儿科复苏期间脉搏检查的准确性:一项系统综述

IF 2.1 Q3 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE
Stephan Katzenschlager , Jason Acworth , Lokesh Kumar Tiwari , Monica Kleinmann , Michelle Myburgh , Jimena del Castillo , Vinay Nadkarni , Thomaz Bittencourt Couto , Janice A. Tijssen , Laurie J. Morrison , Allan DeCaen , Barnaby R. Scholefield , International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation ILCOR ILCOR Pediatric Life Support Task Force
{"title":"儿科复苏期间脉搏检查的准确性:一项系统综述","authors":"Stephan Katzenschlager ,&nbsp;Jason Acworth ,&nbsp;Lokesh Kumar Tiwari ,&nbsp;Monica Kleinmann ,&nbsp;Michelle Myburgh ,&nbsp;Jimena del Castillo ,&nbsp;Vinay Nadkarni ,&nbsp;Thomaz Bittencourt Couto ,&nbsp;Janice A. Tijssen ,&nbsp;Laurie J. Morrison ,&nbsp;Allan DeCaen ,&nbsp;Barnaby R. Scholefield ,&nbsp;International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation ILCOR ILCOR Pediatric Life Support Task Force","doi":"10.1016/j.resplu.2025.100959","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Aim of the study</h3><div>Current guidelines advise rescuers to initiate cardiopulmonary resuscitation if a child is unresponsive, not breathing normally, and shows no signs of life. Manual pulse checks are considered unreliable and time-consuming. This systematic review evaluates the accuracy and duration of recommended pulse check methods during pediatric cardiac arrest and explores emerging diagnostic techniques.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>For this systematic review (PROSPERO ID CRD42024549535) three databases (PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane) were searched for articles published on this topic. An initial search was conducted on April 24, 2024, with an updated search using the same search strategy on February 16, 2025. Two authors independently screened the articles. One author extracted the data while a second author double-checked it. Quality and certainty of the evidence were evaluated using the QUADAS-2 and GRADE tools evaluated the evidence’s quality and certainty. Studies were included if they compared manual pulse checks against alternative pulse check sites or other methods in pediatric patients. The data is presented descriptively.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>A total of three studies were included. These studies involved 39 pediatric patients and a total of 376 pulse checks. Out of the 47 infants and children included, only 14 were in cardiac arrest. The remaining 33 patients were on mechanical circulatory support with either VA-ECMO or LVAD. In total, 183 nurses and 181 physicians performed 376 pulse or ultrasound checks. Due to their specialty, 122 nurses and 89 doctors were classified as experienced. Sensitivity and specificity of manual pulse check ranged from 76 to 100% and 64–79%, respectively. When experienced providers conducted pulse checks, sensitivity and specificity were higher (76–100% and 62–82%, respectively) compared to inexperienced providers (67–82% and 44–95%).</div><div>The mean duration of pulse checks was 20 s, with an accuracy of 85%.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Despite high heterogeneity among included studies, manual pulse checks only achieved moderate accuracy with a prolonged duration. This suggests that manual pulse checks are unreliable in children for determination cardiac arrest state and need for ongoing CPR.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":94192,"journal":{"name":"Resuscitation plus","volume":"23 ","pages":"Article 100959"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Pulse check accuracy in pediatrics during resuscitation: a systematic review\",\"authors\":\"Stephan Katzenschlager ,&nbsp;Jason Acworth ,&nbsp;Lokesh Kumar Tiwari ,&nbsp;Monica Kleinmann ,&nbsp;Michelle Myburgh ,&nbsp;Jimena del Castillo ,&nbsp;Vinay Nadkarni ,&nbsp;Thomaz Bittencourt Couto ,&nbsp;Janice A. Tijssen ,&nbsp;Laurie J. Morrison ,&nbsp;Allan DeCaen ,&nbsp;Barnaby R. Scholefield ,&nbsp;International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation ILCOR ILCOR Pediatric Life Support Task Force\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.resplu.2025.100959\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Aim of the study</h3><div>Current guidelines advise rescuers to initiate cardiopulmonary resuscitation if a child is unresponsive, not breathing normally, and shows no signs of life. Manual pulse checks are considered unreliable and time-consuming. This systematic review evaluates the accuracy and duration of recommended pulse check methods during pediatric cardiac arrest and explores emerging diagnostic techniques.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>For this systematic review (PROSPERO ID CRD42024549535) three databases (PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane) were searched for articles published on this topic. An initial search was conducted on April 24, 2024, with an updated search using the same search strategy on February 16, 2025. Two authors independently screened the articles. One author extracted the data while a second author double-checked it. Quality and certainty of the evidence were evaluated using the QUADAS-2 and GRADE tools evaluated the evidence’s quality and certainty. Studies were included if they compared manual pulse checks against alternative pulse check sites or other methods in pediatric patients. The data is presented descriptively.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>A total of three studies were included. These studies involved 39 pediatric patients and a total of 376 pulse checks. Out of the 47 infants and children included, only 14 were in cardiac arrest. The remaining 33 patients were on mechanical circulatory support with either VA-ECMO or LVAD. In total, 183 nurses and 181 physicians performed 376 pulse or ultrasound checks. Due to their specialty, 122 nurses and 89 doctors were classified as experienced. Sensitivity and specificity of manual pulse check ranged from 76 to 100% and 64–79%, respectively. When experienced providers conducted pulse checks, sensitivity and specificity were higher (76–100% and 62–82%, respectively) compared to inexperienced providers (67–82% and 44–95%).</div><div>The mean duration of pulse checks was 20 s, with an accuracy of 85%.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Despite high heterogeneity among included studies, manual pulse checks only achieved moderate accuracy with a prolonged duration. This suggests that manual pulse checks are unreliable in children for determination cardiac arrest state and need for ongoing CPR.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":94192,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Resuscitation plus\",\"volume\":\"23 \",\"pages\":\"Article 100959\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Resuscitation plus\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666520425000967\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Resuscitation plus","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666520425000967","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

研究目的当前的指导方针建议,如果孩子没有反应,呼吸不正常,没有生命迹象,救援人员应该开始心肺复苏。手动脉搏检查被认为不可靠且耗时。本系统综述评估了在儿童心脏骤停期间推荐的脉搏检查方法的准确性和持续时间,并探索了新兴的诊断技术。方法在本系统综述(PROSPERO ID CRD42024549535)中检索PubMed、Embase和Cochrane三个数据库中已发表的有关该主题的文章。首次搜索于2024年4月24日进行,并于2025年2月16日使用相同的搜索策略进行了更新搜索。两位作者独立筛选了这些文章。一位作者提取了数据,另一位作者对数据进行了复查。使用QUADAS-2和GRADE工具评估证据的质量和确定性,评估证据的质量和确定性。如果将儿科患者的手动脉搏检查与其他脉搏检查地点或其他方法进行比较,则纳入研究。数据是描述性的。结果共纳入3项研究。这些研究涉及39名儿科患者,总共进行了376次脉搏检查。在47名婴儿和儿童中,只有14人出现心脏骤停。其余33例患者接受机械循环支持,包括VA-ECMO或LVAD。总共有183名护士和181名医生进行了376次脉搏或超声波检查。根据专业,122名护士和89名医生被归为经验丰富的。手工脉搏检查的敏感性为76 ~ 100%,特异性为64 ~ 79%。当有经验的医生进行脉搏检查时,与没有经验的医生(67-82%和44-95%)相比,敏感性和特异性更高(分别为76-100%和62-82%)。脉搏检查的平均持续时间为20秒,准确率为85%。结论:尽管在纳入的研究中存在高度异质性,但人工脉搏检查在较长时间内只能达到中等准确度。这表明,在确定儿童心脏骤停状态和是否需要进行心肺复苏术时,手动脉搏检查是不可靠的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Pulse check accuracy in pediatrics during resuscitation: a systematic review

Aim of the study

Current guidelines advise rescuers to initiate cardiopulmonary resuscitation if a child is unresponsive, not breathing normally, and shows no signs of life. Manual pulse checks are considered unreliable and time-consuming. This systematic review evaluates the accuracy and duration of recommended pulse check methods during pediatric cardiac arrest and explores emerging diagnostic techniques.

Methods

For this systematic review (PROSPERO ID CRD42024549535) three databases (PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane) were searched for articles published on this topic. An initial search was conducted on April 24, 2024, with an updated search using the same search strategy on February 16, 2025. Two authors independently screened the articles. One author extracted the data while a second author double-checked it. Quality and certainty of the evidence were evaluated using the QUADAS-2 and GRADE tools evaluated the evidence’s quality and certainty. Studies were included if they compared manual pulse checks against alternative pulse check sites or other methods in pediatric patients. The data is presented descriptively.

Results

A total of three studies were included. These studies involved 39 pediatric patients and a total of 376 pulse checks. Out of the 47 infants and children included, only 14 were in cardiac arrest. The remaining 33 patients were on mechanical circulatory support with either VA-ECMO or LVAD. In total, 183 nurses and 181 physicians performed 376 pulse or ultrasound checks. Due to their specialty, 122 nurses and 89 doctors were classified as experienced. Sensitivity and specificity of manual pulse check ranged from 76 to 100% and 64–79%, respectively. When experienced providers conducted pulse checks, sensitivity and specificity were higher (76–100% and 62–82%, respectively) compared to inexperienced providers (67–82% and 44–95%).
The mean duration of pulse checks was 20 s, with an accuracy of 85%.

Conclusion

Despite high heterogeneity among included studies, manual pulse checks only achieved moderate accuracy with a prolonged duration. This suggests that manual pulse checks are unreliable in children for determination cardiac arrest state and need for ongoing CPR.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Resuscitation plus
Resuscitation plus Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine, Emergency Medicine
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
52 days
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信