Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Ahead of Print
    • Past Issues
    • Supplements
    • Article Type
  • Specialty
    • Articles by Specialty
  • CME/MOC
    • Articles
    • Calendar
  • Info For
    • Manuscript Submission
    • Authors & Reviewers
    • Subscriptions
    • About CCJM
    • Contact Us
    • Media Kit
  • Conversations with Leaders
  • Conference Coverage
    • ACC / WCC 2023
    • AAAAI Meeting 2023
    • ACR Convergence 2022
    • Kidney Week 2022
    • AIDS 2022
    • CHEST 2021
    • IDWeek 2021
    • IAS 2021
    • ADA 2021
    • ATS 2021
    • ACC 2021
    • ACP 2021
    • AAN 2021
  • Other Publications
    • www.clevelandclinic.org

User menu

  • Register
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine
  • Other Publications
    • www.clevelandclinic.org
  • Register
  • Log in
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Ahead of Print
    • Past Issues
    • Supplements
    • Article Type
  • Specialty
    • Articles by Specialty
  • CME/MOC
    • Articles
    • Calendar
  • Info For
    • Manuscript Submission
    • Authors & Reviewers
    • Subscriptions
    • About CCJM
    • Contact Us
    • Media Kit
  • Conversations with Leaders
  • Conference Coverage
    • ACC / WCC 2023
    • AAAAI Meeting 2023
    • ACR Convergence 2022
    • Kidney Week 2022
    • AIDS 2022
    • CHEST 2021
    • IDWeek 2021
    • IAS 2021
    • ADA 2021
    • ATS 2021
    • ACC 2021
    • ACP 2021
    • AAN 2021
1-Minute Consult

Do all hospital inpatients need cardiac telemetry?

Motaz Baibars, MD, Yasser Al-Khadra, MD, Zaher Fanari, MD, Homam Moussa Pacha, MD, Mohamad Soud, MD and M. Chadi Alraies, MD
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine December 2018, 85 (12) 925-927; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3949/ccjm.85a.17114
Motaz Baibars
Department of Hospital Medicine, Johns Hopkins Medicine, Howard County General Hospital, Columbia, MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Yasser Al-Khadra
Department of Internal Medicine, Cleveland Clinic
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Zaher Fanari
Heartland Cardiology, Wesley Medical Center, University of Kansas School of Medicine, Wichita
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Homam Moussa Pacha
Department of Internal Medicine, MedStar Washington Hospital Center, Washington, DC
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Mohamad Soud
Department of Internal Medicine, MedStar Washington Hospital Center, Washington, DC
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
M. Chadi Alraies
Wayne State University, Detroit Medical Center, Detroit, MI
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: alraies@hotmail.com
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

No. Continuous monitoring for changes in heart rhythm with cardiac telemetry is recommended for all patients admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU). But routine telemetry monitoring for patients in non-ICU beds is not recommended, as it leads to unnecessary testing and treatment, increasing the cost of care and hospital length of stay.

RISK STRATIFICATION AND INDICATIONS

Telemetry is generally recommended for patients admitted with any type of heart disease, including:

  • Acute myocardial infarction with ST-segment elevation or Q waves on 12-lead electrocardiography (ECG)

  • Acute ischemia suggested by ST-segment depression or T-wave inversion on ECG

  • Systolic blood pressure less than 100 mm Hg

  • Acute decompensated heart failure with bilateral rales above the lung bases

  • Chest pain that is worse than or the same as that in prior angina or myocardial in-farction.1,2

Indications for telemetry are less clear in patients with no history of heart disease. The American Heart Association (AHA)3 has classified admitted patients based on the presence or absence of heart disease3:

  • Class I (high risk of arrhythmia): acute coronary syndrome, new arrhythmia (eg, atrial fibrillation or flutter), severe electrolyte imbalance; telemetry is warranted

  • Class II (moderate risk): acute decompensated heart failure with stable hemodynamic status, a surgical or medical diagnosis with underlying paced rhythms (ie, with a pacemaker), and chronic arrhythmia (atrial fibrillation or flutter); in these cases, telemetry monitoring may be considered

  • Class III (low risk): no history of cardiac disease or arrhythmias, admitted for medical or surgical reasons; in these cases, telemetry is generally not indicated3 Telemetry should also be considered in patients admitted with syncope or stroke, critical illness, or palpitations.

Syncope and stroke

Despite the wide use of telemetry for patients admitted with syncope, current evidence does not support this practice. However, the AHA recommends routine telemetry for patients admitted with idiopathic syncope when there is a high level of suspicion for underlying cardiac arrhythmias as a cause of syncope (risk class II-b).3 In 30% of patients admitted with stroke or transient ischemic attack, the cause is cardioembolic. Therefore, telemetry is indicated to rule out an underlying cardiac cause.4

Critical illness

Patients hospitalized with major trauma, acute respiratory failure, sepsis, shock, or acute pulmonary embolism or for major noncardiac surgery (especially elderly patients with coronary artery disease or at high risk of coronary events) require cardiac telemetry (risk class I-b). Patients admitted with kidney failure, significant electrolyte abnormalities, drug or substance toxicity (especially with known arrhythmogenic drugs) also require cardiac telemetry at the time of admission (risk class I-b).

Recurrent palpitations, arrhythmia

Most patients with palpitations can be evaluated in an outpatient setting.5 However, patients hospitalized for recurrent palpitations or for suspected underlying cardiac disease require telemetric monitoring (risk class II-b).3 Patients with high-degree atrioventricular block admitted after percutaneous temporary pacemaker implantation should be monitored, as should patients with a permanent pacemaker for 12 to 24 hours after implantation (risk class I-c). Also, patients hospitalized after implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) shock need to be monitored.3,6

Patients with a paced rhythm who do not meet the above criteria do not require routine telemetric monitoring (risk class III-c).7

TELEMETRY IS OVERUSED

Off-site telemetry monitoring can identify significant arrhythmias during hospitalization. It also saves time on nursing staff to focus on bedside patient care. However, its convenience can lower the threshold for ordering it. This can lead to overuse with a major impact on healthcare costs.

Routine use of cardiac telemetry is associated with increased hospitalization costs with little benefit.8 The use of off-site services for continuous monitoring can activate many alarms throughout the day, triggering unnecessary workups and leading to densensitization to alarms (“alarm fatigue”).9

Despite the precise indications outlined in the AHA updated practice standards for inpatient electrocardiographic monitoring,10 telemetry use is expanding to non-ICU units without evidence of benefit,8 and this overuse can result in harmful clinical outcomes and a financial burden. Telemetry monitoring of low-risk patients can cause delays in emergency department and ICU admissions and transfers8,11 of patients who may be sicker and need intensive care.

In a prospective observational study,12 only 11 (6%) of 182 patients admitted to a general medical floor met AHA class I criteria for telemetry; very few patients developed a significant telemetry event such as atrial fibrillation or flutter that necessitated a change in management. Most overprescribers of telemetry monitoring reason that it will catch arrhythmias early.12 In fact, in a study of patients in a cardiac unit, telemetry detected just 50% of in-house cardiac arrest cases, with a potential survival benefit of only 0.02%.13

Another study showed that only 0.01% of all telemetry alarms represented a real emergency. Only 37.2% of emergency alarms were classified as clinically important, and only 48.3% of these led to a change in management within 1 hour.14

Moreover, in a report of trauma patients with abnormal results on ECG at the time of admission, telemetry had negligible clinical benefit.15 And in a study of 414 patients, only 4% of those admitted with chest pain and normal initial ECG had cardiac interventions.16

Another study8 showed that hospital intervention to restrict the use of telemetry guided by AHA recommendations resulted in a 43% reduction in telemetry orders, a 47% reduction in telemetry duration, and a 70% reduction in the mean daily number of patients monitored, with no changes in hospital census or rates of code blue, death, or rapid response team activation.8

The financial cost can be seen in the backup of patients in the emergency department. A study showed that 91% of patients being admitted for chest pain were delayed by more than 3 hours while waiting for monitored beds. This translated into an annual cost of $168,300 to the hospital.17 Adherence to guidelines for appropriate use of telemetry can significantly decrease costs. Applying a simple algorithm for telemetry use was shown8 to decrease daily non-ICU cardiac telemetry costs from $18,971 to $5,772.

CURRENT GUIDELINES ARE LIMITED

The current American College of Cardiology and AHA guidelines are based mostly on expert opinion rather than randomized clinical trials, while most telemetry trials have been performed on patients with a cardiac or possible cardiac diagnosis.3 Current guidelines need to be updated, and more studies are needed to specify the optimal duration of cardiac monitoring in indicated cases. Many noncardiac conditions raise a legitimate concern of dysrhythmia, an indication for cardiac monitoring, but precise recommendations for telemetry for such conditions are lacking.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Raising awareness of the clinical and financial burdens associated with unwise telemetry utilization is critical. We suggest use of a pop-up notification in the electronic medical record to remind the provider of the existing telemetry order and to specify the duration of telemetry monitoring when placing the initial order. The goal is to identify patients in true need of a telemetry bed, to decrease unnecessary testing, and to reduce hospitalization costs. ■

  • Copyright © 2018 The Cleveland Clinic Foundation. All Rights Reserved.

REFERENCES

  1. ↵
    1. Recommended guidelines for in-hospital cardiac monitoring of adults for detection of arrhythmia
    . Emergency Cardiac Care Committee members. J Am Coll Cardiol 1991; 18(6):1431–1433. pmid:1939942
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    1. Goldman L,
    2. Cook EF,
    3. Johnson PA,
    4. Brand DA,
    5. Rouan GW,
    6. Lee TH
    . Prediction of the need for intensive care in patients who come to emergency departments with acute chest pain. N Engl J Med 1996; 334(23):1498–1504. doi:10.1056/NEJM199606063342303
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Drew BJ,
    2. Califf RM,
    3. Funk M,
    4. et al
    5. American Heart Association
    6. Councils on Cardiovascular Nursing, Clinical Cardiology, and Cardiovascular Disease in the Young
    . Practice standards for electrocardiographic monitoring in hospital settings: an American Heart Association scientific statement from the Councils on Cardiovascular Nursing, Clinical Cardiology, and Cardiovascular Disease in the Young: endorsed by the International Society of Computerized Electrocardiology and the American Association of Critical-Care Nurses. Circulation 2004;110(17):2721–2746. doi:10.1161/01.CIR.0000145144.56673.59
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. ↵
    1. Ustrell X,
    2. Pellise A
    . Cardiac workup of ischemic stroke. Curr Cardiol Rev 2010; 6(3):175–183. doi:10.2174/157340310791658721
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Olson JA,
    2. Fouts AM,
    3. Padanilam BJ,
    4. Prystowsky EN
    . Utility of mobile cardiac outpatient telemetry for the diagnosis of palpitations, presyncope, syncope, and the assessment of therapy efficacy. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 2007; 18(5):473–477. doi:10.1111/j.1540-8167.2007.00779.x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Chen EH,
    2. Hollander JE
    . When do patients need admission to a telemetry bed? J Emerg Med 2007; 33(1):53–60. doi:10.1016/j.jemermed.2007.01.017
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Sandau KE,
    2. Funk M,
    3. Auerbach A,
    4. et al
    5. American Heart Association Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing
    6. Council on Clinical Cardiology
    7. Council on Cardiovascular Disease in the Young
    . Update to practice standards for electrocardiographic monitoring in hospital settings: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation 2017; 136(19):e273–e344. doi:10.1161/CIR.0000000000000527
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. ↵
    1. Dressler R,
    2. Dryer MM,
    3. Coletti C,
    4. Mahoney D,
    5. Doorey AJ
    . Altering overuse of cardiac telemetry in non-intensive care unit settings by hardwiring the use of American Heart Association guidelines. JAMA Intern Med 2014; 174(11):1852–1854. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.4491
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. Cantillon DJ,
    2. Loy M,
    3. Burkle A,
    4. et al
    . Association between off-site central monitoring using standardized cardiac telemetry and clinical outcomes among non-critically ill patients. JAMA 2016; 316(5):519–524. doi:10.1001/jama.2016.10258
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  10. ↵
    1. Sandau KE,
    2. Funk M,
    3. Auerbach A,
    4. et al
    . Update to practice standards for electrocardiographic monitoring in hospital settings: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation 2017; 136(19):e273–e344. doi:10.1161/CIR.0000000000000527
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  11. ↵
    1. Atzema C,
    2. Schull MJ,
    3. Borgundvaag B,
    4. Slaughter GR,
    5. Lee CK
    . ALARMED: adverse events in low-risk patients with chest pain receiving continuous electrocardiographic monitoring in the emergency department. A pilot study. Am J Emerg Med 2006; 24(1):62–67. doi:10.1016/j.ajem.2005.05.015
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. Najafi N,
    2. Auerbach A
    . Use and outcomes of telemetry monitoring on a medicine service. Arch Intern Med 2012; 172(17):1349–1350. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2012.3163
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. ↵
    1. Schull MJ,
    2. Redelmeier DA
    . Continuous electrocardiographic monitoring and cardiac arrest outcomes in 8,932 telemetry ward patients. Acad Emerg Med 2000; 7(6):647–652. pmid:10905643
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. ↵
    1. Kansara P,
    2. Jackson K,
    3. Dressler R,
    4. et al
    . Potential of missing life-threatening arrhythmias after limiting the use of cardiac telemetry. JAMA Intern Med 2015; 175(8):1416–1418. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.2387
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  15. ↵
    1. Nagy KK,
    2. Krosner SM,
    3. Roberts RR,
    4. Joseph KT,
    5. Smith RF,
    6. Barrett J
    . Determining which patients require evaluation for blunt cardiac injury following blunt chest trauma. World J Surg 2001; 25(1):108–111. pmid:11213149
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. ↵
    1. Snider A,
    2. Papaleo M,
    3. Beldner S,
    4. et al
    . Is telemetry monitoring necessary in low-risk suspected acute chest pain syndromes? Chest 2002; 122(2):517–523. pmid:12171825
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. ↵
    1. Bayley MD,
    2. Schwartz JS,
    3. Shofer FS,
    4. et al
    . The financial burden of emergency department congestion and hospital crowding for chest pain patients awaiting admission. Ann Emerg Med 2005; 45(2):110–117. doi:10.1016/j.annemergmed.2004.09.010
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine: 85 (12)
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine
Vol. 85, Issue 12
1 Dec 2018
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Index by author
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Do all hospital inpatients need cardiac telemetry?
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Do all hospital inpatients need cardiac telemetry?
Motaz Baibars, Yasser Al-Khadra, Zaher Fanari, Homam Moussa Pacha, Mohamad Soud, M. Chadi Alraies
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine Dec 2018, 85 (12) 925-927; DOI: 10.3949/ccjm.85a.17114

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Do all hospital inpatients need cardiac telemetry?
Motaz Baibars, Yasser Al-Khadra, Zaher Fanari, Homam Moussa Pacha, Mohamad Soud, M. Chadi Alraies
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine Dec 2018, 85 (12) 925-927; DOI: 10.3949/ccjm.85a.17114
Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Linkedin Share Button

Jump to section

  • Article
    • RISK STRATIFICATION AND INDICATIONS
    • CURRENT GUIDELINES ARE LIMITED
    • RECOMMENDATIONS
    • REFERENCES
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Fundic gland polyps: Should my patient stop taking PPIs?
  • What is the rationale for the laboratory workup for suspected pheochromocytomas and paragangliomas?
  • What are the treatment options for myasthenia gravis if first-line agents fail?
Show more 1-Minute Consult

Similar Articles

Subjects

  • Hospital Medicine
  • Cardiology

Navigate

  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues
  • Supplements
  • Article Type
  • Specialty
  • CME/MOC Articles
  • CME/MOC Calendar
  • Media Kit

Authors & Reviewers

  • Manuscript Submission
  • Authors & Reviewers
  • Subscriptions
  • About CCJM
  • Contact Us
  • Cleveland Clinic Center for Continuing Education
  • Consult QD

Share your suggestions!

Copyright © 2023 The Cleveland Clinic Foundation. All rights reserved. The information provided is for educational purposes only. Use of this website is subject to the website terms of use and privacy policy. 

Powered by HighWire