Cardizem gtt; is this reasonable?

Specialties Cardiac

Published

Hello all,

Had a pt. on diltiazem gtt, 10mg/hr, HR 96, A fib. Pressure was trending down, SBP 94. MD order was to titrate gtt for HR 90-100, and we have unit specific protocol.

Checked with resource RN who is very knowledgeable and experienced, who agreed we should go down to 5mg/hr due to BP trending down and rate remaining stable. An hour passed, HR increased to 107, BP back up to one teens systolic. Checked with charge, who agreed that it sounded like we had jumped the gun a bit and that we should go back up to the 10mg rate.

Back up we go, but an hour later, HR still elevated, increasing to 117 and taching into the 120s. So, again, checked with charge, and increase rate to 15mg/hr.

Within an hour, rate is 70s and patient converted to NSR, SBP holding in one teens. Back down to 10. Rate, rhythm, and pressure all still holding an hour later. I'm thinking we need to go down to 5, but by this time, it's end of shift. Oncoming nurse comes on, and I'm giving report, and he gives me a boatload of grief over "not following MD order" of keeping HR 90-100. I explained the rationale for every rate change, that I had not personally touched the pump (outside my scope of practice), and that every decision had been run by and backed up by the charge nurse.

Oncoming nurse disagrees with my charge nurse's decisions (made a face when I told him that the charge nurse had been involved), stated that *I* should have gone over the charge nurse's head and called the MD for orders (even though we have parameters that are unit specific PLUS I am an LPN so I always run things by my charge before making calls to docs). He pointed to the protocol that I had printed out and placed with the chart for my information and said the "MD's order trumps *this*." with what looked to me like a sneer.

Before I left, I asked oncoming nurse if he would like me to do anything with this situation before I went home. I didn't want to dump a load of #### in his lap (and said so; I do not want to be one of those nurses that other nurses hate to follow). He said no, that he was going to decrease the gtt to 5 (exactly what I would have done, or rather, asked my charge if we should do, and have an RN to make the rate change since I won't touch the pump).

I *thought* I had followed protocol and used sound nursing judgment. I did not personally touch the pump nor make any decisions regarding rate changes without running them past my charge. I simply monitored the patient and reported any changes to my charge, staying within my scope of practice. The gtt rate never went outside of either the MD's parameters nor our unit protocol. The outcome was positive; patient in NSR with rate in the 70s, ready to be titrated down and possibly transitioned to PO.

My confidence is shaken by my co-worker's attitude.

Did I really misjudge the situation, or was this a case of a nurse eating his young? Maybe he was just mad because he'd have to call the doctor in the middle of the night if the gtt needed to be DCd (our protocol is to call MD when gtt is DCd, and there was no "notify MD" parameter order otherwise).

Please be gentle! :bowingpur

Specializes in LTC, Med/Surg, Peds, ICU, Tele.

You sound like you did everything right and your co-worker was the type who likes to use report as a chance to belittle and intimidate. I would have called and left a message for MD when pt converted to SR.

Sometimes it's a balancing act, trying to reduce the rate, yet keep the BP where is should be. The beauty of a protocol to titrate is that you can keep tinkering with it.

Specializes in Cardiac Telemetry, ED.

I followed up and had a chat with my CN about the situation. What I walked away with were a couple of things; 1) I should consider the source. 2) Even though the MD (a hospitalist, not a cardiologist) had written an order with vague parameters, I could not be faulted for following protocol.

I had another dilt gtt recently, where the patient converted back to NSR and we stopped it due to bradycardia. I did call the cardiologist for some parameters for night shift this time, which the next nurse appreciated.

Hey, I'm learning!

I'm am just about to graduate so I'm totally not trying to sound like I know everything (or anything for that matter!) but I am just confused here. I though you didn't want to convert an a-fib until it's been determined there's no clot in the atria that we're now going to send flying into the circulation. Obviously I don't know the specifics of your patient, but I know there are some sort of parameters, i.e. if we know for a fact they've been in a-fib less than 24 hours, or they've been on anticoagulants x amount of days and maybe there is some sort of imaging or something they do to rule out a clot (I have no idea on that last one just a guess). So anyway, I guess my point is I thought conversion was sometimes actually considered an adverse effect of the gtt, and that it is mainly for rate control and hemodynamic stability in rapid a-fib patients who are not yet ready to be converted. Maybe that's why the doc wanted to be conservative with the gtt and left such high HR parameters (even though I agree expecting you to keep it within 10 bpm is a little lofty), because he didn't want the patient converted, just hemodynamically stable until ready for conversion. That's just what I have been taught and observed in my CCU internship, we didn't want those people to convert that was a bad thing.

And also yeah like somebody else said we would always call the doc for any rhythm change. Maybe that along with the whole clot thing was what the guy's problem was. Sorry not trying to criticize or say I agree with his attitude, but I really am curious as to why none of the experienced cardiac nurses questioned this?

Also, and sorry I'm really not trying to sound like a smart-ass, but from what I know from my schooling and cardiac internship and working as a tech in intensive care for four years, if a doctor writes specific parameters those are the ones you follow. If they wanted you to follow unit protocol they wouldn't have written specific parameters. But either way I think the responsibility for all of this is on your charge nurse, she was the one actually titrating the pump. So yeah you didn't do anything wrong IMO but I'm thinking the charge nurse might have, depending on if this was a patient they actually wanted to convert.

Somebody please tell me if I'm wrong so I can just sound stupid on here instead of when I'm on a unit!

Specializes in Utilization Management.
I'm am just about to graduate so I'm totally not trying to sound like I know everything (or anything for that matter!) but I am just confused here. I though you didn't want to convert an a-fib until it's been determined there's no clot in the atria that we're now going to send flying into the circulation. Obviously I don't know the specifics of your patient, but I know there are some sort of parameters, i.e. if we know for a fact they've been in a-fib less than 24 hours, or they've been on anticoagulants x amount of days and maybe there is some sort of imaging or something they do to rule out a clot (I have no idea on that last one just a guess). So anyway, I guess my point is I thought conversion was sometimes actually considered an adverse effect of the gtt, and that it is mainly for rate control and hemodynamic stability in rapid a-fib patients who are not yet ready to be converted. Maybe that's why the doc wanted to be conservative with the gtt and left such high HR parameters (even though I agree expecting you to keep it within 10 bpm is a little lofty), because he didn't want the patient converted, just hemodynamically stable until ready for conversion. That's just what I have been taught and observed in my CCU internship, we didn't want those people to convert that was a bad thing.

And also yeah like somebody else said we would always call the doc for any rhythm change. Maybe that along with the whole clot thing was what the guy's problem was. Sorry not trying to criticize or say I agree with his attitude, but I really am curious as to why none of the experienced cardiac nurses questioned this?

Also, and sorry I'm really not trying to sound like a smart-ass, but from what I know from my schooling and cardiac internship and working as a tech in intensive care for four years, if a doctor writes specific parameters those are the ones you follow. If they wanted you to follow unit protocol they wouldn't have written specific parameters. But either way I think the responsibility for all of this is on your charge nurse, she was the one actually titrating the pump. So yeah you didn't do anything wrong IMO but I'm thinking the charge nurse might have, depending on if this was a patient they actually wanted to convert.

Somebody please tell me if I'm wrong so I can just sound stupid on here instead of when I'm on a unit!

Diltiazem is a form of chemical cardioversion, so I'd have to assume that its use presumes that the doc wanted the patient to convert.

If the patient converts on the cardizem gtt, then all's well, and the patient's probably already had a shot or two of Lovenox and begun Coumadin. There's really no way to tell if patients have been throwing microclots, they're just assumed to be doing so and are treated immediately with anticoagulants.

Specializes in Cardiac Telemetry, ED.

It's been a little while, but as I recall, the patient was on LMWH and warfarin.

Good job! It sounds like you did everything perfectly!

With this patient, an investigation into what exactly made him go into Atrial Fib is warranted. Is it atrial stretch? (caused by CHF), is it an accessory pathway?

The physician my want to treat the underlying cause and start the patient on a medication to prevent his A-fib from returning whether it be a B-Blocker, Calcium channel blocker or Amiodarone.

Everything you did was fine. Cardizem is kind of hard to keep someones rates between 10 beats/min. Safe practice. Good charge nurse decisions.

Jay

Specializes in ER, progressive care.

You had parameters and did exactly what you were supposed to do. You followed the MD's orders and did nothing wrong. That nurse was just being an *** and on a power trip, it seems. I'm sorry he treated you that way.

Specializes in ICU.

Why wouldn't the doc want to see a patient convert to a NSR with a hr in the 70's with a stable BP? Isn't that the goal?

+ Add a Comment