遥测指南在预测住院患者临床显著心律失常方面的有效性。

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

作者信息

Dhillon Sandeep K, Goldstein Baruch, Eslava-Manchego Dayana, Singh Jagdeep, Hanon Sam, Schweitzer Paul, Bergmann Steven R

机构信息

Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, University Hospital and Manhattan Campus for the Albert Einstein College of Medicine-Beth Israel Medical Center, New York, USA.

出版信息

Cardiol Res. 2012 Feb;3(1):16-22. doi: 10.4021/cr129w. Epub 2012 Jan 20.

DOI:10.4021/cr129w

PMID:28357019

原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5358291/

Abstract

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.

摘要

背景

心律监测广泛应用于住院患者。然而，其价值尚未得到系统评估。

方法

本研究探讨了我院遥测指南在预测具有临床意义的心律失常方面的效用。对入住遥测病房的562例患者进行了回顾性分析。共评估了1932个监测日。根据遥测指南将患者分为两组：“需遥测”组和“无需遥测”组。

结果

确定了心律失常事件发生率和预定义临床意义的差异。“需遥测”组与“无需遥测”组分别有144例（34%）和16例（11%）患者至少发生一次心律失常事件（P = 0.001）。“无需遥测”组中没有患者发生具有临床意义的心律失常。相比之下，在“需遥测”组中至少发生一次心律失常事件的患者中，36%被认为具有临床意义（P < 0.05）。