RESUMEN
Background: Patient monitoring devices are critical for alerting of potential cardiac arrhythmias during hospitalization; however, there are concerns of alarm fatigue due to high false alarm rates. Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the sensitivity and false alarm rate of hospital-based continuous electrocardiographic (ECG) monitoring technologies. Methods: Six commonly used multiparameter bedside monitoring systems available in the United States were evaluated: B125M (GE HealthCare), ePM10 and iPM12 (Mindray), Efficia and IntelliVue (Philips), and Life Scope (Nihon Kohden). Sensitivity was tested using ECG recordings containing 57 true ventricular tachycardia (VT) events. False-positive rate testing used 205 patient-hours of ECG recordings containing no cardiac arrhythmias. Signals from ECG recordings were fed to devices simultaneously; high-severity arrhythmia alarms were tracked. Sensitivity to true VT events and false-positive rates were determined. Differences were assessed using Fisher exact tests (sensitivity) and Z-tests (false-positive rates). Results: B125M raised 56 total alarms for 57 annotated VT events and had the highest sensitivity (98%; P <.05), followed by iPM12 (84%), Life Scope (81%), Efficia (79%), ePM10 (77%), and IntelliVue (75%). B125M raised 20 false alarms, which was significantly lower (P <.0001) than iPM12 (284), Life Scope (292), IntelliVue (304), ePM10 (324), and Efficia (493). The most common false alarm was VT, followed by nonsustained VT. Conclusion: We found significant performance differences among multiparameter bedside ECG monitoring systems using previously collected recordings. B125M had the highest sensitivity in detecting true VT events and lowest false alarm rate. These results can assist in minimizing alarm fatigue and optimizing patient safety by careful selection of in-hospital continuous monitoring technology.
RESUMEN
STUDY OBJECTIVE: To compare the diagnostic performance of volumetric capnography (VCap), which is the plot of the expired CO(2) partial pressure against the expired volume during a single breath, with the PaCO(2) to end-tidal CO(2) (EtCO(2)) gradient, in the case of suspected pulmonary embolism (PE). DESIGN: Single-center, prospective study. SETTING: Emergency department of a teaching hospital. PATIENTS: A total of 45 outpatients with positive enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay d-dimer levels of > 500 ng/mL. The diagnosis of PE was confirmed in 18 outpatients according to a validated procedure based on the ventilation-perfusion lung scan and/or spiral CT scanning. INTERVENTIONS: Curves of VCap were obtained from a compact monitor connected to a computer. A sequence of four to six stable breaths allowed the calculation of the following several variables: alveolar dead space fraction; the ratio of alveolar dead space (VDalv) to airway dead space (VDaw); the VDalv to physiologic dead space (VDphys) fraction; the slope of phase 3; and the late dead space fraction (Fdlate) corresponding to the extrapolation of the capnographic curve to a volume of 15% of the predicted total lung capacity. RESULTS: The mean (+/- SD) PaCO(2)-EtCO(2) gradient was 5.3 +/- 0.7 mm Hg in the PE-positive group and 2.8 +/- 0.7 mm Hg in the PE-negative group (p = 0.019). Four variables of the VCap exhibited a statistical difference between both groups, as follows: the VDalv/VDaw fraction(;) the slope of phase 3; the VDalv/VDphys fraction; and the Fdlate, which was 8.2 +/- 3.3% vs -7.7 +/- 2.8%, respectively (p = 0.000011). The diagnostic performance expressed as the mean area under a receiver operating characteristic curve comparison was 75.9 +/- 7.4% for the PaCO(2)-EtCO(2) gradient and 87.6 +/- 4.9% for the Fdlate (p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: Fdlate, a variable of VCap, had a statistically better diagnostic performance in suspected PE than the PaCO(2)-EtCO(2) gradient. VCap is a promising computer-assisted bedside application of pulmonary pathophysiology. Future research should define the place of this technique in the diagnostic workup of PE, especially in the presence of positive d-dimers.
