Harris Patricia R, Zègre-Hemsey Jessica K, Schindler Daniel, Bai Yong, Pelter Michele M, Hu Xiao
Department of Nursing, School of Health and Natural Sciences, Dominican University of California, San Rafael.
Department of Physiological Nursing, School of Nursing, University of California, San Francisco, CA.
Ther Clin Risk Manag. 2017 Apr 19;13:499-513. doi: 10.2147/TCRM.S126191. eCollection 2017.
A high rate of false arrhythmia alarms in the intensive care unit (ICU) leads to alarm fatigue, the condition of desensitization and potentially inappropriate silencing of alarms due to frequent invalid and nonactionable alarms, often referred to as false alarms.
The aim of this study was to identify patient characteristics, such as gender, age, body mass index, and diagnosis associated with frequent false arrhythmia alarms in the ICU.
This descriptive, observational study prospectively enrolled patients who were consecutively admitted to one of five adult ICUs (77 beds) at an urban medical center over a period of 31 days in 2013. All monitor alarms and continuous waveforms were stored on a secure server. Nurse scientists with expertise in cardiac monitoring used a standardized protocol to annotate six clinically important types of arrhythmia alarms (asystole, pause, ventricular fibrillation, ventricular tachycardia, accelerated ventricular rhythm, and ventricular bradycardia) as true or false. Total monitoring time for each patient was measured, and the number of false alarms per hour was calculated for these six alarm types. Medical records were examined to acquire data on patient characteristics.
A total of 461 unique patients (mean age =60±17 years) were enrolled, generating a total of 2,558,760 alarms, including all levels of arrhythmia, parameter, and technical alarms. There were 48,404 hours of patient monitoring time, and an average overall alarm rate of 52 alarms/hour. Investigators annotated 12,671 arrhythmia alarms; 11,345 (89.5%) were determined to be false. Two hundred and fifty patients (54%) generated at least one of the six annotated alarm types. Two patients generated 6,940 arrhythmia alarms (55%). The number of false alarms per monitored hour for patients' annotated arrhythmia alarms ranged from 0.0 to 7.7, and the duration of these false alarms per hour ranged from 0.0 to 158.8 seconds. Patient characteristics were compared in relation to 1) the number and 2) the duration of false arrhythmia alarms per 24-hour period, using nonparametric statistics to minimize the influence of outliers. Among the significant associations were the following: age ≥60 years (=0.013; =0.034), confused mental status (<0.001 for both comparisons), cardiovascular diagnoses (<0.001 for both comparisons), electrocardiographic (ECG) features, such as wide ECG waveforms that correspond to ventricular depolarization known as QRS complex due to bundle branch block (BBB) (=0.003; =0.004) or ventricular paced rhythm (=0.002 for both comparisons), respiratory diagnoses (=0.004 for both comparisons), and support with mechanical ventilation, including those with primary diagnoses other than respiratory ones (<0.001 for both comparisons).
Patients likely to trigger a higher number of false arrhythmia alarms may be those with older age, confusion, cardiovascular diagnoses, and ECG features that indicate BBB or ventricular pacing, respiratory diagnoses, and mechanical ventilatory support. Algorithm improvements could focus on better noise reduction (eg, motion artifact with confused state) and distinguishing BBB and paced rhythms from ventricular arrhythmias. Increasing awareness of patient conditions that apparently trigger a higher rate of false arrhythmia alarms may be useful for reducing unnecessary noise and improving alarm management.
重症监护病房(ICU)中较高的心律失常误报警率会导致警报疲劳,即由于频繁出现无效且不可采取行动的警报(通常称为误报)而产生的脱敏状态以及可能不适当的警报静音情况。
本研究的目的是确定与ICU中频繁出现的心律失常误报相关的患者特征,如性别、年龄、体重指数和诊断情况。
这项描述性观察性研究前瞻性纳入了2013年在一家城市医疗中心的五个成人ICU(共77张床位)之一连续住院31天的患者。所有监测警报和连续波形都存储在一个安全的服务器上。具有心脏监测专业知识的护士科学家使用标准化方案将六种临床上重要的心律失常警报类型(心脏停搏、停搏、心室颤动、室性心动过速、加速性室性心律和室性心动过缓)标注为真或假。测量每位患者的总监测时间,并计算这六种警报类型每小时的误报数量。检查病历以获取患者特征数据。
共纳入461例不同患者(平均年龄=60±17岁),产生了总共2,558,760次警报,包括所有级别的心律失常、参数和技术警报。患者监测时间共48,404小时,平均总体警报率为每小时52次警报。研究人员标注了12,671次心律失常警报;其中11,345次(89.5%)被确定为误报。250例患者(54%)产生了六种标注警报类型中的至少一种。两名患者产生了6,940次心律失常警报(占55%)。患者标注的心律失常警报每监测小时的误报数量范围为0.0至7.7,这些误报每小时的持续时间范围为0.0至158.8秒。使用非参数统计来尽量减少异常值的影响,比较了患者特征与1)每24小时的误报数量和2)误报持续时间的关系。显著关联包括:年龄≥60岁(=0.013;=0.034)、精神状态混乱(两项比较均<0.001)、心血管诊断(两项比较均<0.001)、心电图(ECG)特征,例如由于束支传导阻滞(BBB)导致的与心室去极化对应的宽ECG波形,即QRS波群(=0.003;=0.004)或心室起搏心律(两项比较均=0.002)、呼吸诊断(两项比较均=0.004)以及机械通气支持,包括那些主要诊断不是呼吸系统疾病的患者(两项比较均<0.001)。
可能触发更多心律失常误报的患者可能是年龄较大、精神混乱、有心血管诊断以及具有提示BBB或心室起搏的ECG特征、呼吸诊断和机械通气支持的患者。算法改进可以侧重于更好地降噪(例如,针对混乱状态下的运动伪影)以及区分BBB和起搏心律与室性心律失常。提高对明显触发较高心律失常误报率的患者状况的认识可能有助于减少不必要的噪音并改善警报管理。