The thing is that there's not MUCH your going to do prehospital in terms of address a tamponade short of pericardiocentesis, which isn't a prehospital option 95 percent of the time or better. (i.e. absent the imediate threat of a code if you don't) Since the tamponade is most likely CAUSING the AVB, it would seem then your best option is to address the brady and keep it on ice, since the tamponade is likely to cause the AVB to continue to progress, and it would seem to follow that you'll get stuck doing the pericardiocentesis under sub-optimal conditions (i.e. without ultrasound guidance) anyways, which is what you want to AVOID in the first place, is it not?
Though, The point of maximizing volume as a strategy also seems to make sense- an alternate ends to the same means, though it would follow that by increasing volume as opposed to rate your going to end up with the effusion getting larger in response to the volume increase (given the intracellular fluid dynamics- the effusion is getting its volume from somewhere in Short order), and thus my first instinct would be to avoid increasing volume, but rather increase rate- since in reality there cannot be a true hypovolemic state, since there's no fluid loss, If I remember correctly.
And FYI, I am not arrogant- I am just of the sort that does not believe in departing from the ACLS guidelines without a clear line of thought for doing so, that is going to be 100 per cent justifiable in the event it hits the fan, and I find myself holding the cookie bag and explaining. It just seems much more difficult for someone to sue when your backed up with following standard protocol, as opposed to a line of thought that makes sense but still leaves you holding the cookie bag at the end of the day. I mean, really, do you want some attorney reading in your report that you DIDN'T follow an applicable standard protocol?
.
