Difference between apical pulse and pulse monitored on display

Our bedside Tele monitors have settings for paced rhythms which must be activated otherwise my pt can show as half the apical rate of 35 instead of 70 or double the apical rate of 140 instead of 70. When in doubt check the pulse manually instead of relying on the monitor to calculate it.

Keep in mind that "pulse" and "heart rate" are actually two different things. On a cardiac monitor, heart rate refers to the ventricular rate based on the number of conduction impulses per minute (the number of QRS complexes per minute). "Pulse" refers to the number of those QRS complexes that produce a detectable pulsation, this can vary depending on where and how you are measuring it. PVC's, for instance, may not produce a palpable pulsation at the radial artery, so a patient's radial pulse by palpation would be their heart rate minus the number of PVC's per minute. But the PVC's might produce a detectable pulsation by doppler at the radial artery, giving them two different radial pulses, they might have a radial pulse of 40 by palp but a radial pulse of 60 by doppler.

The apical pulse is usually going to be the closest to the actual heart rate since you can typically auscultate every ventricular contraction, although they may not all sound the same. I'm guessing this might be why someone would get an apical pulse that varies significantly from the monitored heart rate, they may only be counting the contractions that produce the same exact sound.

When auscultating apical pulse, you are hearing mechanical activity. The monitor shows electrical conduction. The two do not always coincide. But, as pointed out in the posts above, more information is needed to adequately answer your question.

It might help to look at the pleth (Sp02 waveform) which measures the pulse in the finger.

Also the arterial line waveform is the actual pulse in the radial or femoral artery.

These numbers should be very close to or the same as the cardiac rhythm.

If you are seeing 66 QRS waves on the monitor, but only auscultating 37.. I would assume you are not hearing half of the audible pulse. If the rhythm is atrial fibrillation, this could be expected.. as 20 % of the cardiac output is lost without the atrial kick.

Was the pacer kicking in?

This is great info everyone! I knew that the reading on our tele screen often does not correlate with the pulse ox's reading in people in Afib or having frequent PVCs, but did not know the reason why. Always love learning something new! :)

This is in Long term care no monitors. No telemetry. Ended up being a pacemaker gone bad.

I should have clarified "monitor" being the dynamap

I should have clarified "monitor" being the dynamap

Dynamaps are notorious to have huge variations in HR vs radial or apical pulse especially with a patient with an arrhythmias, a-fib, murmur, or PVC/PAC. These same patients will not have an accurate BP reading due to machine limitations.

Monitors can be fooled by you shaking one of the heart leads!

I should have clarified "monitor" being the dynamap

Automatic BP cuffs can become inaccurate when there's an irregular rhythm or when there's some beat-to-beat variability because of frequent PVC's or (in the case of slow rates) escape beats to maintain sufficient perfusion.

If the machine is giving me conflicting info from what I'm actually hearing or feeling, I'm going to disregard the machine and "go manual" on things wherever possible. Then again, I hail from a transport background and I'm very used to doing manual vitals and assessments and having a bit of a healthy skepticism for the machines... They have to earn my trust.

When in doubt, trust your eyes, ears, and fingers. Sometimes they can tell you things about the patient that the machines just can't.