ALARMED: adverse events in low-risk patients with chest pain receiving continuous electrocardiographic monitoring in the emergency department. A pilot study.

OBJECTIVES Current guidelines suggest that most patients who present to an emergency department (ED) with chest pain should be placed on a continuous electrocardiographic monitoring (CEM) device. We evaluated the utility of CEM in ED patients with chest pain. METHODS We enrolled stable patients who presented to a single ED with chest pain suspected to be ischemic in origin and who were placed on CEM. Patients were classified according to risk of poor outcome using 3 published stratification tools. Trained observers prospectively recorded number of monitored hours, alarms, changes in management, and monitor-detected adverse events (AEs). The primary outcome measure was the rate of AEs detected by CEM. Secondary outcome measures were the rate of alarms that resulted in a change in management and number of false alarms. RESULTS We enrolled 72 patients, 56% of whom were categorized as very low-risk by Goldman risk criteria. During 371 monitored hours, we recorded 1762 alarms or 4.7 alarms per monitored hour. There were 11 AEs (0.68%; 95% CI, 0.35%-1.2%), 3 of which resulted in a change in management (0.2%; 95% CI, 0.04%-0.5%). Seven AEs were bradydysrhythmias with a heart rate of 45 or higher; the eighth patient had no change in symptoms and was given atropine for a heart rate of 32. The other 3 AEs were an untreated supraventricular tachycardia, a brief sinus pause that triggered a rate change in intravenous nitroglycerin by the patient's nurse, and a run of premature ventricular contractions after which heparin was administered. None of the 3 patients with a change in management was categorized as the lowest-risk. CONCLUSIONS Routine CEM in low-risk ED patients with chest pain results in an excessive number of alarms, most of which require no change in management. In these patients, the benefit of CEM may be limited, and given that 99.4% of alarms were false, current CEM technology needs to be improved.

[1]  R. Califf,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 , 2004, Circulation.

[2]  J. Singer,et al.  Safety and efficiency of emergency department assessment of chest discomfort , 2004, Canadian Medical Association Journal.

[3]  Donald A Redelmeier,et al.  Emergency department overcrowding and ambulance transport delays for patients with chest pain. , 2003, CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne.

[4]  R. Kravitz,et al.  Frequent overcrowding in U.S. emergency departments. , 2001, Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.

[5]  F. Fesmire,et al.  Usefulness of automated serial 12-lead ECG monitoring during the initial emergency department evaluation of patients with chest pain. , 1998, Annals of emergency medicine.

[6]  P. Zoll,et al.  Termination of ventricular fibrillation in man by externally applied electric countershock. , 1956, The New England journal of medicine.

[7]  R. Mcnutt,et al.  Emergency department admissions to inpatient cardiac telemetry beds: a prospective cohort study of risk stratification and outcomes. , 2001, The American journal of medicine.

[8]  D A Redelmeier,et al.  Emergency department overcrowding following systematic hospital restructuring: trends at twenty hospitals over ten years. , 2001, Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.

[9]  D. Fitchett,et al.  New advances in the management of acute coronary syndromes: 1. Matching treatment to risk. , 2001, CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne.

[10]  E. Antman,et al.  The TIMI risk score for unstable angina/non-ST elevation MI: A method for prognostication and therapeutic decision making. , 2000, JAMA.

[11]  J. Hollander,et al.  Are monitored telemetry beds necessary for patients with nontraumatic chest pain and normal or nonspecific electrocardiograms? , 1997, The American journal of cardiology.

[12]  Robert Woolard,et al.  Missed Diagnoses of Acute Cardiac Ischemia in the Emergency Department , 2000 .

[13]  E F Cook,et al.  Prediction of the need for intensive care in patients who come to emergency departments with acute chest pain. , 1996, The New England journal of medicine.

[14]  J. Hollander,et al.  Lack of utility of telemetry monitoring for identification of cardiac death and life-threatening ventricular dysrhythmias in low-risk patients with chest pain. , 2004, Annals of emergency medicine.

[15]  D. Julian,et al.  DISTURBANCES OF RATE, RHYTHM AND CONDUCTION IN ACUTE MYOCARDIAL INFARCTION: A PROSPECTIVE STUDY OF 100 CONSECUTIVE UNSELECTED PATIENTS WITH THE AID OF ELECTROCARDIOGRAPHIC MONITORING. , 1964, The American journal of medicine.

[16]  M. Young,et al.  Role of telemetry monitoring in the non-intensive care unit. , 1995, The American journal of cardiology.

[17]  J. Spann,et al.  ARRHYTHMIAS IN ACUTE MYOCARDIAL INFARCTION; A STUDY UTILIZING AN ELECTROCARDIOGRAPHIC MONITOR FOR AUTOMATIC DETECTION AND RECORDING OF ARRHYTHMIAS. , 1964, The New England journal of medicine.