Why the study?
Does the clinical indication for 24-hour ambulatory electrocardiographic monitoring determine its cost-effectiveness and likelihood of altering patient management?
Does the clinical indication for 24-hour ambulatory electrocardiographic monitoring determine its cost-effectiveness and likelihood of altering patient management?
The clinical utility and cost-effectiveness of 24-hour ambulatory ECG monitoring are highly dependent on the specific clinical indication, with the highest yield seen in evaluating existing arrhythmia therapy.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Indication-specific ambulatory ECG monitoring may enhance yield; leaves open whether targeted strategies improve cost-effectiveness prospectively.
BACKGROUND: This study evaluated the current clinical use and costs of ambulatory electrocardiographic (AECG) monitoring for arrhythmia detection based on a cost per management decision analysis. METHODS: Consecutive inpatient and outpatient 24-hour AECGs (n = 650) performed during the calendar year 1991 were retrospectively reviewed for clinical indication, arrhythmia detection, diary information, and whether a management decision that might alter patient outcome was derived from the data. The cost per management decision (based on a representative reimbursement of $550 per AECG) and the cost index (CI) (all tests divided by useful tests) were calculated. RESULTS: Although arrhythmias were identified in 91% of the patients, management decisions were indicated in only 18% (cost per decision, $2974; CI = 5.4). Management decisions were most often derived from the data in patients being evaluated for arrhythmia therapy (37 of 37 patients; cost per decision, $550; CI = 1). Symptoms and arrhythmias were correlated in only 11 patients (2%). More often typical clinical symptoms were present (26 patients) in the absence of an arrhythmia. Of 101 AECGs following a cerebrovascular event, four had unsuspected atrial fibrillation (cost per decision, $13,888; CI = 25.0). Dizziness or lightheadedness associated with other cardiac symptoms was more likely to lead to a management decision than the same symptoms in isolation (29% vs 7%; P < .05). No patient had central nervous system symptoms correlated with an arrhythmia during the recording period or unsuspected ventricular tachycardia. CONCLUSION: Ambulatory electrocardiography has a highly variable and indication-dependent effectiveness and cost. The results suggest a strategy for improving the use of AECG based on knowing what testing indications are more likely to lead to useful clinical information.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Danielle K. Kessler (1995) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: