Journal of General Internal Medicine

, Volume 15, Issue 1, pp 51–55

Evaluation of guidelines for the use of telemetry in the non-intensive-care setting

  • Carlos A. Estrada
  • Howard S. Rosman
  • Niraj K. Prasad
  • Guido Battilana
  • Myrna Alexander
  • Arthur C. Held
  • Mark J. Young
Brief Reports

Abstract

To determine if the American College of Cardiology (ACC) cardiac monitoring guidelines accurately stratify patients according to their risks for developing clinically significant arrhythmias in non-intensive-care settings, we conducted a prospective cohort study of 2,240 consecutive patients admitted to a non-intensive-care telemetry unit over 7 months. Sixty-one percent of patients were assigned to ACC class I (telemetry indicated in most patients), 38% to class II (telemetry indicated in some), and 1% to class III (telemetry not indicated). Arrhythmias were detected in 13.5% of the class I patients, 40.7% of the class II patients, and 12% of the class III patients (p<.001). Telemetry detected an arrhythmia resulting in transfer to an intensive care unit in 0.4% of the class I patients, 1.6% of the class II patients, and none of the class III patients (p=.006). Telemetry led to a change in management for 3.4% of the class I patients, 12.7% of the class II patients, and 4% of the class III patients (p<.001). When patients with chest pain as the reason for admission were moved from class I to class II and patients with arrhythmias as the reason for admission were moved from class II to class I, more arrhythmias and more clinically significant arrhythmias occurred in class I patients and the trends from class I to class III were more consistent with the purpose of the guidelines. These findings indicate that when the ACC guidelines are reexamined, consideration should be given to changing them so they are more useful in non-intensive-care settings.

Key Words

hospital units ambulatory monitoring telemetry arrhythmia practice guidelines 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Emergency Cardiac Care Committee members. Recommended guidelines for in-hospital cardiac monitoring of adults for detection of arrhythmia. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1991;18:1431–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Estrada CA, Prasad NK, Rosman HS, Young MJ. Outcomes of patients hospitalized to a telemetry unit. Am J Cardiol. 1994;74:357–62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Estrada CA, Rosman HS, Prasad NK, et al. Role of telemetry monitoring in the non-intensive care unit. Am J Cardiol. 1995;76:960–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Armitage P, Berry G. Statistical Methods in Medical Research. 3rd ed. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Scientific Publications; 1994:402–7.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Goldman L, Cook EF, Johnson PA, Brand DA, Rouan GW, Lee TH. Prediction of the need for intensive care in patients who come to the emergency departments with acute chest pain. N Engl J Med. 1996;334:1498–504.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lipskis DJ, Dannehl KN, Silverman ME. Value of radiotelemetry in a community hospital. Am J Cardiol. 1984;53:1284–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of General Internal Medicine 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carlos A. Estrada
    • 1
  • Howard S. Rosman
    • 1
  • Niraj K. Prasad
    • 1
  • Guido Battilana
    • 1
  • Myrna Alexander
    • 1
  • Arthur C. Held
    • 1
  • Mark J. Young
    • 1
  1. 1.Received from the Henry Ford HospitalDetroit
  2. 2.East Carolina University School of MedicineGreenville

Personalised recommendations