HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:
Guest Access | Sign In via User Name/Password

This Article Full Text Free Full Text (PDF) Free Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to My Personal Article Archive Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (9) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Snider, A. Articles by Fein, A. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Snider, A. Articles by Fein, A.

Is Telemetry Monitoring Necessary in Low-Risk Suspected Acute Chest Pain Syndromes?^*

^* From the Center for Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, North Shore University Hospital, Manhasset, NY.

Correspondence to: Alan M. Fein, MD, FCCP, North Shore University Hospital, 300 Community Dr, Manhasset, NY 11030; e-mail: afein{at}nshs.edu

Background: Non-ICU telemetry monitoring has proven to be a valuable resource for patients suspected of having an acute myocardial infarction. While a significant number of patients are admitted to these units, the actual incidence of events or interventions is low.

Objective: To identify a subset of patients in whom telemetry monitoring does not alter management.

Design: Prospective observational study.

Setting: Large tertiary care facility.

Patients: A total of 414 patients consecutively admitted from the emergency department for suspected acute coronary syndromes were studied. Patients were excluded if they presented with ST-segment elevations, were revascularized on hospital admission, were admitted to a surgical service, were transferred from another floor or unit, or remained in the emergency department for the course of the stay.

Outcomes: Events were defined as development of myocardial infarction, episodes of chest pain, new or rapid atrial arrhythmias, ventricular arrhythmias, any form of AV nodal block, and asystole. Intervention or change in management was any increase, decrease, or change in medication, cardioversion, electrophysiology study, or transfer to the ICU.

Results: Patients who had atypical chest pain and normal ECG findings were significantly less likely to have both intervention and events (4 interventions vs 23 interventions [p < 0.0001], 12 events vs 45 events [p < 0.0001]), compared to those with typical chest pain and abnormal ECG findings. When normal laboratory values were added, only four telemetry events were observed.

Conclusion: Patients with atypical chest pain and normal ECG findings represent a subset of patients with low risk for life-threatening arrhythmia. Use of telemetry monitoring in this subset of patients should be reevaluated.

Key Words: angina • arrhythmia • chest pain • monitoring • telemetry • triage

This article has been cited by other articles:

				B. J. Drew, R. M. Califf, M. Funk, E. S. Kaufman, M. W. Krucoff, M. M. Laks, P. W. Macfarlane, C. Sommargren, S. Swiryn, and G. F. Van Hare 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, October 26, 2004; 110(17): 2721 - 2746. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]