BACKGROUND: Guidelines for the use of telemetry in hospitalized patients have been proposed by the American College of Cardiology (ACC). However, there have been only a few studies which have investigated the usefulness of these guidelines in clinical practice. HYPOTHESIS: This study assessed the role of telemetry in the decision making process outside the critical care units. METHODS: The observational study, lasting 4 weeks, was conducted in the telemetry unit of a tertiary care teaching hospital and included 61 male patients (age range 40-61 years). They had been directly admitted to the telemetry unit or transferred from a critical care unit and were followed for as long as telemetry was active. Indication for telemetry and the contribution of telemetry to management decisions were assessed by a physician not involved in the care of the patient. RESULTS: Cumulative number of telemetry days was 379 with a mean of 6.2 days per patient. Total number of telemetry events was 297. According to the ACC classification, 14 patients (22.9%) had class I indication, 21 patients (34.4%) had class II indication, and 26 patients (42.6%) had class III indication. Telemetry events were seen in 18.2% of class I patients, in 39.7% of class II patients, and in 42.1% of class III patients. Only 12 telemetry events (4%) resulted in patient management, with none belonging to class III. CONCLUSION: Telemetry findings in patients outside the critical care units are not usually responsible for major therapeutic changes. The value of telemetry in such patients may be overrated.
BACKGROUND: Guidelines for the use of telemetry in hospitalized patients have been proposed by the American College of Cardiology (ACC). However, there have been only a few studies which have investigated the usefulness of these guidelines in clinical practice. HYPOTHESIS: This study assessed the role of telemetry in the decision making process outside the critical care units. METHODS: The observational study, lasting 4 weeks, was conducted in the telemetry unit of a tertiary care teaching hospital and included 61 male patients (age range 40-61 years). They had been directly admitted to the telemetry unit or transferred from a critical care unit and were followed for as long as telemetry was active. Indication for telemetry and the contribution of telemetry to management decisions were assessed by a physician not involved in the care of the patient. RESULTS: Cumulative number of telemetry days was 379 with a mean of 6.2 days per patient. Total number of telemetry events was 297. According to the ACC classification, 14 patients (22.9%) had class I indication, 21 patients (34.4%) had class II indication, and 26 patients (42.6%) had class III indication. Telemetry events were seen in 18.2% of class I patients, in 39.7% of class II patients, and in 42.1% of class III patients. Only 12 telemetry events (4%) resulted in patient management, with none belonging to class III. CONCLUSION: Telemetry findings in patients outside the critical care units are not usually responsible for major therapeutic changes. The value of telemetry in such patients may be overrated.