Article Text
PDF
Abstract
Objective To evaluate whether ECG monitoring impacts resuscitative steps during simulated neonatal resuscitation in the setting of pulseless electrical activity (PEA) in the delivery room.
Design This pilot, crossover randomised controlled trial recruited providers in teams of three who participated in two simulation scenarios (PEA with and without ECG monitoring). Teams were randomised to one scenario and then crossed over. All sessions were video-recorded. The primary outcome was time to pulse check once the manikin was programmed to become pulseless. The secondary outcomes were total pulse checks, time to positive pressure ventilation, intubation, chest compressions and administration of epinephrine, and teams’ quotes and behaviours during resuscitation. The primary outcome was analysed using Kaplan-Meier survival curve. The secondary outcomes were compared with Wilcoxon signed-rank test. The quotes were analysed using content analysis with pattern coding.
Results Eighty-two healthcare providers were approached and 30 consented (10 teams). The mean time to check the pulse once the manikin was pulseless was 38.5 s (SD 30.1) without ECG vs 88.1 s (SD 46.1) with ECG (p<0.01). There was a significantly decreased number of pulse checks with the ECG compared with without (p<0.01). Time to intubation, chest compressions, start of positive pressure ventilation and epinephrine administration was not different between the groups. Quotes/behaviours revealed false reassurance and over-reliance on ECG monitoring, repeated pulse check errors and troubleshooting behaviours.
Conclusions ECG monitoring in simulated neonatal resuscitation results in delayed recognition of a pulseless state, decreased number of pulse checks and a possible false sense of security. Simulated resuscitation clinical endpoints are unaffected.
- Neonatology
- Resuscitation
Data availability statement
Data are available upon reasonable request. The article provides a summary of all data. Specific data points can be made available upon reasonable request.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Data availability statement
Data are available upon reasonable request. The article provides a summary of all data. Specific data points can be made available upon reasonable request.
Footnotes
Presented at This work has been previously presented at the Pediatric Academic Societies Meeting 2021 (virtual only) and the Canadian Paediatric Society 2022 (Montreal, Quebec).
Contributors M-AA was responsible for drafting the study protocol, collecting and analysing the data, as well as writing and revising the manuscript for intellectual content. M-AA also approved the final version of the manuscript and was responsible for the overall content as the guarantor. LG-A played a key role in data collection, writing the initial draft of the manuscript, contributed to the revision process and approved the final version of the manuscript. AM conceived the study, verified the data analysis, critically revised the manuscript for intellectual content and ultimately approved the final version of the manuscript.
Funding This work was supported by the Canadian Paediatric Society Young Investigator Award.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.