• Sercan Özlü, Serkan Bilgin, Adnan Yamanoglu, Ahmet Kayalı, Mehmet Göktuğ Efgan, Osman Sezer Çınaroğlu, and Davut Tekyol.
• Department of Emergency Medicine, Izmir Katip Celebi University, Ataturk Training and Research Hospital Izmir, Türkiye.
• Am J Emerg Med. 2023 Aug 1; 70: 157162157-162.

ObjectivesThe success of the manual pulse check method frequently employed during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is controversial due to its subjective, patient- and operator-dependent, and time-consuming nature. Carotid ultrasound (c-USG) has recently emerged as an alternative, although there are still insufficient studies on the subject. The purpose of the present study was to compare the success of the manual and c-USG pulse check methods during CPR.MethodsThis prospective observational study was conducted in the critical care area of a university hospital emergency medicine clinic. Pulse checks in patients with non-traumatic cardiopulmonary arrest (CPA) undergoing CPR were performed using the c-USG method from one carotid artery and the manual method from the other. The gold standard in the decision regarding return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) was the clinical judgment made using the rhythm on the monitor, manual femoral pulse check, end tidal carbon dioxide (ETCO2), and cardiac USG instruments. The success in predicting ROSC and measurement times of the manual and c-USG methods were compared. The success of both methods was calculated as sensitivity and specificity, and the clinical significance of the difference between the methods' sensitivity and specificity was evaluated Newcombe's method.ResultsA total of 568 pulse measurements were performed on 49 CPA cases using both c-USG and the manual method. The manual method exhibited 80% sensitivity and 91% specificity in predicting ROSC (+PV: 35%, -PV: 64%), while c-USG exhibited 100% sensitivity and 98% specificity (+PV: 84%, -PV: 100%). The difference in sensitivities between the c-USG and manual methods was -0.0704 (95% CI: -0.0965; -0.0466), and the difference between their specificities was 0.0106 (95% CI: 0.0006; 0.0222). The difference between the specificities and sensitivities was statistically significant at analysis performed adopting the clinical judgment of the team leader using multiple instruments as the gold standard. The manual method yielded an ROSC decision in 3 ± 0.17 s and c-USG in 2.8 ± 0.15 s, the difference being statistically significant.ConclusionAccording to the results of this study, the pulse check method with c-USG may be superior to the manual method in terms of fast and accurate decision making in CPR.Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

16 keywords...

hide…