Comparison of arrhythmia computer and conventional monitoring in coronary-care unit.

Conventional methods of monitoring arrhythmias impose heavy demands on staff and are unreliable. On-line arrhythmia computers have been developed to overcome these problems, but there has been no critical evaluation of the functioning of such a system in a clinical setting. A comparison was made of the efficacy of two methods of monitoring in detecting arrhythmias in sixty-four patients in a coronary-care unit. Half the patients were monitored by a commercially available arrhythmia computer; the other half were monitored by conventional means with a rate-triggered alarm system. More than 99 percent of episodes of potentially serious ventricular arrhythmias were detected by the computer; 95 percent of patients with these arrhythmias were treated immediately. In those monitored by conventional means, a large proporation of such arrhythmias were unrecognised: only 17 percent of affected patients received immediate antiarrhythmic therapy. In 30 percent, treatment was delayed for several hours, and none was given in 52 percent. False alarms occurred with both systems but were more readily recognised as such in the computer-monitored patients. It is concluded that an arrhythmia computer improves the standards of arrhythmia detection, leads to quicker institution of treatment, and diminishes the demand on skilled staff.