Hubbry Logo
Precordial thumpPrecordial thumpMain
Open search
Precordial thump
Community hub
Precordial thump
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Precordial thump
Precordial thump
Precordial thump
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Precordial thump
SpecialtyCardiology

Precordial thump is a medical procedure used in the treatment of ventricular fibrillation or pulseless ventricular tachycardia under certain conditions. The procedure has a very low success rate, but may be used in those with witnessed, monitored onset of one of the "shockable" cardiac rhythms if a defibrillator is not immediately available.[1][2] It should not delay cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and defibrillation, nor should it be used in those with unwitnessed out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.[1][3]

Procedure

[edit]

In a precordial thump, a provider strikes at the middle of a person's sternum with the ulnar aspect of the fist.[4] The intent is to interrupt a potentially life-threatening rhythm. The thump is thought to produce an electrical depolarization of 2 to 5 joules.[citation needed]

Effectiveness

[edit]

The precordial thump may only be effective if administered within seconds of the onset of ventricular fibrillation or pulseless ventricular tachycardia.[5] It is not helpful for treating ventricular fibrillation if too much time has passed.[6] It also has very low effectiveness for treating ventricular arrhythmia[7] (possibly even making it worse),[4][7] and ventricular tachycardia,[2] especially when compared to CPR and defibrillation as alternatives.

Historically, it was recommended as the initial action to take when addressing such witnessed and monitored cardiac arrests in a hospital setting.[5] More recently, European guidelines recommend it should no longer be routinely used with available evidence suggesting it does not improve survival to hospital discharge.[8] However, American guidelines continue advocating its use by healthcare professionals.[9]

Adverse effects and appearance

[edit]

There are concerns that the precordial thump can result in worsening of a person's heart rhythm more often than it improves it.[2]

The use of the precordial thump technique has sometimes been shown in famous movies and television, such as in The Good Doctor Season 2 episode 5 in which it is performed by Dr. Brown, and The Resident Season 1 episode 2 in which it is performed by Conrad Hawkins, usually in passing without any explanation. Untrained laypersons have been known to attempt it, and sometimes cause additional injury to the person as the blow must be carefully aimed. If applied incorrectly it may cause further injury, for instance inducing cardiac arrest by blunt trauma, or breaking the tip of the sternum, risking fatal damage to the liver or other abdominal organs.[citation needed]

At one time, the technique was also taught as part of standard CPR training with the requirement that it must be administered within 60 seconds of the onset of symptoms. That time restriction, combined with a number of injuries caused by improper technique,[citation needed] resulted in the procedure being removed from CPR training.

History

[edit]

James E. Pennington and Bernard Lown at Harvard University are credited with formalizing this technique in the medical literature. They published their report in the New England Journal of Medicine in the early 1970s. Richard S. Crampton and George Craddock, at the University of Virginia helped to promote the paramedic use of chest thump through a curious accident. In 1970, the Charlottesville-Albemarle Rescue Squad (VA) was transporting a patient with an unstable cardiac rhythm in what was then called a Mobile Coronary Care Unit. When the vehicle inadvertently hit a speed bump in a shopping center parking lot, the patient's normal heart rhythm was restored. Further research confirmed that chest thumping patients with life-threatening arrhythmias could save lives.[10]

Fist pacing

[edit]

Percussion pacing or fist pacing was proposed as a method of delivering mechanical pacing to someone in cardiac arrest. There is little evidence to support its use.[11] In 1920, German physician Eduard Schott originally described percussion pacing, and a 2007 BJA article describes good benefit to this technique.[12]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Precordial thump

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
The precordial thump (also known as thump ) is a manual in which a healthcare provider delivers a sharp strike to the mid-sternum of a with witnessed, monitored unstable , to attempt restoration of normal cardiac rhythm when is not immediately available. First described in the 1920s, it serves as a temporary bridge to definitive treatments such as and should not delay CPR or . As of the 2025 American Heart Association (AHA) Guidelines for , the precordial thump is not recommended for routine use in out-of-hospital in adults or children due to lack of survival benefit, but may be considered in monitored in-hospital settings for witnessed ventricular arrhythmias in adults, supported by limited evidence. It carries risks such as rhythm deterioration and is inferior to for shockable rhythms. No specific pediatric recommendations exist.

Overview

Definition

The precordial thump is a manual intervention in involving a deliberate, sharp blow delivered to the mid-chest () with a closed fist, intended to mechanically stimulate the heart and restore organized electrical activity in cases of life-threatening cardiac arrhythmias. This technique aims to convert unstable rhythms, such as witnessed (VT), into a more stable when immediate is unavailable. It is typically performed in a monitored clinical setting during witnessed or hemodynamic instability, distinguishing it from other resuscitative measures like (CPR). Historically, the precordial thump was first described in the 1920s as a non-invasive method to address cardiac standstill, evolving from early observations of mechanical percussion's effects on the heart. By the mid-20th century, it gained recognition in cardiology for its potential to terminate ventricular tachyarrhythmias without electrical equipment, particularly in hospital environments where patients are under continuous monitoring. Over time, its application has been refined, with variations including serial thumps for temporary pacing in bradycardic states, though such uses remain limited and context-specific. In contemporary practice as of 2025, the precordial thump is positioned as a bridge intervention rather than a primary treatment, applicable only to specific shockable rhythms like pulseless VT in adults in monitored in-hospital settings, and it is not recommended for unwitnessed arrests, , out-of-hospital , or pediatric cases due to lack of supporting evidence and potential risks including rhythm degeneration. Recent international guidelines, such as those from the European Council (ERC) in 2025, have removed it from standard algorithms, reflecting its low overall success rate, lack of improvement in survival outcomes, and risks, with no routine role in protocols. This evolution underscores the procedure's niche status within protocols.

Mechanism of Action

The precordial thump involves delivering a sharp, controlled blow to the mid-sternum using the ulnar aspect of a clenched fist, generating mechanical force estimated at 2 to 5 joules of energy transfer to the heart. This force causes transient myocardial compression and deformation, particularly affecting the right ventricle due to its anterior position. The mechanical stimulus is thought to activate stretch-activated ion channels (SAC) in cardiac myocytes, primarily nonselective cation channels (SAC-NS), which allow influx of cations such as sodium and calcium, thereby altering the membrane potential and inducing localized depolarization. This mimics a small electrical impulse, capable of interrupting electrical activity in arrhythmias. In (VT) or , the propagating wavefront from the thump may disrupt re-entrant circuits, potentially restoring organized conduction and by depolarizing a of myocardial cells. The exact dynamics depend on the timing and of the thump relative to the , with optimal effects occurring during the vulnerable period of . However, the efficacy of this is modulated by underlying physiological conditions. In ischemic myocardium, ATP-sensitive channels (KATP) are recruited, which hyperpolarize cells and reduce the depolarizing impact of SAC-NS activation, thereby suppressing wavefront propagation and lowering success rates. Experimental models, including 3D simulations, demonstrate that this interaction diminishes the thump's ability to generate sufficient electrical stimulus in compromised tissue, highlighting the mechanism's sensitivity to metabolic state.

Clinical Application

Indications

The precordial thump is indicated as a temporizing intervention in highly specific scenarios involving life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias, particularly when immediate access to a defibrillator is unavailable. It is primarily recommended for patients with witnessed and monitored , either with or without a , observed in a clinical setting such as during cardiac monitoring. This application aims to potentially restore rapidly as a bridge to electrical or . According to the 2010 (AHA) guidelines for , the precordial thump receives a Class IIb recommendation (may be considered) for terminating witnessed, monitored VT or (VF) in adults, emphasizing its role only if performed without delaying (CPR) or shock delivery. This guidance stems from observational data showing limited success rates, approximately 25-30% in early VT cases, but highlights its potential in monitored environments to avoid interruptions in care. Subsequent updates reflect a more cautious stance due to evolving evidence. The 2020 international consensus on strongly recommends against routine use of the precordial thump in (strong recommendation against, very-low-certainty evidence), citing risks such as rhythm deterioration (e.g., conversion of VT to VF) and delays to proven therapies like CPR and , based on five heterogeneous observational studies. Similarly, the 2025 AHA guidelines (Class 2b, LOE C-EO) describe it as a nonstandard "pseudo-electrical" that may be considered only as a brief temporizing measure in select in-hospital peri-arrest situations involving witnessed, monitored unstable or the first seconds of witnessed arrest before loss of consciousness, when no other options exist, but not as a primary or routine procedure (Class 3: No Benefit, LOE C-EO for out-of-hospital ). The thump is contraindicated and not indicated for unwitnessed arrests, , or , as clinical studies demonstrate no benefit and potential harm in these contexts. It should never supplant high-quality CPR or immediate when available, prioritizing established protocols.

Contraindications

The precordial thump is contraindicated in situations where is immediately available, as electrical is the preferred and more effective intervention for shockable rhythms such as or pulseless . Delivering the thump in such cases may delay definitive treatment and expose the patient to unnecessary risks without improving outcomes. It should not be used for unwitnessed or , as there is insufficient evidence supporting its efficacy in these scenarios, and it may divert attention from initiating prompt (CPR). Similarly, the procedure is not recommended in out-of-hospital settings, where studies have shown no improvement in to hospital discharge compared to standard CPR protocols. Patients with recent sternotomy, such as following coronary artery bypass grafting or , or those with recent chest trauma represent absolute contraindications due to the heightened risk of complications like or further injury to the thoracic structures. In pediatric patients, the precordial thump is also contraindicated, with case reports indicating potential for serious harm and no supporting for benefit. Current guidelines from major resuscitation councils further limit its application; for instance, the European Resuscitation Council (ERC) 2025 guidelines have removed the precordial thump entirely from recommended protocols, reflecting its overall lack of proven value and associated dangers. The (AHA) similarly advises against routine use in both in-hospital and out-of-hospital arrests, emphasizing that it should never delay CPR or defibrillator deployment.

Procedure

Delivery Technique

The precordial thump is performed as a single, sharp, high-velocity impact to the chest using the ulnar aspect of a tightly clenched . The patient must be positioned , with the provider standing or positioned at the side of the chest to allow for an arm swing from approximately 20 cm above the . The target location is typically the middle or lower third of the , corresponding to the approximate center of the over the heart. To execute the technique, the provider forms a closed and delivers a firm, downward blow with the ulnar () side of the fist, generating sufficient force to mimic a precordial percussion without causing undue trauma. The impact should be swift and deliberate, often described as a "punch," to stimulate cardiac , but the hand is immediately withdrawn to permit chest recoil and avoid interference with subsequent efforts. This maneuver is intended for brief application only, typically in monitored settings where is confirmed, and must not delay or . The procedure requires no specialized equipment beyond personal protective measures and should be followed by immediate rhythm assessment on the cardiac monitor to evaluate for conversion to a perfusing .

Fist Pacing

Fist pacing, also known as percussion pacing, is a manual emergency technique involving repeated rhythmic thumps delivered with a closed fist to the to provide temporary mechanical stimulation of the heart, mimicking electrical pacing in cases of hemodynamically unstable . The procedure was first described in 1920 by Eduard Schott for treating Adams-Stokes attacks associated with complete heart block, using serial sternal blows to restore cardiac output. Over subsequent decades, it has been reported in case series for various bradyarrhythmias, including bradycardic pulseless electrical activity and complete heart block, with success rates up to 90% in restoring circulation in select patients. To perform fist pacing, the operator forms a clenched fist and delivers firm blows using the ulnar aspect from a height of 20-30 cm onto the lower left sternal border, aiming for a rate of 50-70 beats per minute to generate a right ventricular increase of 15-20 mm Hg, sufficient for myocardial capture. The thumps are continued until an electrical pacemaker or pharmacological intervention becomes available, with continuous ECG monitoring to assess capture and hemodynamic response. Indications are limited to hemodynamically unstable bradyarrhythmias in monitored settings, such as during peri-arrest scenarios or initial witnessed arrests before loss of consciousness, where it serves as a bridge to definitive therapy like transcutaneous pacing (Class 2b recommendation per 2025 AHA guidelines). It is not recommended as a primary intervention for established , including or , but may have limited potential in or as a temporizing measure, due to lack of efficacy in improving outcomes when prioritized over standard therapies. Current international guidelines, including those from ILCOR (2022), ANZCOR (2024), and AHA (2025), provide a weak recommendation (Class 2b, LOE C-LD) for its use in unstable bradyarrhythmias based on very low-certainty evidence from case series and , emphasizing it as a temporizing measure rather than a primary intervention. Animal models have demonstrated comparable to electrical pacing, but human data remain anecdotal, with no randomized controlled trials due to ethical challenges. Contraindications include recent sternotomy, chest trauma, or unmonitored out-of-hospital settings, where risks may outweigh potential benefits.

Efficacy and Evidence

Clinical Studies

Clinical studies on the precordial thump have primarily evaluated its efficacy in terminating ventricular arrhythmias or restoring circulation during , with most research indicating limited success rates, particularly in out-of-hospital settings. Early investigations, such as a 1984 prehospital study involving 50 pulseless patients (27 with [VT] and 23 with [VF]), found that the thump converted only 3 (11%) VT cases to a supraventricular rhythm, while 12 VT patients (44%) remained unchanged and 12 worsened, including transitions to or VF; no VF cases responded, leading to the conclusion that the maneuver is often ineffective and potentially harmful in hypoxic or acidotic conditions. Subsequent prospective clinical research has reinforced these findings of low efficacy for shockable rhythms. In a 2009 out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) study of 144 monitored patients, precordial thumps were delivered immediately upon rhythm confirmation, resulting in no return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) among 24 VT/VF cases or 42 pulseless electrical activity cases, but achieving ROSC in 3 of 78 asystolic cases (all witnessed and within 3 minutes of collapse), with 2 of those patients surviving to discharge; overall survival was 5.6%, and no adverse effects were noted, suggesting potential utility only in early, witnessed asystole without delaying standard resuscitation. Similarly, a 2007 observational study of 80 monitored VT episodes in hospitalized patients reported successful termination in just 1 case (1.25%), with the remainder requiring defibrillation. A 2009 analysis of 155 induced non-tolerated ventricular arrhythmias during electrophysiology studies found termination in only 2 cases (1.3%), even when applied within seconds of onset. More recent evaluations highlight rhythm deterioration risks and minimal ROSC benefits. A 2013 retrospective review of 434 OHCA cases identified 103 VT episodes treated with precordial thump, yielding ROSC in 5 (4.9%) but rhythm worsening in 10 (9.7%), compared to a 57.8% ROSC rate with in the remaining cases. Experimental models have provided mechanistic insights supporting clinical observations; for instance, a 2009 swine study demonstrated that thumps generated left ventricular pressures up to 616 mmHg but failed to terminate VF in any of 180 attempts, though higher pressures correlated with ventricular capture in (odds ratio 2.0 per 10 mmHg increase). A 2021 systematic review synthesized from 16 studies on precordial thump (including randomized trials, observational data, and case series with at least 5 patients), assessing outcomes like ROSC and survival to discharge using GRADE methodology; it concluded that the intervention does not improve hospital discharge survival in OHCA (very low certainty ), with only two comparator studies available, and recommended against routine use except possibly in monitored inpatient settings for witnessed onset, without delaying CPR or . Overall, clinical underscores the precordial thump's marginal role, confined to specific scenarios where defibrillators are unavailable, due to inconsistent efficacy and potential for harm.

Current Guidelines

The 2025 (AHA) Guidelines for and Emergency Cardiovascular Care recommend the precordial thump as a Class IIb intervention (may be considered) with Level of Evidence C-LD (limited data from consensus, case studies, or expert opinion) for adults experiencing witnessed, monitored unstable when a defibrillator is not immediately available. This applies specifically to patients with a in peri-arrest scenarios, not those in , where the procedure is explicitly discouraged for both adults and children due to lack of supporting evidence and potential harm. In contrast, the 2025 European Resuscitation Council (ERC) Guidelines for Adult have removed the precordial thump from recommended interventions, reflecting updated evidence reviews that do not support its routine or selective use in protocols. This change aligns with prior ERC positions emphasizing as the primary therapy for shockable rhythms, without reliance on manual precordial maneuvers. International consensus from the International Liaison Committee on (ILCOR) in 2025 similarly de-emphasizes the precordial thump within basic and frameworks, prioritizing high-quality CPR and rapid over alternative compression techniques like thumping or fist pacing, due to insufficient high-quality randomized data demonstrating consistent benefit. Guidelines from other bodies, such as the and Committee on Resuscitation (ANZCOR), retain a narrow endorsement for a single precordial thump in monitored, pulseless if is delayed, but advise against its use in , electromechanical dissociation, or patients with recent sternotomy or chest trauma. Overall, current guidelines across major organizations highlight the precordial thump's limited role as a temporizing measure in highly specific adult scenarios, underscoring the need for immediate access to defibrillators and trained personnel to mitigate risks such as rib fractures or arrhythmias induction.

Risks and Complications

Adverse Effects

The precordial thump carries several potential adverse effects, primarily related to cardiac rhythm disturbances and physical trauma. One significant risk is the deterioration of the underlying arrhythmia, such as conversion of ventricular tachycardia (VT) to ventricular fibrillation (VF) or progression to asystole, particularly if the thump is delivered during the vulnerable phase of the T wave on the electrocardiogram. Studies have reported progression to VF in approximately 30% of cases of witnessed VT, with rates up to 44% in some older studies. In out-of-hospital settings, such deteriorations occurred in about 10% of patients receiving the thump for VT/VF, though rates were comparable or slightly lower than with defibrillation. Traumatic complications from the mechanical force of the thump can include musculoskeletal injuries to the chest wall. Case reports document following the procedure, which in one instance led to subsequent requiring prolonged antibiotic treatment. Improper delivery, such as striking the instead of the , may cause and subsequent injury to adjacent organs like the liver, potentially resulting in internal hemorrhage. In pediatric patients, additional risks have been observed, including thromboembolic from presumed dislodgement of atrial thrombi during thump-induced of , as well as transient induction of . Other adverse effects encompass severe , which has prompted early termination of the procedure in some monitored settings, and potential for delayed effective if the thump fails to restore rhythm. Although rare, these complications underscore the procedure's potential for harm, particularly in non-monitored or pediatric environments, where guidelines advise against routine use due to insufficient evidence of net benefit.

Post-Procedure Appearance

Following the precordial thump, the chest area at the site of impact may exhibit localized or mild bruising due to the blunt force applied during the procedure. This appearance is typically minimal in uncomplicated cases, as the thump involves a single, controlled strike to the mid-precordium, but visible skin changes such as redness or ecchymosis can occur from the mechanical stress on soft tissues. In instances of complications, such as a —a reported of the procedure—the post-procedure appearance may include more pronounced bruising, swelling, or ecchymosis over the . These signs arise from the underlying bone injury and associated soft-tissue trauma, with tenderness and potential upon . Swelling may develop within hours to days, particularly if hemorrhage or accompanies the , though such severe external manifestations are uncommon given the context of the intervention. Patients should be monitored for progression of these visible changes, as they may indicate deeper injuries like myocardial contusion, though external appearance alone does not reliably predict internal damage.

History

Origins and Development

The precordial thump originated in the early as a mechanical intervention for cardiac disturbances. In 1920, German physician Eduard Schott first described the technique in the European medical literature, reporting its use as a sharp fist impact to the left to restore cardiac action during Stokes-Adams attacks, characterized by transient ventricular standstill or . Schott's observation, published in Münchener Medizinische Wochenschrift, marked the initial recognition of mechanical precordial stimulation as a potential measure to elicit ventricular contractions in asystolic episodes, though it was initially viewed as an anecdotal remedy rather than a standardized procedure. The technique's development accelerated in the mid-20th century amid growing interest in non-invasive cardiac interventions. By the 1960s, researchers at , including cardiologist , began systematically studying precordial impacts for arrhythmia management, building on earlier sporadic reports of its use in (VT) and fibrillation (VF). Lown and colleagues formalized the single sharp thump—distinct from repetitive "fist pacing"—as a rapid bedside tool for witnessed arrests, emphasizing its simplicity and immediacy over electrical when equipment was unavailable. A seminal contribution came in 1970, when James E. Pennington, Jack Taylor, and published their prospective study in the New England Journal of Medicine, analyzing the chest thump's application in 27 monitored patients with VT. The report documented successful rhythm reversion in 25% of cases with a single thump, coining the term "thumpversion" to describe its cardioversion-like effect, and highlighted its low risk profile in clinical settings. This work shifted the precordial thump from an obscure maneuver to a recognized element of protocols, influencing subsequent guidelines despite ongoing debates about its efficacy in non-VT rhythms.

Evolution in Medical Practice

The precordial thump, first described in the European medical literature in by Schott as a manual technique to restore cardiac through a sharp percussion to the chest, gained traction in the mid-20th century as part of protocols for managing witnessed ventricular arrhythmias. By the 1970s and 1980s, it was incorporated into training, with the (AHA) recommending it as the initial maneuver for treating monitored (VT) or fibrillation (VF) in settings where was delayed, based on anecdotal successes and early case reports demonstrating rhythm conversion in up to 25% of VT cases. This enthusiasm stemmed from its simplicity and potential to buy time in monitored environments like intensive care units, though evidence remained largely observational and uncontrolled at the time. Guideline recommendations began to evolve in the 1990s as studies emerged questioning its efficacy and safety, particularly showing limited effectiveness and potential harm in (VF). This prompted the European (ERC) to remove the precordial thump from its 2000 guidelines, shifting emphasis to automated external defibrillators (AEDs) for reliable delivery. Similarly, the AHA's 1997 guidelines downgraded it from a Class I (strongly recommended) status under the International Liaison Committee on (ILCOR) to a Class IIb (optional) intervention for monitored arrests, citing inconsistent outcomes and risks such as inducing VF. By the 2005 AHA updates, its use was further restricted to avoid delaying chest compressions or , reflecting evidence from case series and observational studies showing success rates below 10% for pulseless VT/VF and higher rates of adverse rhythm conversion. In the 2010s, international consensus further marginalized the technique amid high-quality trials highlighting its limitations. The 2010 AHA guidelines limited recommendations to witnessed, monitored unstable VT only, explicitly advising against its use in unmonitored settings or for /, supported by the Pellis et al. study showing transient circulation return in just 25% of cases without sustained benefit. The 2015 AHA and ERC updates de-emphasized it entirely for routine practice, prioritizing immediate CPR and due to faster AED deployment in modern healthcare. By 2020, ILCOR and AHA issued a strong recommendation against routine precordial thump in , permitting it solely as a temporizing measure in exceptional in-hospital, monitored scenarios (e.g., catheterization labs) before , based on very-low-certainty evidence from registries like Nehme et al. (2013), where only 4.9% achieved compared to 57.8% with . The 2025 AHA guidelines maintain this cautious stance, classifying it as Class 3: No Benefit (Level of Evidence: C-LD) for routine use in and underscoring the procedure's obsolescence in an era of ubiquitous defibrillators and refined CPR protocols.

References

  1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK545174/
  2. https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIR.0000000000001380
  3. https://www.erc.edu/media/vedoa2ga/gl2025-05-als-e.pdf
  4. https://www.heartrhythmjournal.com/article/S1547-5271(05)00977-X/fulltext
  5. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16443533/
  6. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3741663/
  7. https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIR.0000000000000892
  8. https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIR.0000000000001376
  9. https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIR.0000000000000916
  10. https://www.anzcor.org/home/adult-advanced-life-support/guideline-11-3-precordial-thump-and-fist-pacing
  11. https://www.resuscitationjournal.com/article/S0300-9572(25)00281-3/fulltext
  12. https://www.bjanaesthesia.org.uk/article/S0007-0912(17)35492-2/fulltext
  13. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19010581/
  14. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17338709/
  15. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18952350/
  16. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23994203/
  17. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19968931/
  18. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33582257/
  19. https://cpr.heart.org/en/resuscitation-science/cpr-and-ecc-guidelines/adult-and-pediatric-special-circumstances-of-resuscitation
  20. https://www.anzcor.org/home/adult-advanced-life-support/guideline-11-3-precordial-thump-and-fist-pacing/downloadpdf
  21. https://www.anzcor.org/assets/EvidenceReviewforPT-ANZCOR-Guideline-11.3.pdf
  22. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17697738/
  23. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1728536/
  24. https://www.drugs.com/cg/blunt-chest-trauma.html
  25. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK507790/
  26. https://emedicine.medscape.com/article/826169-clinical
  27. https://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/what-is-broken-sternum
  28. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK532267/
  29. https://academic.oup.com/bmb/article/93/1/161/307406
  30. https://www.bjanaesthesia.org.uk/article/S0007-0912%2817%2935492-2/fulltext
  31. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/5472940/
  32. https://www.nejm.org/doi/abs/10.1056/NEJM197011262832204
  33. https://www.annemergmed.com/article/S0196-0644%2884%2980439-4/abstract
  34. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0196064484804394
  35. https://www.heartrhythmjournal.com/article/S1547-5271%2805%2900373-5/fulltext
  36. https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/01.CIR.95.8.2180
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.