Utility of Telemetry Monitoring in the Inpatient Management of Congestive Heart Failure

Sheila Klassen, Joel Emery, Ameen Patel, Christian Kraeker

Abstract


Background

American Heart Association guidelines recommend telemetry monitoring for all patients admitted with acute heart failure (AHF), due to an increased incidence of arrhythmia.

Hypothesis

Telemetry monitoring is not required in all patients admitted with AHF and does not change management in the majority of patients in which it is used.

Methods

This retrospective chart review included patients admitted with AHF at three tertiary centers. Outcomes of interest included incidence and timing of symptomatic ventricular tachycardia, symptomatic bradycardia, and new atrial fibrillation (AF) on telemetry, incidence of mortality, and change in patient management.

Results

Of the 363 adult patients included, 192 were monitored on telemetry. Previously undiagnosed AF occurred in 6 patients, 3 had symptomatic ventricular tachycardia, 6 had symptomatic bradycardia, 1 had both new AF and symptomatic ventricular tachycardia, and there was 1 arrhythmic death in the monitored group. Telemetry changed management in 5 of these patients. 82% of clinically significant arrhythmias occurred within 48 hours of initiation of telemetry; only one case occurring outside of this time frame caused hypotension.

Conclusions

A blanket approach to telemetry use may not be the most appropriate clinical or cost effective strategy. Telemetry leads to a change in management in a small percentage of cases and its yield decreases substantially beyond 48 hours after admission aside from patients with a separate risk factor for VT such as low EF or prior ventricular arrhythmia. Telemetry is likely not beneficial for monitoring all patients presenting with AHF, however it may have a role in diagnosing new AF, identifying arrhythmia as a cause of AHF, or monitoring for early bradycardia-related drug effects. As health resource stewardship becomes a more prominent issue in the practice environment, clinical judgment must be used to tailor diagnostic tools to individual patient needs.


Full Text:

 Subscribers Only

References


Drew BJ, Califf RM, Funk M, et al. Practice Standards for Electrocardiographic Monitoring in Hospital Settings An American Heart Association Scientific Statement From the Councils on Cardiovascular Nursing, Clinical Cardiology, and Cardiovascular Disease in the Young: Endorsed by the International Society of Computerized Electrocardiology and the American Association of Critical-Care Nurses. Circulation, 2004;110(17): 2721-2746

Lane RE, Cowie MR, Chow AWC. Prediction and Prevention of Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure. Heart. 2005; 91: 674-680

Maggioni AP, Dahlström U, Filippatos G, Chioncel O, Leiro MC, Drozdz J, et al. EURObservational research programme: the heart failure pilot survey (ESC-HF pilot). Eur J Heart Fail. 2010; 12(10): 1076-1084.

Ho KK, Anderson KM, Kannel WB, et al. Survival after the onset of congestive heart failure in Framingham Heart Study subjects. Circulation. 1993;88:107-115.

Deedwania PC, Lardizabal JA. Atrial Fibrillation in Heart Failure: A Comprehensive Review. Am J Med. 2010: 123; 198-204.

Douen AG, Pageau N, Medic S. (2008). Serial Electrocardiographic Assessments Significantly Improve Detection of Atrial Fibrillation 2.6-Fold in Patients with Acute Stroke. Stroke. 2008;39;480-482.

Knight BP, Pelosi F, Michaud GF, Strickberger A, Morady F. Clinical Consequences of Electrocardiographic Artifact Mimicking Ventricular Tachycardia. N Engl J Med. 1999, 341 (17):1270-1274

Bogun F, Anh D, Kalahasty G, et al. Misdiagnosis of atrial fibrillation and its clinical consequences. Am J Med. 2004; 117(9): 636-642.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18103/imr.v0i2.58

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright 2016. All rights reserved.