Unexpected guest: Atrial fibrillation due to electrical shock

Low-voltage electrical injuries and the electrocardiogram: is a 'normal' electrocardiogram sufficient for safe discharge from care? A systematic review

Introduction

The current Joint Royal Colleges Ambulance Liaison Committee guidelines in the United Kingdom provide clear national guidance for low-voltage electrical injury patients. While patients can be considered safe to discharge with an apparently 'normal' initial electrocardiogram (ECG), some evidence questions the safety profile of these patients with a risk of a 'delayed arrhythmia'. This review aims to examine this as well as identifying the frequency and common arrhythmias that require patients to be conveyed to hospital for further monitoring post electrical injury. It will also aim to improve the understanding of potentially clinically significant arrhythmias that may require clinical intervention or even admission within an in-hospital environment.

Methods

A systematic review using three electronic databases (CINAHL, MEDLINE, AMED) was conducted in January 2022. A preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) approach was used to identify relevant studies with a suitable quality to support a critical review of the topic. A modified Critical Appraisal Skills Programme quality assessment checklist was used across suitable studies and a descriptive statistics approach was adopted to present the findings.

Results

Seven studies, largely retrospective reviews, met the inclusion criteria. The findings showed 26% of patients had an arrhythmia on initial presentation (n = 364/1234) with incidences of sinus tachycardia, sinus bradycardia and premature ventricular contractions. However, making definitive statements is challenging due to the lack of access to individual patients' past ECGs. Within these arrhythmias' ST segment changes, atrial fibrillation and long QT syndrome could be considered potentially significant, however associated prognosis with these and electrical injuries is unknown. Only six (0.5%) patients required treatment by drug therapy, and a further three died from associated complications. Most patients with a normal ECG were discharged immediately with only a limited follow-up. No presentation of a 'delayed arrhythmia' was identified throughout the studies.

Conclusion

The data for low-voltage electrical injuries are limited, but the potential arrhythmias for this patient group seldom require intervention. The entity of the 'delayed arrhythmia' may not be a reason to admit or monitor patients for prolonged periods. Further studies should consider the safety profile of discharging a patient with a normal ECG.

ECG monitoring in high voltage electric injury patients presenting with normal ECG: Time to revisit practice?

Advanced Trauma Life Support (ATLS) recommends prolonged ECG monitoring of patients with high risk factors post electric injuries, for detecting and treating potentially life threatening arrhythmias. We hereby present our experience of high voltage electric injuries (HVEI) patients with high risk factors, managed at a level 1 Trauma Centre. Seven patients of high voltage electric injuries with significant burns (BSA > 10% of 2nd degree and above) were admitted over a year (Jan 1, 2019 to Dec 31, 2019), age ranging from 11 to 51 (median 25 yrs). Six out of seven patients (85.7%) were males. Mode of injury was recreational in one, workplace related in one and accidental in five (71.4%). Six patients had entry wounds in extremities, and three underwent emergency limb saving surgery (all escharotomies). Three patients underwent eventual amputation of injured extremity. Serum creatine kinase was monitored in all and multisystem involvement was seen in three patients; one patient (referred) required haemodialysis due to renal failure. There was no mortality. In all cases, 24 h continuous ECG monitoring was carried out as per ATLS and ERC (European Resuscitation Council) guidelines. There was no episode of paroxysmal or persistent rhythm disturbance in our patients during in-hospital stay or follow up. Review of pertinent literature suggests similar experiences of other authors. HVEI is a rare injury and most centres have reported on their experience with small number of patients as in our study. Currently, continuous ECG monitoring post HVEI seems to be the safe practice for patients with cardiac co-morbidities. Further studies are required to find other subsets of HVEI patients likely to benefit from ECG monitoring, and the clinical significance of 'delayed arrhythmias' post HVEI.