|| Checking for direct PDF access through Ovid
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.Cross-sectional, repeated-measures study design. Prospective data collection.A postanesthesia care unit of a pediatric teaching hospital in Italy.Fifty-six normotensive sedated infants, aged 1–12 mos, were evaluated by 14 pediatric basic life support (PBLS)-qualified health professionals.None.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.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.