Are the American College of Cardiology/Emergency Cardiac Care (ACC/ECC) guidelines useful in triaging patients to telemetry units?

Evaluation of the appropriateness and outcome of in-hospital telemetry monitoring

The American Heart Association classifies monitored patients into 3 categories. The aims of this study were to (1) investigate how patients are assigned according to the American Heart Association classification, (2) determine the number and type of arrhythmic events experienced by these patients, and (3) describe subsequent changes in management. A prospective observational study design was used. All patients assigned to telemetry during a 3-month period were consecutively enrolled in our study. Data were collected 24/7. Only arrhythmias that might require a change in management were recorded. Monitor watchers at the central monitoring station completed a standard data sheet assessing 64 variables. These data, as well as medical records, were reviewed by the investigator. Overall, 1,194 patients were included. Eighteen percent of the patients were assigned to American Heart Association class I (monitoring indicated), 71% to class II (monitoring may be of benefit), and 11% to class III (monitoring not indicated). The overall arrhythmia event rate was 33%. Forty-three percent of class I patients, 28% of class II patients, and 47% of class III patients experienced arrhythmia events. Change in management occurred in 25% of class I patients, 14% of class II patients, and 29% of class III patients. Although the number of class III indications should have been reduced, nearly 1/2 of class III patients experienced arrhythmia events and 1/3 of them received management changes. This outcome challenges existing guidelines. In conclusion, most patients in this study were monitored appropriately, according to class I and II indications.

Unnecessary arrhythmia monitoring and underutilization of ischemia and QT interval monitoring in current clinical practice: baseline results of the Practical Use of the Latest Standards for Electrocardiography trial

PURPOSE

The purpose of the study was to examine the appropriate use of arrhythmia, ischemia, and QTc interval monitoring in the acute care setting.

METHODS

We analyzed baseline data of the Practical Use of the Latest Standards for Electrocardiography (PULSE) trial, a multisite randomized clinical trial evaluating the effect of implementing electrocardiographic monitoring practice standards. Research nurses reviewed medical records for indications for monitoring and observed if arrhythmia, ischemia, and QT interval monitoring was being done on 1816 patients in 17 hospitals.

RESULTS

Almost all (99%) patients with an indication for arrhythmia monitoring were being monitored, but 85% of patients with no indication were monitored. Of patients with an indication for ischemia monitoring, 35% were being monitored; but 26% with no indication were being monitored for ST-segment changes. Only 21% of patients with an indication for QT interval monitoring had a QTc documented, but 18% of patients with no indication had a QTc documented.

CONCLUSION

Our data show evidence of inappropriate monitoring: undermonitoring for ischemia and QTc prolongation and overmonitoring for all 3 types of monitoring, especially arrhythmia monitoring.