Literature DB >> 8059698

Outcomes of patients hospitalized to a telemetry unit.

C A Estrada1, N K Prasad, H S Rosman, M J Young.   

Abstract

To describe the clinical course of patients admitted to a nonintensive care telemetry unit and to determine whether telemetry identifies patients at risk for transfer to the intensive care unit (ICU), 467 patients hospitalized for cardiac monitoring in a nonintensive care telemetry unit were followed until death or discharge. The American College of Cardiology guidelines for telemetry use were applied: 65% of patients were class I (monitoring definitely indicated); 33% class II (probably indicated); and 2% class III (not indicated). In 5 patients (1%), telemetry contributed to the decision for a transfer to the ICU. In 462 patients, telemetry added no significant information. Thirty-eight patients (8.1%) were transferred to an ICU: 22 because of cardiac deterioration and 16 because of noncardiac clinical deterioration. Eighteen percent of patients in class I (95% confidence interval [CI], 14.1 to 22.8), 12% in class II (95% CI, 6.7 to 17), and none in class III (95% CI, 0 to 26) were transferred to the ICU (p = 0.03). Nine patients died (1.9%), 4 with terminal illness. Three patients died while on telemetry: 1 had metastatic lung cancer and 2 died suddenly of cardiac causes during initial evaluation on the ward. Telemetry identified the terminal rhythm in the 3 patients. Patients admitted to a non-ICU monitored ward with ischemic syndromes, heart failure, and arrhythmia rarely deteriorated. Patients who did deteriorate were recognized clinically without appreciable contribution from the monitoring process. It remains unproven that heart rhythm monitoring in general practice units improves patient care.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1994        PMID: 8059698     DOI: 10.1016/0002-9149(94)90403-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Cardiol        ISSN: 0002-9149            Impact factor:   2.778


  6 in total

1.  Evaluation of guidelines for the use of telemetry in the non-intensive-care setting.

Authors:  C A Estrada; H S Rosman; N K Prasad; G Battilana; M Alexander; A C Held; M J Young
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2000-01       Impact factor: 5.128

Review 2.  [Telemetry in the clinical setting].

Authors:  Thomas Hilbel; Thomas M Helms; Gerd Mikus; Hugo A Katus; Christian Zugck
Journal:  Herzschrittmacherther Elektrophysiol       Date:  2008-10-25

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

Authors:  Shamai A Grossman; Nathan I Shapiro; J Lawrence Mottley; Leon Sanchez; Edward Ullman; Richard E Wolfe
Journal:  Intern Emerg Med       Date:  2011-07-08       Impact factor: 3.397

4.  Cost-effectiveness of telemetry for hospitalized patients with low-risk chest pain.

Authors:  Michael J Ward; Mark H Eckman; Daniel P Schauer; Ali S Raja; Sean Collins
Journal:  Acad Emerg Med       Date:  2011-03       Impact factor: 3.451

5.  Chemotherapy and QT Prolongation: Overview With Clinical Perspective.

Authors:  Peter Y Kim; Michael S Ewer
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Cardiovasc Med       Date:  2014-05

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

Authors:  Sandeep K Dhillon; Baruch Goldstein; Dayana Eslava-Manchego; Jagdeep Singh; Sam Hanon; Paul Schweitzer; Steven R Bergmann
Journal:  Cardiol Res       Date:  2012-01-20
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.