Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-qsmjn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-20T03:54:47.576Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Comparative Study of Five Transcutaneous Pacing Devices in Unanesthetized Human Volunteers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 June 2012

Michael B. Heller ,
Joseph Peterson ,
Keveh Ilkahpamipour ,
Richard Kaplan  and
Paul M. Paris
Michael B. Heller*
Affiliation:
Department of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh
Joseph Peterson
Affiliation:
Affiliated Residency in Emergency Medicine, University of Pittsburgh
Keveh Ilkahpamipour
Affiliation:
Affiliated Residency in Emergency Medicine, University of Pittsburgh
Richard Kaplan
Affiliation:
Center for Emergency Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Paul M. Paris
Affiliation:
Department of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh
*

University of Pittsburgh, 230 McKee Place, Suite 500, Pittsburgh, PA 15213

Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Transcutaneous Pacing (TCP) is a rapidly applied “non-invasive” technique that can be used successfully in the hospital, emergency department or field setting (1–9). Although the technique has been studied for three decades (7), it is only in the last few years that commercial units have been widely available. Improvements in pad design (particularly the development of non-metallic electrodes) and pulse characteristics (a pulse width of greater than 20 msec.) have allowed the development of units which may provide high capture rates with a level of discomfort which is tolerable in the conscious patient. Transcutaneous pacing may obviate the need for emergency transvenous pacing; further, it is easily adaptable to the field setting although early application appears to be needed for success (1,2).

No study has compared the relative effectiveness of different TCP units, and there are no published data on some of the devices. The purpose of this investigation was to compare the functions of five different external pacemaker units on ten volunteers, in order to determine: 1) what percent of subjects could be captured within the limits of tolerability (the capture rate); 2) how much current was required by each unit to capture (the capture threshold); and 3) the degree of discomfort produced by each pacemaker at the capture threshold.

Type
Original Research
Information
Prehospital and Disaster Medicine , Volume 4 , Issue 1 , September 1989 , pp. 15 - 19
Copyright
Copyright © World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Presented at UAEMS Philadelphia, pa. 1987

References

1. O'Toole, KS, Paris, PM, Heller, MB: Emergency Transcutaneous pacing in the management of patients with bradyasystolic rhythms. J Emerg Med 1987; 5:267–273.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2. Paris, PM, Stewart, RD, Kaplan, RM, et al. : Transcutaneous pacing for bradyasystolic cardiac arrests in prehospital care. Ann Emerg Med 1985; 14:320–323CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3. Dalsey, WC, Syverud, SA, Hedges, JR: Emergency department use of transcutaneous pacing for cardiac arrests. Crit Care Med 1985; 13:399–401.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4. Berliner, DB, Okun, M, Peters, RW, Carliner, NH, et al. : Transcutaneous temporary pacing in the operating room. JAMA 1985; 254(1):84–86.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5. McNeil, EL: Successful resuscitation using external cardiac pacing. Ann Emerg Med 1985; 14:1230–1232.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6. Clinton, JE, et al. : Emergency noninvasive external cardiac pacing. J Emerg Med 1985; 2:155–162.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7. Zoll, PM: Resuscitation of the heart in ventricular standstill by external electrical stimulation. N Engl J Med 1952; 247:768.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Falk, RH, Zoll, PM, Zoll, RH: Safety and efficacy of noninvasive cardiac pacing. New Engl J Med 1983; 309:1166–1170.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9. Zoll, FM, Zoll, RH, Falk, RH, et al. : External noninvasive temporary cardiac pacing: Clinical trials. Circulation 1985; 71:937–944.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10. Ohnaus, EE, Adler, R: Methodological problems in the measurement of pain: a comparison between the verbal rating scale and the visual analog scale. Pain 1975; 379–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Kaplan, RM, Heller, MB, Paris, PM, et al. : The effect of different combinations of external pacemakers on pacing threshholds, capture rate, and patient tolerance. Ann Emerg Med (Abstract) 1988; 17:750.Google Scholar
12. Heller, MB: Of pacing, patents and patients. Editorial. J Emerg Med 1988; 6:78–79.Google Scholar
13. Walls, RM: Prehospital pacemakers: are they playing our tune? Editorial. J Emerg Med 1987; 5:337–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar