Performance comparison of 6 in-hospital patient monitoring systems in the detection and alarm of ventricular cardiac arrhythmias

IF 2.6 Q2 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS Cardiovascular digital health journal Pub Date : 2024-04-01 DOI:10.1016/j.cvdhj.2024.02.002
Nicola Cosentino MD , Xuan Zhang MD, PhD , Emily J. Farrar PhD , Halit O. Yapici MD , René Coffeng BS , Heikki Vaananen Lic, MS , John W. Beard MD
{"title":"Performance comparison of 6 in-hospital patient monitoring systems in the detection and alarm of ventricular cardiac arrhythmias","authors":"Nicola Cosentino MD ,&nbsp;Xuan Zhang MD, PhD ,&nbsp;Emily J. Farrar PhD ,&nbsp;Halit O. Yapici MD ,&nbsp;René Coffeng BS ,&nbsp;Heikki Vaananen Lic, MS ,&nbsp;John W. Beard MD","doi":"10.1016/j.cvdhj.2024.02.002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>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.</p></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><p>The purpose of this study was to evaluate the sensitivity and false alarm rate of hospital-based continuous electrocardiographic (ECG) monitoring technologies.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>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 <em>Z</em>-tests (false-positive rates).</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>B125M raised 56 total alarms for 57 annotated VT events and had the highest sensitivity (98%; <em>P</em> &lt;.05), followed by iPM12 (84%), Life Scope (81%), Efficia (79%), ePM10 (77%), and IntelliVue (75%). B125M raised 20 false alarms, which was significantly lower (<em>P</em> &lt;.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.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>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.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":72527,"journal":{"name":"Cardiovascular digital health journal","volume":"5 2","pages":"Pages 70-77"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666693624000094/pdfft?md5=6d74813f67d5ba5bf357c88400df0ba4&pid=1-s2.0-S2666693624000094-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cardiovascular digital health journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666693624000094","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

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.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
六种院内病人监护系统在检测和报警室性心律失常方面的性能比较
背景患者监护设备对住院期间潜在心律失常的警报至关重要;然而,由于误报率较高,人们担心会出现警报疲劳。方法对美国六种常用的多参数床旁监护系统进行了评估:方法评估了美国六种常用的多参数床旁监护系统:B125M(GE HealthCare)、ePM10 和 iPM12(Mindray)、Efficia 和 IntelliVue(Philips)以及 Life Scope(Nihon Kohden)。使用包含 57 个真实室性心动过速 (VT) 事件的心电图记录对灵敏度进行了测试。假阳性率测试使用了 205 个病人小时的心电图记录,其中没有心律失常。心电图记录信号被同时输入到设备中;高严重性心律失常警报被跟踪。确定了对真实 VT 事件的灵敏度和假阳性率。结果 B125M 对 57 个注释 VT 事件共发出 56 次警报,灵敏度最高(98%;P <.05),其次是 iPM12(84%)、Life Scope(81%)、Efficia(79%)、ePM10(77%)和 IntelliVue(75%)。B125M 误报 20 次,明显低于 iPM12(284 次)、Life Scope(292 次)、IntelliVue(304 次)、ePM10(324 次)和 Efficia(493 次)(P <.0001)。最常见的误报是 VT,其次是非持续性 VT。B125M 检测真实 VT 事件的灵敏度最高,误报率最低。这些结果有助于通过谨慎选择院内连续监测技术,最大限度地减少报警疲劳,优化患者安全。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Cardiovascular digital health journal
Cardiovascular digital health journal Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
58 days
期刊最新文献
Determinants of global cardiac implantable electrical device remote monitoring utilization – Results from an international survey Cellular-Enabled Remote Patient Monitoring for Pregnancies Complicated by Hypertension Point-of-care testing preferences 2020–2022: Trends over the years Feasibility of remote monitoring for fatal coronary heart disease using Apple Watch ECGs Artificial intelligence–based screening for cardiomyopathy in an obstetric population: A pilot study
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1