CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

Other Relevant Articles

Abstract

Recommended Article

Randomized Comparison of Ridaforolimus-Eluting and Zotarolimus-Eluting Coronary Stents 2-Year Clinical Outcomes: From the BIONICS and NIREUS Trials Coronary Angiography after Cardiac Arrest without ST-Segment Elevation A sirolimus-eluting bioabsorbable polymer-coated stent (MiStent) versus an everolimus-eluting durable polymer stent (Xience) after percutaneous coronary intervention (DESSOLVE III): a randomised, single-blind, multicentre, non-inferiority, phase 3 trial The performance of non-invasive tests to rule-in and rule-out significant coronary artery stenosis in patients with stable angina: a meta-analysis focused on post-test disease probability Safety and feasibility of robotic percutaneous coronary intervention: PRECISE (Percutaneous Robotically-Enhanced Coronary Intervention) Study 2017 ACC/AHA Blood Pressure Treatment Guideline Recommendations and Cardiovascular Risk Effectiveness-Based Guidelines for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease in Women—2011 Update: A Guideline From the American Heart Association Effect of a Home-Based Wearable Continuous ECG Monitoring Patch on Detection of Undiagnosed Atrial Fibrillation The mSToPS Randomized Clinical Trial

Original ResearchJanuary 2020 Vol 13, Issue 1

JOURNAL:Circ Cardiovasc Interv. Article Link

Routine Continuous Electrocardiographic Monitoring Following Percutaneous Coronary Interventions

MA Al-Hijji , R Gulati,M Singh et al. Keywords: routine electrocardiographic monitoring post PCI; arrhythmia

ABSTRACT


BACKGROUND - The clinical utility of routine electrocardiographic monitoring following percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) is not well studied.

 

METHODS - We prospectively evaluated the incidence, cost, and the clinical implications of actionable arrhythmia alarms on telemetry monitoring following PCI. One thousand three hundred fifty-eight PCI procedures (989 [72.8%] for acute coronary syndrome and 369 [27.2%] for stable angina) on patients admitted to nonintensive care unit were identified and divided into 2 groups; group 1, patients with actionable alarms (AA) and group 2, patients with non-AA. AA included (1) ≥3 s electrical pause or asystole; (2) high-grade Mobitz type II atrioventricular block or complete heart block; (3) ventricular fibrillation; (4) ventricular tachycardia (>15 beats); (5) atrial fibrillation with rapid ventricular response; (6) supraventricular tachycardia (>15 beats). Primary outcomes were 30-day all-cause mortality. Cost-savings analysis was performed.

 

RESULTS - Incidence of AA was 2.2% (37/1672). Time from end of procedure to AA was 5.5 (0.5, 24.5) hours. Patients with AA were older, presented with acute congestive heart failure or non–ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction, and had multivessel or left main disease. The 30-day all-cause mortality was significantly higher in patients with AA (6.5% versus 0.3% in non-AA [P<0.001]). Applying the standardized costing approach and tailored monitoring per the American Heart Association guidelines lead to potential cost savings of $622 480.95 for the entire population.

 

CONCLUSIONS - AA following PCI were infrequent but were associated with increase in 30-day mortality. Following American Heart Association guidelines for monitoring after PCI can lead to substantial cost saving.