BACKGROUND: Cardiac rhythm monitoring is widely applied on hospitalized patients. However, its value has not been evaluated systematically. METHODS: This study considered the utility of our institutional telemetry guidelines in predicting clinically significant arrhythmias. A retrospective analysis was performed of 562 patients admitted to the telemetry unit. A total of 1932 monitoring days were evaluated. Patients were divided into 2 groups based on telemetry guidelines: "telemetry indicated" and "telemetry not indicated". RESULTS: Differences in arrhythmia event rates and pre-defined clinical significance were determined. One hundred and forty-four (34%) vs. 16 (11%) patients had at least one arrhythmic event in the "telemetry indicated" group compared with the "telemetry not indicated" group, respectively (P = 0.001). No patient in the "telemetry not indicated" group had a clinically significant arrhythmia. In contrast, of patients in the "telemetry indicated" group who had at least one arrhythmic event, 36% were considered clinically significant (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: In conclusion, this study validates and supports the use of our institutional telemetry guidelines to allocate this resource appropriately and predict clinically significant arrhythmias.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
A 2012 study studied this question.