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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: 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
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