Cargando…

Safety and efficiency of emergency department interrogation of cardiac devices

OBJECTIVE: Patients with implanted cardiac devices may wait extended periods for interrogation in emergency departments (EDs). Our purpose was to determine if device interrogation could be done safely and faster by ED staff. METHODS: Prospective randomized, standard therapy controlled, trial of ED s...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Neuenschwander, James F., Peacock, W. Frank, Migeed, Madgy, Hunter, Sara A., Daughtery, John C., McCleese, Ian C., Hiestand, Brian C.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: The Korean Society of Emergency Medicine 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5292301/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28168230
http://dx.doi.org/10.15441/ceem.15.118
_version_ 1782504899118891008
author Neuenschwander, James F.
Peacock, W. Frank
Migeed, Madgy
Hunter, Sara A.
Daughtery, John C.
McCleese, Ian C.
Hiestand, Brian C.
author_facet Neuenschwander, James F.
Peacock, W. Frank
Migeed, Madgy
Hunter, Sara A.
Daughtery, John C.
McCleese, Ian C.
Hiestand, Brian C.
author_sort Neuenschwander, James F.
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: Patients with implanted cardiac devices may wait extended periods for interrogation in emergency departments (EDs). Our purpose was to determine if device interrogation could be done safely and faster by ED staff. METHODS: Prospective randomized, standard therapy controlled, trial of ED staff device interrogation vs. standard process (SP), with 30-day follow-up. Eligibility criteria: ED presentation with a self-report of a potential device related complaint, with signed informed consent. SP interrogation was by company representative or hospital employee. RESULTS: Of 60 patients, 42 (70%) were male, all were white, with a median (interquartile range) age of 71 (64 to 82) years. No patient was lost to follow up. Of all patients, 32 (53%) were enrolled during business hours. The overall median (interquartile range) ED vs. SP time to interrogation was 98.5 (40 to 260) vs. 166.5 (64 to 412) minutes (P=0.013). While ED and SP interrogation times were similar during business hours, 102 (59 to 138) vs. 105 (64 to 172) minutes (P=0.62), ED interrogation times were shorter vs. SP during non-business hours; 97 (60 to 126) vs. 225 (144 to 412) minutes, P=0.002, respectively. There was no difference in ED length of stay between the ED and SP interrogation, 249 (153 to 390) vs. 246 (143 to 333) minutes (P=0.71), regardless of time of presentation. No patient in any cohort suffered an unplanned medical contact or post-discharge adverse device related event. CONCLUSION: ED staff cardiac device interrogations are faster, and with similar 30-day outcomes, as compared to SP.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5292301
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher The Korean Society of Emergency Medicine
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-52923012017-02-06 Safety and efficiency of emergency department interrogation of cardiac devices Neuenschwander, James F. Peacock, W. Frank Migeed, Madgy Hunter, Sara A. Daughtery, John C. McCleese, Ian C. Hiestand, Brian C. Clin Exp Emerg Med Original Article OBJECTIVE: Patients with implanted cardiac devices may wait extended periods for interrogation in emergency departments (EDs). Our purpose was to determine if device interrogation could be done safely and faster by ED staff. METHODS: Prospective randomized, standard therapy controlled, trial of ED staff device interrogation vs. standard process (SP), with 30-day follow-up. Eligibility criteria: ED presentation with a self-report of a potential device related complaint, with signed informed consent. SP interrogation was by company representative or hospital employee. RESULTS: Of 60 patients, 42 (70%) were male, all were white, with a median (interquartile range) age of 71 (64 to 82) years. No patient was lost to follow up. Of all patients, 32 (53%) were enrolled during business hours. The overall median (interquartile range) ED vs. SP time to interrogation was 98.5 (40 to 260) vs. 166.5 (64 to 412) minutes (P=0.013). While ED and SP interrogation times were similar during business hours, 102 (59 to 138) vs. 105 (64 to 172) minutes (P=0.62), ED interrogation times were shorter vs. SP during non-business hours; 97 (60 to 126) vs. 225 (144 to 412) minutes, P=0.002, respectively. There was no difference in ED length of stay between the ED and SP interrogation, 249 (153 to 390) vs. 246 (143 to 333) minutes (P=0.71), regardless of time of presentation. No patient in any cohort suffered an unplanned medical contact or post-discharge adverse device related event. CONCLUSION: ED staff cardiac device interrogations are faster, and with similar 30-day outcomes, as compared to SP. The Korean Society of Emergency Medicine 2016-12-30 /pmc/articles/PMC5292301/ /pubmed/28168230 http://dx.doi.org/10.15441/ceem.15.118 Text en Copyright © 2016 The Korean Society of Emergency Medicine This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/).
spellingShingle Original Article
Neuenschwander, James F.
Peacock, W. Frank
Migeed, Madgy
Hunter, Sara A.
Daughtery, John C.
McCleese, Ian C.
Hiestand, Brian C.
Safety and efficiency of emergency department interrogation of cardiac devices
title Safety and efficiency of emergency department interrogation of cardiac devices
title_full Safety and efficiency of emergency department interrogation of cardiac devices
title_fullStr Safety and efficiency of emergency department interrogation of cardiac devices
title_full_unstemmed Safety and efficiency of emergency department interrogation of cardiac devices
title_short Safety and efficiency of emergency department interrogation of cardiac devices
title_sort safety and efficiency of emergency department interrogation of cardiac devices
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5292301/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28168230
http://dx.doi.org/10.15441/ceem.15.118
work_keys_str_mv AT neuenschwanderjamesf safetyandefficiencyofemergencydepartmentinterrogationofcardiacdevices
AT peacockwfrank safetyandefficiencyofemergencydepartmentinterrogationofcardiacdevices
AT migeedmadgy safetyandefficiencyofemergencydepartmentinterrogationofcardiacdevices
AT huntersaraa safetyandefficiencyofemergencydepartmentinterrogationofcardiacdevices
AT daughteryjohnc safetyandefficiencyofemergencydepartmentinterrogationofcardiacdevices
AT mccleeseianc safetyandefficiencyofemergencydepartmentinterrogationofcardiacdevices
AT hiestandbrianc safetyandefficiencyofemergencydepartmentinterrogationofcardiacdevices