• E Sonmez, B Taslidere, and A Ozkan.
• Kütahya Health Sciences University, Medical School, Department of Emergency Medicine, Kütahya, Turkey.
• Am J Emerg Med. 2024 Jun 1; 80: 168173168-173.

ObjectivesThe reliability of manual pulse checks has been questioned but is still recommended in cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) guidelines. The aim is to compare the 10-s carotid pulse check (CPC) between heart massage cycles with the continuous femoral pulse check (CoFe PuC) in CPR, and to propose a better location to shorten the interruption times for pulse check.MethodsA prospective study was conducted on 117 Non-traumatic CPR patients between January 2020 and January 2022. A total of 702 dependent pulse measurements were executed, where carotid and femoral pulses were simultaneously assessed. Cardiac ultrasound, end-tidal CO2, saturation, respiration, and blood pressure were employed for pulse validation.ResultsThe decision time for determining the presence of a pulse in the last cycle of CPR was 3.03 ± 1.26 s for CoFe PuC, significantly shorter than the 10.31 ± 5.24 s for CPC. CoFe PuC predicted the absence of pulse with 74% sensitivity and 88% specificity, while CPC predicted the absence of pulse with 91% sensitivity and 61% specificity.ConclusionCoFe PuC provides much earlier and more effective information about the pulse than CPC. This shortens the interruption times in CPR. CoFe PuC should be recommended as a new and useful method in CPR guidelines.Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

22 keywords...

hide…