Cardiovascular digital health journal · 2024
Performance comparison of 6 in-hospital patient monitoring systems in the detection and alarm of ventricular cardiac arrhythmias.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Cosentino Nicola, Zhang Xuan, Farrar Emily J, Yapici Halit O, Coffeng René, Vaananen Heikki, Beard John W
Аннотация
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.
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.