treat suspected heroin and opioid overdoses in the out-of-hospital setting. The authors' emergency medical services system has operated a policy of allowing these patients, when successfully treated, to sign out against medical advice (AMA) in the field. To evaluate the safety of this AMA policy. This is a retrospective review of out-of-hospital and medical examiner (ME) databases over a five-year period. The authors reviewed all ME cases in which opioid overdoses were listed as contributing to the cause of death. These cases were cross-compared with all patients who received naloxone by field paramedics and then refused transport. The charts were reviewed by dates, times, age, sex, location, and ethnicity when available. There were 998 out-of-hospital patients who received naloxone and refused further treatment and 601 ME cases of opioid overdose deaths. When compared by age, time, date, sex, location, and ethnicity, there were no cases in which a patient was treated by paramedics with naloxone within 12 hours of being found dead of an opioid overdose. Giving naloxone to patients with heroin overdoses in the field and then allowing them to sign out AMA resulted in no identifiable deaths within this study population.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Frequency of disabling symptoms in supraventricular tachycardia.

              The purposes of this study were to describe: clinical symptoms in a sample of consecutive patients with supraventricular tachycardia (SVT); incidence of sudden death, syncope, and other disabling symptoms; whether these symptoms differ by tachycardia mechanism; and to identify predictor variables of syncope in patients with SVT. Data were collected from chart reviews of 167 consecutive patients with SVT admitted for radiofrequency ablation. Three patients (2%) had nonlethal cardiac arrest, and a total of 16% (26 of 183) received at least 1 external direct-current shock for arrhythmia management. Twenty percent of subjects (33 of 167) reported at least 1 episode of syncope which was preceded by palpitations. The most frequent symptoms were: palpitations (96%), dizziness (75%), and shortness of breath (47%). We found atrioventricular nodal reentrant tachycardia (AVNRT) in 64 patients, atrioventricular-reciprocating tachycardia (AVRT) in 59, atrial tachycardia in 22, and atrial flutter in 22. The symptom profiles of patients with AVNRT, AVRT, and atrial tachycardia were very similar, but differed significantly (p or = 170 beats/min was the only independent risk factor for syncope. Chi-square analysis demonstrated that SVT patients with heart rate > or = 170 beats/min had significantly more dizziness and syncope. Thus, despite a low incidence of associated heart disease, and good left ventricular function, there was a high frequency of disabling, potentially life-threatening symptoms associated with episodes of SVT in this sample. SVT can have potentially lethal consequences, and is more disruptive than previously thought.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                applab
                CJEM
                CJEM
                Cambridge University Press (CUP)
                1481-8035
                1481-8043
                July 2015
                February 23 2015
                : 17
                : 04
                : 395-402
                Article
                10.1017/cem.2014.53
                53c67e7c-3547-45da-9f11-473f8f7e6f11
                © 2015
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article