EKG/ECG deciphering for dummies
- 0Nov 28, '03 by Marie_LPN, RNI am looking for any link(s) to sites about ECG reading. How to figure what is artial or ventricular problems, how to figure out the rate, etc. Our book on this subject SUCKS and the teacher explaining over and over is making things worse. Wound appreciate anything, thank you
- 0Nov 28, '03 by gwenithLook over in the CCU forum - I started a thread about this a while ago and I used as many different links as I could so that if people could not follow MY notes they could follow the links. Hmmm perhaps I should convert that thread into a sticky listing all the ECG websites??
- 0Nov 28, '03 by gwenithGive me some time I am working on it:chuckle So far I have written the Australasian sticky, started the UK sticky and am currently working on one for Rural nursing that will cover resources from around the world. I personally would love to see stickies for all forums and if anyone is interested in contributing once started please, please feel free.
- 0Nov 29, '03 by chris_at_lucas_RNIf there's no p wave, there's an atrial problem.
Calculating rate is pretty cool. Count the little squares between any 2 p's or r's, then divide into 1500, and there you have it. Or count the number of beats in six seconds and multiply by ten--but the other way is more accurate (and way more fun if you are into that).
- 0Nov 29, '03 by Love-A-Nurseanother way to count the rate is by counting from p-p intervals [atrial rate] and multiplying x 10 or from r-r intervals [ventricular rate] and multiplying x 10.
you can try this link below:
- 0Nov 29, '03 by chris_at_lucas_RNI don't think it works if you count between the p to p or r to r and multiply by ten.
The rate would be higher the further apart those landmarks were, when in fact the further apart they are, the slower the rate.
For example, take two different strips. One has 10 little squares between the p's and one has 20. By your method, the first one would have a HR of 100 (when it is actually 150), and the second would have a rate of 200 (when it is actually 75).
Check it out--you'll see what I mean....
This is definitely the sort of thing to look up in a dependable source before applying the info on an exam (or a patient...)