Heartbeat assessment in infants: a comparison of four clinical methods.
OBJECTIVE
To compare the performance of four clinical methods (apex ear auscultation; brachial, carotid, and femoral pulse palpation) for detecting and counting heart beat in infants.


METHODS
Cross-sectional, repeated-measures study design. Prospective data collection.


METHODS
A postanesthesia care unit of a pediatric teaching hospital in Italy.


METHODS
Fifty-six normotensive sedated infants, aged 1-12 mos, were evaluated by 14 pediatric basic life support (PBLS)-qualified health professionals.


METHODS
None.


RESULTS
The proportion of successful heartbeat detections ranged from 60% with carotid pulse palpation to 98% with apex auscultation. Among successful detections, apex auscultation proved to be the most rapid way to detect heart rate (median, 4 secs) and the most accurate with a median discrepancy of 8 beats/min (vs. 12 with the other methods) from the electrocardiographic results. Differences between apex auscultation and pulse palpation were statistically significant (p < .0001). In contrast, no significant differences were found among the three methods of pulse checking.


CONCLUSIONS
Apex listening is the most successful, rapid, and accurate method to detect and count the heartbeat by PBLS-certified professionals in normotensive infants without instruments. Pulse checking remains important for assessing the effectiveness of circulation. Palpating the brachial, carotid, or femoral pulse is equally effective.
Sarti
Armando
A
Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, IRCCS Istituto per l'Infanzia Burlo Garofolo, Trieste, Italy.
Savron
Fabio
F
Casotto
Veronica
V
Cuttini
Marina
M
D001158:Arteries / Q000502:physiology; D003430:Cross-Sectional Studies; D004562:Electrocardiography; D006326:Heart Auscultation; D006339:Heart Rate; D006801:Humans; D007223:Infant; D010173:Palpation; D011446:Prospective Studies; D011674:Pulse; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D013997:Time Factors