Martinez Elizabeth A, Kim Lauren J, Faraday Nauder, Rosenfeld Brian, Bass Eric B, Perler Bruce A, Williams G Melville, Dorman Todd, Pronovost Peter J
The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Department of Anesthesiology/Critical Care Medicine, USA.
Crit Care Med. 2003 Sep;31(9):2302-8. doi: 10.1097/01.CCM.0000084857.87446.DD.
To assess the effectiveness of routine intensive care unit surveillance compared with frequent 12-lead electrocardiogram monitoring for detecting electrocardiogram evidence suggestive of prolonged myocardial ischemia in vascular surgery patients.
Prospective cohort trial.
Intensive care unit.
We studied 149 patients undergoing elective infrainguinal or aortic vascular surgery who were admitted to the intensive care unit postoperatively.
Patients were simultaneously monitored with a 10-electrode/12-lead electrocardiogram obtained every 2 mins (criterion standard) and routine intensive care unit surveillance that included standard monitoring (five-electrode/two-lead electrocardiogram with ST segment trends and routine 12-lead electrocardiogram) and clinical assessment for detecting myocardial ischemia. The results of the criterion standard were not available to the caregivers.
We measured the ability of routine intensive care unit surveillance to detect the first 20 mins of electrocardiogram evidence suggestive of myocardial ischemia, defined as ST segment depression or elevation of >/=1 mm in two consecutive leads, during the first postoperative day. Seventeen patients (11%) had electrocardiogram evidence suggestive of prolonged myocardial ischemia, the majority of which occurred in leads V2-V4. The sensitivity of routine intensive care unit surveillance for detecting the first episode of electrocardiogram evidence suggestive of prolonged myocardial ischemia in a patient was 12% (95% confidence interval, 7-17%), and the specificity was 98% (95% confidence interval, 95-100%) with a positive predictive value of 40% (95% confidence interval, 32-48%), a negative predictive value of 90% (95% confidence interval, 85-94%), a positive likelihood ratio of 6, and a negative likelihood ratio of 1. The sensitivity of routine intensive care unit surveillance for detecting all episodes was 3% (95% confidence interval, 2-3%) and the specificity 99% (95% confidence interval, 99-100%) per 20-min monitoring interval, with a positive predictive value of 17% (95% confidence interval, 16-18%), negative predictive value of 95% (95% confidence interval, 95-96%), positive likelihood ratio of 3, and negative likelihood ratio of 1.
Routine intensive care unit surveillance has low sensitivity for detecting electrocardiogram evidence suggestive of prolonged myocardial ischemia compared with frequent 12-lead electrocardiograms. Because detecting electrocardiogram evidence suggestive of prolonged postoperative myocardial ischemia is important, physicians should consider alternative strategies to detect myocardial ischemia.
评估常规重症监护病房监测与频繁的12导联心电图监测相比,在检测血管手术患者中提示心肌缺血延长的心电图证据方面的有效性。
前瞻性队列试验。
重症监护病房。
我们研究了149例接受择期腹股沟下或主动脉血管手术的患者,这些患者术后被收入重症监护病房。
对患者同时进行监测,一种是每2分钟获取一次10电极/12导联心电图(标准对照),另一种是常规重症监护病房监测,包括标准监测(五电极/两导联心电图及ST段趋势和常规12导联心电图)以及用于检测心肌缺血的临床评估。护理人员无法得知标准对照的结果。
我们测量了常规重症监护病房监测在术后第一天检测提示心肌缺血的心电图证据(定义为两个连续导联ST段压低或抬高≥1mm)最初20分钟的能力。17例患者(11%)有提示心肌缺血延长的心电图证据,其中大多数出现在V2 - V4导联。常规重症监护病房监测检测患者中首次出现提示心肌缺血延长的心电图证据的敏感性为12%(95%置信区间,7 - 17%),特异性为98%(95%置信区间,95 - 100%),阳性预测值为40%(95%置信区间,32 - 48%),阴性预测值为90%(95%置信区间,85 - 94%),阳性似然比为6,阴性似然比为1。每20分钟监测间隔,常规重症监护病房监测检测所有发作的敏感性为3%(95%置信区间,2 - 3%),特异性为99%(95%置信区间,99 - 100%),阳性预测值为17%(95%置信区间,16 - 18%),阴性预测值为95%(95%置信区间,95 - 96%),阳性似然比为3,阴性似然比为1。
与频繁的12导联心电图相比,常规重症监护病房监测在检测提示心肌缺血延长的心电图证据方面敏感性较低。由于检测提示术后心肌缺血延长的心电图证据很重要,医生应考虑采用其他策略来检测心肌缺血。