CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

推荐文献

Abstract

Recommended Article

Impact of lesion complexity on peri-procedural adverse events and the benefit of potent intravenous platelet adenosine diphosphate receptor inhibition after percutaneous coronary intervention: core laboratory analysis from 10 854 patients from the CHAMPION PHOENIX trial Screening for Cardiovascular Disease Risk With Electrocardiography: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement Advances in Coronary No-Reflow Phenomenon-a Contemporary Review 2019 ESC Guidelines for the management of patients with supraventricular tachycardia The Task Force for the management of patients with supraventricular tachycardia of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC): Developed in collaboration with the Association for European Paediatric and Congenital Cardiology (AEPC)he management of patients with) Microthrombi As A Major Cause of Cardiac Injury in COVID-19: A Pathologic Study Management of two major complications in the cardiac catheterisation laboratory: the no-reflow phenomenon and coronary perforations Transcatheter Mitral-Valve Repair in Patients with Heart Failure Better Prognosis After Complete Revascularization Using Contemporary Coronary Stents in Patients With Chronic Kidney Disease

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.