Cargando…

Effectiveness of Telemetry Guidelines in Predicting Clinically Significant Arrhythmias in Hospitalized Patients

BACKGROUND: Cardiac rhythm monitoring is widely applied on hospitalized patients. However, its value has not been evaluated systematically. METHODS: This study considered the utility of our institutional telemetry guidelines in predicting clinically significant arrhythmias. A retrospective analysis...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Dhillon, Sandeep K., JosephTawil, Goldstein, Baruch, Eslava-Manchego, Dayana, Singh, Jagdeep, Hanon, Sam, Schweitzer, Paul, Bergmann, Steven R.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elmer Press 2012
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5358291/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28357019
http://dx.doi.org/10.4021/cr129w
_version_ 1782516208518561792
author Dhillon, Sandeep K.
JosephTawil,
Goldstein, Baruch
Eslava-Manchego, Dayana
Singh, Jagdeep
Hanon, Sam
Schweitzer, Paul
Bergmann, Steven R.
author_facet Dhillon, Sandeep K.
JosephTawil,
Goldstein, Baruch
Eslava-Manchego, Dayana
Singh, Jagdeep
Hanon, Sam
Schweitzer, Paul
Bergmann, Steven R.
author_sort Dhillon, Sandeep K.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Cardiac rhythm monitoring is widely applied on hospitalized patients. However, its value has not been evaluated systematically. METHODS: This study considered the utility of our institutional telemetry guidelines in predicting clinically significant arrhythmias. A retrospective analysis was performed of 562 patients admitted to the telemetry unit. A total of 1932 monitoring days were evaluated. Patients were divided into 2 groups based on telemetry guidelines: “telemetry indicated” and “telemetry not indicated”. RESULTS: Differences in arrhythmia event rates and pre-defined clinical significance were determined. One hundred and forty-four (34%) vs. 16 (11%) patients had at least one arrhythmic event in the “telemetry indicated” group compared with the “telemetry not indicated” group, respectively (P = 0.001). No patient in the “telemetry not indicated” group had a clinically significant arrhythmia. In contrast, of patients in the “telemetry indicated” group who had at least one arrhythmic event, 36% were considered clinically significant (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: In conclusion, this study validates and supports the use of our institutional telemetry guidelines to allocate this resource appropriately and predict clinically significant arrhythmias.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5358291
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2012
publisher Elmer Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-53582912017-03-29 Effectiveness of Telemetry Guidelines in Predicting Clinically Significant Arrhythmias in Hospitalized Patients Dhillon, Sandeep K. JosephTawil, Goldstein, Baruch Eslava-Manchego, Dayana Singh, Jagdeep Hanon, Sam Schweitzer, Paul Bergmann, Steven R. Cardiol Res Original Article BACKGROUND: Cardiac rhythm monitoring is widely applied on hospitalized patients. However, its value has not been evaluated systematically. METHODS: This study considered the utility of our institutional telemetry guidelines in predicting clinically significant arrhythmias. A retrospective analysis was performed of 562 patients admitted to the telemetry unit. A total of 1932 monitoring days were evaluated. Patients were divided into 2 groups based on telemetry guidelines: “telemetry indicated” and “telemetry not indicated”. RESULTS: Differences in arrhythmia event rates and pre-defined clinical significance were determined. One hundred and forty-four (34%) vs. 16 (11%) patients had at least one arrhythmic event in the “telemetry indicated” group compared with the “telemetry not indicated” group, respectively (P = 0.001). No patient in the “telemetry not indicated” group had a clinically significant arrhythmia. In contrast, of patients in the “telemetry indicated” group who had at least one arrhythmic event, 36% were considered clinically significant (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: In conclusion, this study validates and supports the use of our institutional telemetry guidelines to allocate this resource appropriately and predict clinically significant arrhythmias. Elmer Press 2012-02 2012-01-20 /pmc/articles/PMC5358291/ /pubmed/28357019 http://dx.doi.org/10.4021/cr129w Text en Copyright 2012, Dhillon et al. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Article
Dhillon, Sandeep K.
JosephTawil,
Goldstein, Baruch
Eslava-Manchego, Dayana
Singh, Jagdeep
Hanon, Sam
Schweitzer, Paul
Bergmann, Steven R.
Effectiveness of Telemetry Guidelines in Predicting Clinically Significant Arrhythmias in Hospitalized Patients
title Effectiveness of Telemetry Guidelines in Predicting Clinically Significant Arrhythmias in Hospitalized Patients
title_full Effectiveness of Telemetry Guidelines in Predicting Clinically Significant Arrhythmias in Hospitalized Patients
title_fullStr Effectiveness of Telemetry Guidelines in Predicting Clinically Significant Arrhythmias in Hospitalized Patients
title_full_unstemmed Effectiveness of Telemetry Guidelines in Predicting Clinically Significant Arrhythmias in Hospitalized Patients
title_short Effectiveness of Telemetry Guidelines in Predicting Clinically Significant Arrhythmias in Hospitalized Patients
title_sort effectiveness of telemetry guidelines in predicting clinically significant arrhythmias in hospitalized patients
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5358291/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28357019
http://dx.doi.org/10.4021/cr129w
work_keys_str_mv AT dhillonsandeepk effectivenessoftelemetryguidelinesinpredictingclinicallysignificantarrhythmiasinhospitalizedpatients
AT josephtawil effectivenessoftelemetryguidelinesinpredictingclinicallysignificantarrhythmiasinhospitalizedpatients
AT goldsteinbaruch effectivenessoftelemetryguidelinesinpredictingclinicallysignificantarrhythmiasinhospitalizedpatients
AT eslavamanchegodayana effectivenessoftelemetryguidelinesinpredictingclinicallysignificantarrhythmiasinhospitalizedpatients
AT singhjagdeep effectivenessoftelemetryguidelinesinpredictingclinicallysignificantarrhythmiasinhospitalizedpatients
AT hanonsam effectivenessoftelemetryguidelinesinpredictingclinicallysignificantarrhythmiasinhospitalizedpatients
AT schweitzerpaul effectivenessoftelemetryguidelinesinpredictingclinicallysignificantarrhythmiasinhospitalizedpatients
AT bergmannstevenr effectivenessoftelemetryguidelinesinpredictingclinicallysignificantarrhythmiasinhospitalizedpatients