Cargando…
A randomized controlled feasibility trial comparing safety and effectiveness of prehospital pacing versus conventional treatment: ‘PrePACE’()()
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the feasibility of a prehospital randomized controlled trial comparing transcutaneous pacing (TCP) with dopamine for unstable bradycardia. METHODS: Unstable bradycardic patients who failed to respond to a fluid bolus and up to 3 mg atropine were enrolled. The intervention was...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Elsevier Ireland Ltd.
2008
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7126680/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17933452 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resuscitation.2007.08.008 |
_version_ | 1783516199113457664 |
---|---|
author | Morrison, Laurie J. Long, Jennifer Vermeulen, Marian Schwartz, Brian Sawadsky, Bruce Frank, Jamie Cameron, Bruce Burgess, Robert Shield, Jennifer Bagley, Paul Mausz, Vivien Brewer, James E. Dorian, Paul |
author_facet | Morrison, Laurie J. Long, Jennifer Vermeulen, Marian Schwartz, Brian Sawadsky, Bruce Frank, Jamie Cameron, Bruce Burgess, Robert Shield, Jennifer Bagley, Paul Mausz, Vivien Brewer, James E. Dorian, Paul |
author_sort | Morrison, Laurie J. |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the feasibility of a prehospital randomized controlled trial comparing transcutaneous pacing (TCP) with dopamine for unstable bradycardia. METHODS: Unstable bradycardic patients who failed to respond to a fluid bolus and up to 3 mg atropine were enrolled. The intervention was dopamine or TCP with crossover to dopamine if TCP failed. The primary outcome was survival to discharge or 30 days. Randomization compliance, safety, follow-up rates, primary outcome, and sample size requirements were assessed. RESULTS: Of 383 patients with unstable bradycardia, 151 (39%) failed to respond to atropine or fluid and were eligible for enrolment and 82 (55%) were correctly enrolled. Fifty-five (36%) of eligible patients could not be enrolled for practical reasons; 3 had advance directives, 32 met inclusion criteria on arrival at hospital and in 20 cases, paramedics chose not to enroll based on the circumstances of the case. The remaining 13 were missed cases; 8 were missing randomization envelopes and in 5, the paramedic forgot. Randomization compliance was 95% (78/82). Forty-two (51%) patients were randomized to TCP and seven of these crossed over to dopamine. Two cases were randomized but did not receive the intervention; either due to lack of time or loss of IV access. Three adverse events occurred in each group. Survival to discharge or 30 days in hospital was 70% (28/40) and 69% (29/42) in the dopamine and TCP groups, respectively with 100% follow up. To detect a 10% relative difference in 30 days survival between treatment arms, a sample size of 690 per group would be required. CONCLUSIONS: It is feasible to conduct a prehospital randomized controlled trial of TCP for unstable bradycardia and a definitive trial would require a multi-centre study. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7126680 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2008 |
publisher | Elsevier Ireland Ltd. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-71266802020-04-08 A randomized controlled feasibility trial comparing safety and effectiveness of prehospital pacing versus conventional treatment: ‘PrePACE’()() Morrison, Laurie J. Long, Jennifer Vermeulen, Marian Schwartz, Brian Sawadsky, Bruce Frank, Jamie Cameron, Bruce Burgess, Robert Shield, Jennifer Bagley, Paul Mausz, Vivien Brewer, James E. Dorian, Paul Resuscitation Article OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the feasibility of a prehospital randomized controlled trial comparing transcutaneous pacing (TCP) with dopamine for unstable bradycardia. METHODS: Unstable bradycardic patients who failed to respond to a fluid bolus and up to 3 mg atropine were enrolled. The intervention was dopamine or TCP with crossover to dopamine if TCP failed. The primary outcome was survival to discharge or 30 days. Randomization compliance, safety, follow-up rates, primary outcome, and sample size requirements were assessed. RESULTS: Of 383 patients with unstable bradycardia, 151 (39%) failed to respond to atropine or fluid and were eligible for enrolment and 82 (55%) were correctly enrolled. Fifty-five (36%) of eligible patients could not be enrolled for practical reasons; 3 had advance directives, 32 met inclusion criteria on arrival at hospital and in 20 cases, paramedics chose not to enroll based on the circumstances of the case. The remaining 13 were missed cases; 8 were missing randomization envelopes and in 5, the paramedic forgot. Randomization compliance was 95% (78/82). Forty-two (51%) patients were randomized to TCP and seven of these crossed over to dopamine. Two cases were randomized but did not receive the intervention; either due to lack of time or loss of IV access. Three adverse events occurred in each group. Survival to discharge or 30 days in hospital was 70% (28/40) and 69% (29/42) in the dopamine and TCP groups, respectively with 100% follow up. To detect a 10% relative difference in 30 days survival between treatment arms, a sample size of 690 per group would be required. CONCLUSIONS: It is feasible to conduct a prehospital randomized controlled trial of TCP for unstable bradycardia and a definitive trial would require a multi-centre study. Elsevier Ireland Ltd. 2008-03 2007-10-22 /pmc/articles/PMC7126680/ /pubmed/17933452 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resuscitation.2007.08.008 Text en Copyright © 2007 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved. Since January 2020 Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre - including this research content - immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active. |
spellingShingle | Article Morrison, Laurie J. Long, Jennifer Vermeulen, Marian Schwartz, Brian Sawadsky, Bruce Frank, Jamie Cameron, Bruce Burgess, Robert Shield, Jennifer Bagley, Paul Mausz, Vivien Brewer, James E. Dorian, Paul A randomized controlled feasibility trial comparing safety and effectiveness of prehospital pacing versus conventional treatment: ‘PrePACE’()() |
title | A randomized controlled feasibility trial comparing safety and effectiveness of prehospital pacing versus conventional treatment: ‘PrePACE’()() |
title_full | A randomized controlled feasibility trial comparing safety and effectiveness of prehospital pacing versus conventional treatment: ‘PrePACE’()() |
title_fullStr | A randomized controlled feasibility trial comparing safety and effectiveness of prehospital pacing versus conventional treatment: ‘PrePACE’()() |
title_full_unstemmed | A randomized controlled feasibility trial comparing safety and effectiveness of prehospital pacing versus conventional treatment: ‘PrePACE’()() |
title_short | A randomized controlled feasibility trial comparing safety and effectiveness of prehospital pacing versus conventional treatment: ‘PrePACE’()() |
title_sort | randomized controlled feasibility trial comparing safety and effectiveness of prehospital pacing versus conventional treatment: ‘prepace’()() |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7126680/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17933452 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resuscitation.2007.08.008 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT morrisonlauriej arandomizedcontrolledfeasibilitytrialcomparingsafetyandeffectivenessofprehospitalpacingversusconventionaltreatmentprepace AT longjennifer arandomizedcontrolledfeasibilitytrialcomparingsafetyandeffectivenessofprehospitalpacingversusconventionaltreatmentprepace AT vermeulenmarian arandomizedcontrolledfeasibilitytrialcomparingsafetyandeffectivenessofprehospitalpacingversusconventionaltreatmentprepace AT schwartzbrian arandomizedcontrolledfeasibilitytrialcomparingsafetyandeffectivenessofprehospitalpacingversusconventionaltreatmentprepace AT sawadskybruce arandomizedcontrolledfeasibilitytrialcomparingsafetyandeffectivenessofprehospitalpacingversusconventionaltreatmentprepace AT frankjamie arandomizedcontrolledfeasibilitytrialcomparingsafetyandeffectivenessofprehospitalpacingversusconventionaltreatmentprepace AT cameronbruce arandomizedcontrolledfeasibilitytrialcomparingsafetyandeffectivenessofprehospitalpacingversusconventionaltreatmentprepace AT burgessrobert arandomizedcontrolledfeasibilitytrialcomparingsafetyandeffectivenessofprehospitalpacingversusconventionaltreatmentprepace AT shieldjennifer arandomizedcontrolledfeasibilitytrialcomparingsafetyandeffectivenessofprehospitalpacingversusconventionaltreatmentprepace AT bagleypaul arandomizedcontrolledfeasibilitytrialcomparingsafetyandeffectivenessofprehospitalpacingversusconventionaltreatmentprepace AT mauszvivien arandomizedcontrolledfeasibilitytrialcomparingsafetyandeffectivenessofprehospitalpacingversusconventionaltreatmentprepace AT brewerjamese arandomizedcontrolledfeasibilitytrialcomparingsafetyandeffectivenessofprehospitalpacingversusconventionaltreatmentprepace AT dorianpaul arandomizedcontrolledfeasibilitytrialcomparingsafetyandeffectivenessofprehospitalpacingversusconventionaltreatmentprepace AT morrisonlauriej randomizedcontrolledfeasibilitytrialcomparingsafetyandeffectivenessofprehospitalpacingversusconventionaltreatmentprepace AT longjennifer randomizedcontrolledfeasibilitytrialcomparingsafetyandeffectivenessofprehospitalpacingversusconventionaltreatmentprepace AT vermeulenmarian randomizedcontrolledfeasibilitytrialcomparingsafetyandeffectivenessofprehospitalpacingversusconventionaltreatmentprepace AT schwartzbrian randomizedcontrolledfeasibilitytrialcomparingsafetyandeffectivenessofprehospitalpacingversusconventionaltreatmentprepace AT sawadskybruce randomizedcontrolledfeasibilitytrialcomparingsafetyandeffectivenessofprehospitalpacingversusconventionaltreatmentprepace AT frankjamie randomizedcontrolledfeasibilitytrialcomparingsafetyandeffectivenessofprehospitalpacingversusconventionaltreatmentprepace AT cameronbruce randomizedcontrolledfeasibilitytrialcomparingsafetyandeffectivenessofprehospitalpacingversusconventionaltreatmentprepace AT burgessrobert randomizedcontrolledfeasibilitytrialcomparingsafetyandeffectivenessofprehospitalpacingversusconventionaltreatmentprepace AT shieldjennifer randomizedcontrolledfeasibilitytrialcomparingsafetyandeffectivenessofprehospitalpacingversusconventionaltreatmentprepace AT bagleypaul randomizedcontrolledfeasibilitytrialcomparingsafetyandeffectivenessofprehospitalpacingversusconventionaltreatmentprepace AT mauszvivien randomizedcontrolledfeasibilitytrialcomparingsafetyandeffectivenessofprehospitalpacingversusconventionaltreatmentprepace AT brewerjamese randomizedcontrolledfeasibilitytrialcomparingsafetyandeffectivenessofprehospitalpacingversusconventionaltreatmentprepace AT dorianpaul randomizedcontrolledfeasibilitytrialcomparingsafetyandeffectivenessofprehospitalpacingversusconventionaltreatmentprepace |