Cargando…

Benefits of monitoring patients with mobile cardiac telemetry (MCT) compared with the Event or Holter monitors

INTRODUCTION: This research is meant to establish if a patient monitored with mobile cardiac telemetry (MCT) sees different outcomes regarding diagnostic yield of arrhythmia, therapeutic management through the use of antiarrhythmic drugs, and cardiovascular costs incurred in the hospital setting whe...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Tsang, Jean-Patrick, Mohan, Shunmugam
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Dove Medical Press 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3862588/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24353449
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/MDER.S54038
_version_ 1782295761586749440
author Tsang, Jean-Patrick
Mohan, Shunmugam
author_facet Tsang, Jean-Patrick
Mohan, Shunmugam
author_sort Tsang, Jean-Patrick
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: This research is meant to establish if a patient monitored with mobile cardiac telemetry (MCT) sees different outcomes regarding diagnostic yield of arrhythmia, therapeutic management through the use of antiarrhythmic drugs, and cardiovascular costs incurred in the hospital setting when compared with more traditional monitoring devices, such as the Holter or the Event monitor. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis spanning 57 months of claims data from January 2007 to September 2011 pertaining to 200,000+ patients, of whom 14,000 used MCT only, 54,000 an Event monitor only, and 163,000 a Holter monitor only. Those claims came from the Truven database, an employer database that counts 2.8 million cardiovascular patients from an insured population of about 10 million members. We employed a pair-wise pre/post test-control methodology, and ensured that control patients were similar to test patients along the following dimensions: age, geographic location, type of cardiovascular diagnosis both in the inpatient and outpatient settings, and the cardiovascular drug class the patient uses. RESULTS: First, the diagnostic yield of patients monitored with MCT is 61%, that is significantly higher than that of patients that use the Event monitor (23%) or the Holter monitor (24%). Second, patients naive to antiarrhythmic drugs initiate drug therapy after monitoring at the following rates: 61% for patients that use MCT compared with 39% for patients that use the Event and 43% for patients that use the Holter. Third, there are very significant inpatient cardiovascular savings (in the tens of thousands of dollars) for patients that undergo ablation, coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) and valve septa. Savings are more modest but nonetheless significant when it comes to the heart/pericardium procedure. CONCLUSION: Given the superior outcome of MCT regarding both patient care and hospital savings, hospitals only stand to gain by enforcing protocols that favor the MCT system over the Event or the Holter monitor.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3862588
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher Dove Medical Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-38625882013-12-18 Benefits of monitoring patients with mobile cardiac telemetry (MCT) compared with the Event or Holter monitors Tsang, Jean-Patrick Mohan, Shunmugam Med Devices (Auckl) Original Research INTRODUCTION: This research is meant to establish if a patient monitored with mobile cardiac telemetry (MCT) sees different outcomes regarding diagnostic yield of arrhythmia, therapeutic management through the use of antiarrhythmic drugs, and cardiovascular costs incurred in the hospital setting when compared with more traditional monitoring devices, such as the Holter or the Event monitor. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis spanning 57 months of claims data from January 2007 to September 2011 pertaining to 200,000+ patients, of whom 14,000 used MCT only, 54,000 an Event monitor only, and 163,000 a Holter monitor only. Those claims came from the Truven database, an employer database that counts 2.8 million cardiovascular patients from an insured population of about 10 million members. We employed a pair-wise pre/post test-control methodology, and ensured that control patients were similar to test patients along the following dimensions: age, geographic location, type of cardiovascular diagnosis both in the inpatient and outpatient settings, and the cardiovascular drug class the patient uses. RESULTS: First, the diagnostic yield of patients monitored with MCT is 61%, that is significantly higher than that of patients that use the Event monitor (23%) or the Holter monitor (24%). Second, patients naive to antiarrhythmic drugs initiate drug therapy after monitoring at the following rates: 61% for patients that use MCT compared with 39% for patients that use the Event and 43% for patients that use the Holter. Third, there are very significant inpatient cardiovascular savings (in the tens of thousands of dollars) for patients that undergo ablation, coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) and valve septa. Savings are more modest but nonetheless significant when it comes to the heart/pericardium procedure. CONCLUSION: Given the superior outcome of MCT regarding both patient care and hospital savings, hospitals only stand to gain by enforcing protocols that favor the MCT system over the Event or the Holter monitor. Dove Medical Press 2013-12-09 /pmc/articles/PMC3862588/ /pubmed/24353449 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/MDER.S54038 Text en © 2014 Tsang and Mohan. This work is published by Dove Medical Press Limited, and licensed under Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License The full terms of the License are available at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed.
spellingShingle Original Research
Tsang, Jean-Patrick
Mohan, Shunmugam
Benefits of monitoring patients with mobile cardiac telemetry (MCT) compared with the Event or Holter monitors
title Benefits of monitoring patients with mobile cardiac telemetry (MCT) compared with the Event or Holter monitors
title_full Benefits of monitoring patients with mobile cardiac telemetry (MCT) compared with the Event or Holter monitors
title_fullStr Benefits of monitoring patients with mobile cardiac telemetry (MCT) compared with the Event or Holter monitors
title_full_unstemmed Benefits of monitoring patients with mobile cardiac telemetry (MCT) compared with the Event or Holter monitors
title_short Benefits of monitoring patients with mobile cardiac telemetry (MCT) compared with the Event or Holter monitors
title_sort benefits of monitoring patients with mobile cardiac telemetry (mct) compared with the event or holter monitors
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3862588/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24353449
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/MDER.S54038
work_keys_str_mv AT tsangjeanpatrick benefitsofmonitoringpatientswithmobilecardiactelemetrymctcomparedwiththeeventorholtermonitors
AT mohanshunmugam benefitsofmonitoringpatientswithmobilecardiactelemetrymctcomparedwiththeeventorholtermonitors