Electrolyte shifts and fluid overload in AMI patients?

Nurses General Nursing

Published

I am looking for some sage advice and maybe some finger pointin' to where I need to find further information.

I am currently an EMS paramedic who is working on her degree in nursing. However, I cannot find much information in my textbooks (for nursing) about fluid overload and electrolyte imbalances.

In short, one of my EMS calls involved a 60ish year old male patient who presented with an anterior AMI --- symptoms of sudden-onset anterior chest heaviness (10/10 pain) radiating to the left arm that occurred while sitting. (+) nausea, (-) vomiting, (-) SOB, (-) trauma. 15 minute duration. Initial BP of 106/70, HR of 66 (weak/regular radial pulses), R: 24, SpO2 of 97%. GCS of 15. Skin: pale, warm, dry. No difficulty breathing was again confirmed. Lungs clear to all fields. No peripheral edema. No hx of this pain.

Hx: CAD, GERD. recent prostate surgery 2 weeks ago.

Supplemental oxygen was administered on scene, and patient already took a 325 mg aspirin prior to EMS arrival. Initial 12-lead ECG showed hyperacute T waves in the anterior leads, which progressed to ST elevation during rapid transport. 12-lead was transmitted to the ED early enroute. Inferior leads began showing small reciprocal changes on arrival to the ED.

Two 18g IV lines (one with NS and the other a saline lock) were established with a blood draw for the hospital, and one nitroglycerin administered (0.4 mg SL; protocol allows us to administer NTG until the systolic BP falls below 90 mmHg or patient is pain-free).

Patient's BP five minutes after the NTG was 92 mmHg (palpated). I chose to withhold additional NTG due to the borderline BP in conjunction with the patient's reported new-onset of dizziness and generalized weakness. Pain did decrease to a "7". About 300 mL of NS was already infused --- lungs again were clear, no difficulty breathing reported, no edema. I chose to continue the fluids to improve his pressure before considering more NTG --- we were 2 minutes from the hospital at this time.

On ED arrival, the physician ordered another 1000 mL of NS and to withhold the nitro drip until the pressure increased (was just a hair over 100 mmHg systolic when obtained at the ED, if I remember right). The patient received 600 mL of NS by the time I finished verbal report and handed care over to the RN (I TKO'd the infusion once we entered the ED doors). Again, lungs were clear and no reports of difficulty breathing by the patient.

So here's my question: Did I "fluid overload" my AMI patient? What was the risk of shifting his electrolytes significantly with this amount of NS?

I was reprimanded based on several things, but contributing was the fact was that I did not administer a second NTG during transport and that I infused too much fluid to cause concern for fluid overload and electrolyte shifts. My Service Director (EMS "boss") who brought forth these concerns was previously an ICU RN (I apologize for not knowing the specialty) before returning to EMS as our Director.

I still feel confident in how I treated this patient knowing that the ED physician continued the same train of thought in his orders, and that the patient did have a significant occlusion as found by the cath lab. What has bugged me is that I recently learned that now my Service Director has used me as the Village Idiot example outside of our service. While he has not used my name or referenced to my station/shift, it was learned that I was used as an "example" to why some of our future medics required further education, and based it on this particular case. I am not an outspoken person at all, but this really rips at me.

Honestly, if I "did wrong", please let me know. I know the last thing a patient needs with an AMI is more work for the heart. The last thing I would ever want to do is cause more harm to my patients or make the receiving RNs' lives more difficult. If anyone has a literary reference to a textbook or other source that could offer a better understanding of fluid and electrolyte shifts, I would greatly appreciate it! I would like to speak to my Medical Director (physician) about the call as well, but armed with far more knowledge on fluid and electrolyte balance than what I currently have.

Thank you so much!

I would have given the second nitro. The BP was high enough, even just barely, and the pt was still having significant CP at 7/10.

In the cath lab, we give several hundred mcgs of ntg and all kinds of fluid boluses. Especially for a STEMI. And you'd be suprised how low we let their BP get. Of course, we are right there intervening, so it's easier to let a BP get low because we are actively treating it.

We give our ntg IC, and we can see immediate results. We can see an almost completely occluded coronary artery open up enough to allow some flow. Remember, we are trying to get O2 to the heart tissues.

I wouldn't be worried about the fluid issue at all. This person needed the ntg, O2, and cardiac cath.

Unfortunately, you cannot easily apply your controlled situation to the chaotic situation of EMS. Also remember, the effects of NTG are rather subtle on coronary arteries but can significantly effect the venous system. As stated earlier, if the patient was having a right ventricular/preload issue, NTG could have been devastating if given in the field. Of course, we have no way of knowing because the OP did not look at the RV. So, I would not condemn a more conservative approach.

Specializes in Emergency.

I just wanted to give a big "THANK YOU" to all those who offered your insight on this particular call. He wasn't the first, nor I'd hope that he'll be the last last AMI patient I'll ever care for. :rolleyes: But, his case seemed so unusual to me with the low blood pressure combined with that "oh ****" appearance he had about him. On first impression, both my very-experienced partner and I ('da rookie) thought either a right-sided or inferior infarct. As added info: the patient's normal BP (systolic) was usually about 140 mmHg, per his wife on scene who makes him use the Walmart machine every Sunday, lol! HTN was denied by the patient, and he did not take any medications to suggest that diagnosis.

As suggested here, we actually did obtain a quick V4® just to see if there was *any* involvement at all to that aspect, which there appeared to be none. I apologize for not adding that information in the original post... was already wearing my fingers thin on the keyboard ;-). The only significant changes I could find in the original 12-lead ECG involved the anterior leads (V3, V4) and later on, slight ST depression (about 0.5 to 1 mm ST segment depression) to leads II, III, and aVF almost as we approached the ED. V4® did not show any obvious abnormalities when obtained just after the initial 12-lead ECG. The baseline rhythm was a sinus rhythm with no PVCs, etc... no significant change in heart rate during transport.

With following protocols, I followed those to a "tee" as well, which got me into even more trouble, lol! I did not want to give NTG until I had at least a 3-lead ECG to rule out any other causes of chest discomfort, such as an AV block, run of V-tach, etc. However, I was advised to next time give the NTG as soon as a firefighter obtained a blood pressure on scene (in other words, after vital signs and oxygen). I again disagreed with my director on that... in my opinion, there's a patient safety issue at stake versus shaving a couple of minutes to NTG administration. Again, I may be wrong, but our protocol also postpones NTG until a 3-lead ECG has been obtained.

I absolutely love learning anything I can get my hands on (although I admit these thick, heavy nursing textbooks can really put your head in a spin, lol!). Again, I appreciate all of your insight and experience you offered. Gives me a lot to think about and consider for the next atypical patient I care for. For what its worth, this reprimand is what kicked me in the backside to start my nursing school classes, so maybe there is good behind all things. I absolutely love EMS, but I'm really enjoying everything I'm learning so far as well.

Specializes in Cath Lab/ ICU.
Unfortunately, you cannot easily apply your controlled situation to the chaotic situation of EMS. Also remember, the effects of NTG are rather subtle on coronary arteries but can significantly effect the venous system. As stated earlier, if the patient was having a right ventricular/preload issue, NTG could have been devastating if given in the field. Of course, we have no way of knowing because the OP did not look at the RV. So, I would not condemn a more conservative approach.

There's absolutely nothing controlled about a STEMI. not in the middle of the day, not at 3am.

And I'm well aware of the effects of ntg, tyvm.

Short answer: protocol says give ntg if sbp is >90 with CP. This pt had 7/10 CP, and a sbp >90. That ntg needed to be given.

And I wasn't comparing the CCL to the field ( I've worked there too). Honestly, a STEMI is far more chaotic than just me in the back of the rig. I only have to worry about me and my pt in the field. In the CCL, not so much.

But, just a FYI, we give ntg for any kind of blockage. RCA, lad, oms and digs...all of em. If the sbp is low (70's-80's) then we give fluid, and perhaps only a few hundred mcgs. I wasn't condemning the OP (interesting perspective, I guess), quite the opposite. More like assuring them that the fluids were ok.

Pt needed the ntg.

Let us be clear, the evidence regarding pre-hospital GTN and patient outcomes is rather scant in spite of it being in use for quite a while. In fact, this much has been acknowledged in the newest international consensus regarding cardiac care (AKA the AHA 2010 guidelines). So, I am not sure we can go so far as to say the patient "needed" the GTN.

Again, we simply cannot apply your environment to the world of EMS. I would not want to imagine the apocalypse that would occur if I strolled through the doors of the ER with a patient who has a systolic pressure of 70-80 mmHg. Remember, most EMS services are not in a position to adequately titrate GTN. Many places have the 0.4 mg tablets/spray and the dose delivered along with bioavailability will vary quite a bit.

You are correct that the pressure was above 90 mmHg. However, most protocols allow for a certain amount of provider discretion. If a company does not, I would not want to work for said company. Following a pathway without asking any questions or critically thinking is as bad as "mother may I" nurses who mindlessly follow all orders. It is the critical thinking and application that really comes to play here. The OP was concerned about findings that appeared to be inconsistent with patient history and opted not to give additional GTN based on clinical findings and response to the first dose.

Unfortunately, you cannot easily apply your controlled situation to the chaotic situation of EMS. Also remember, the effects of NTG are rather subtle on coronary arteries but can significantly effect the venous system. As stated earlier, if the patient was having a right ventricular/preload issue, NTG could have been devastating if given in the field. Of course, we have no way of knowing because the OP did not look at the RV. So, I would not condemn a more conservative approach.

I was so darned impressed that this EMT understood reciprical changes in an EKG that the rest of the post hardly sank in! You should be aware that when I was in ER our pt's came in on a lead II and nothing else!

There is NO way an EMT can or should be able to do a right sided ekg, so let's just throw that topic out. Nor should they be concerned with electrolyte problems.

The OP followed protocol, and got the pt. to the hospital alive.

The bosses criticisms are Monday morning quarterbacking, and while perhaps food for thought; remain speculative.

I just wanted to give a big "THANK YOU" to all those who offered your insight on this particular call. He wasn't the first, nor I'd hope that he'll be the last last AMI patient I'll ever care for. :rolleyes: But, his case seemed so unusual to me with the low blood pressure combined with that "oh ****" appearance he had about him. On first impression, both my very-experienced partner and I ('da rookie) thought either a right-sided or inferior infarct. As added info: the patient's normal BP (systolic) was usually about 140 mmHg, per his wife on scene who makes him use the Walmart machine every Sunday, lol! HTN was denied by the patient, and he did not take any medications to suggest that diagnosis.

As suggested here, we actually did obtain a quick V4® just to see if there was *any* involvement at all to that aspect, which there appeared to be none. I apologize for not adding that information in the original post... was already wearing my fingers thin on the keyboard ;-). The only significant changes I could find in the original 12-lead ECG involved the anterior leads (V3, V4) and later on, slight ST depression (about 0.5 to 1 mm ST segment depression) to leads II, III, and aVF almost as we approached the ED. V4® did not show any obvious abnormalities when obtained just after the initial 12-lead ECG. The baseline rhythm was a sinus rhythm with no PVCs, etc... no significant change in heart rate during transport.

With following protocols, I followed those to a "tee" as well, which got me into even more trouble, lol! I did not want to give NTG until I had at least a 3-lead ECG to rule out any other causes of chest discomfort, such as an AV block, run of V-tach, etc. However, I was advised to next time give the NTG as soon as a firefighter obtained a blood pressure on scene (in other words, after vital signs and oxygen). I again disagreed with my director on that... in my opinion, there's a patient safety issue at stake versus shaving a couple of minutes to NTG administration. Again, I may be wrong, but our protocol also postpones NTG until a 3-lead ECG has been obtained.

I absolutely love learning anything I can get my hands on (although I admit these thick, heavy nursing textbooks can really put your head in a spin, lol!). Again, I appreciate all of your insight and experience you offered. Gives me a lot to think about and consider for the next atypical patient I care for. For what its worth, this reprimand is what kicked me in the backside to start my nursing school classes, so maybe there is good behind all things. I absolutely love EMS, but I'm really enjoying everything I'm learning so far as well.

Oh, color me impressed! I had NO idea of what EMTs know and do now.

The OP is a paramedic, so it is quite reasonable to expect a paramedic to perform XII lead monitoring and assessment and integrate other modalities such as V4R and posterior lead assessments into the plan of care. Cardiology is typically a large portion of the paramedic's training in medical emergencies.

Remember, the national SOP model has removed the EMT designation from paramedic, thus designating the paramedic as a licensed allied health professional.

Oh, color me impressed! I had NO idea of what EMTs know and do now.

There is a big difference between a EMT and a paramedic. In addition, all sorts of hybrid levels exist between the gap.

+ Add a Comment