Literature DB >> 21739228

Is telemetry useful in evaluating chest pain patients in an observation unit?

Shamai A Grossman1, Nathan I Shapiro, J Lawrence Mottley, Leon Sanchez, Edward Ullman, Richard E Wolfe.   

Abstract

Since the development of coronary care units (CCUs), telemetry has rapidly become the standard of care in evaluating patients with suspected acute coronary syndromes, regardless of the probability for ischemia. However, there is no data to support this practice. Our objective was to evaluate the utility of routine cardiac monitoring in a chest pain observation unit. We prospectively studied the utility of routine cardiac monitoring in 249 consecutive patients admitted to an observation unit in an academic Emergency Department over a 6-month period. All the patients presented with chest pain thought to be cardiac ischemia. Observation included serial cardiac enzymes, ECG cardiac monitoring, and exercise testing in a designated chest pain observation unit. These patients were determined to be at low risk for an acute coronary event by two criteria: first, the symptoms had resolved by the time of observation unit admission, and second, the initial ECG was normal, unchanged or non-diagnostic for acute ischemia. Adverse outcomes included cardiac arrest, hospital admission secondary to cardiac dysrhythmia, or alteration in the patient's medical therapy upon discharge from the observation unit, secondary to cardiac dysrhythmia. There were 249 patients included with a median age of 52 with 60% women. Fifteen percent of the patients were, subsequently, admitted to the hospital for further evaluation of ischemia based on enzyme, ECG, and exercise testing results. One patient with known Tachy-Brady syndrome was noted to have 1.5-2 s pauses while sleeping, and discharged with instructions to hold beta blocker therapy pending results of a continuous loop recorder. Of the remaining 248 patients, no patient suffered a cardiac arrest, no patient was admitted to the hospital secondary to cardiac dysrhythmia, and no alteration in a patient's medical therapy was made secondary to cardiac dysrhythmia. No patient returned to the Emergency Department within 72 h with cardiac arrest, acute dysrhythmia or acute myocardial infarction. Although telemetry may be the standard of care in evaluating the patients with suspected acute coronary syndromes, regardless of the probability of an acute ischemic syndrome, in those patients with a normal or non diagnostic ECG and resolved symptoms, routine cardiac monitoring is unnecessary.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21739228     DOI: 10.1007/s11739-011-0648-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Intern Emerg Med        ISSN: 1828-0447            Impact factor:   3.397


  10 in total

1.  Continuous electrocardiographic monitoring and cardiac arrest outcomes in 8,932 telemetry ward patients.

Authors:  M J Schull; D A Redelmeier
Journal:  Acad Emerg Med       Date:  2000-06       Impact factor: 3.451

2.  ALARMED: adverse events in low-risk patients with chest pain receiving continuous electrocardiographic monitoring in the emergency department. A pilot study.

Authors:  Clare Atzema; Michael J Schull; Bjug Borgundvaag; Graham R D Slaughter; Cheong K Lee
Journal:  Am J Emerg Med       Date:  2006-01       Impact factor: 2.469

3.  Are monitored telemetry beds necessary for patients with nontraumatic chest pain and normal or nonspecific electrocardiograms?

Authors:  J E Hollander; S M Valentine; C F McCuskey; G X Brogan
Journal:  Am J Cardiol       Date:  1997-04-15       Impact factor: 2.778

4.  It is safe to manage selected patients with acute coronary syndromes in unmonitored beds.

Authors:  A M Kelly; D Kerr
Journal:  J Emerg Med       Date:  2001-10       Impact factor: 1.484

5.  A clinical decision rule to identify which chest pain patients can safely be removed from cardiac monitoring in the emergency department.

Authors:  Mathieu Gatien; Jeffrey J Perry; Ian G Stiell; Andreas Wielgosz; Jacques S Lee
Journal:  Ann Emerg Med       Date:  2007-05-11       Impact factor: 5.721

6.  Outcomes of patients hospitalized to a telemetry unit.

Authors:  C A Estrada; N K Prasad; H S Rosman; M J Young
Journal:  Am J Cardiol       Date:  1994-08-15       Impact factor: 2.778

7.  Lack of utility of telemetry monitoring for identification of cardiac death and life-threatening ventricular dysrhythmias in low-risk patients with chest pain.

Authors:  Judd E Hollander; Frank D Sites; Charles V Pollack; Frances S Shofer
Journal:  Ann Emerg Med       Date:  2004-01       Impact factor: 5.721

Review 8.  When do patients need admission to a telemetry bed?

Authors:  Esther H Chen; Judd E Hollander
Journal:  J Emerg Med       Date:  2007-05-30       Impact factor: 1.484

9.  Prediction of the need for intensive care in patients who come to emergency departments with acute chest pain.

Authors:  L Goldman; E F Cook; P A Johnson; D A Brand; G W Rouan; T H Lee
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1996-06-06       Impact factor: 91.245

10.  Role of telemetry monitoring in the non-intensive care unit.

Authors:  C A Estrada; H S Rosman; N K Prasad; G Battilana; M Alexander; A C Held; M J Young
Journal:  Am J Cardiol       Date:  1995-11-01       Impact factor: 2.778

  10 in total
  2 in total

1.  Over-monitoring and alarm fatigue: for whom do the bells toll?

Authors:  Shelli Feder; Marjorie Funk
Journal:  Heart Lung       Date:  2013 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 2.210

2.  Received care compared to ADP-guided care of patients admitted to hospital with chest pain of possible cardiac origin.

Authors:  Michael Perera; Leena Aggarwal; Ian A Scott; Bentley Logan
Journal:  Int J Gen Med       Date:  2018-09-03
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.