No abstract

Background: Ventricular tachycardia (V-tach) is the most common lethal arrhythmia, yet 90% of alarms are false and contribute to alarm fatigue. We hypothesize that some true V-tach also causes alarm fatigue because current criteria are too sensitive (i.e., ≥6 beats ≥100 beats/min [bpm]). Purpose: This study was designed to determine (1) the proportion of clinically actionable true V-tach events; (2) whether true actionable versus nonactionable V-tach differs in terms of heart rate and/or duration (seconds); and (3) if actionable V-tach is associated with adverse outcomes. Methods: This was a secondary analysis in 460 intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Electronic health records were examined to determine if a V-tach event was actionable or nonactionable. Actionable V-tach was defined if a clinical action(s) was taken within 15 minutes of its occurrence (i.e., new and/or change of medication, defibrillation, and/or laboratory test). Maximal heart rate and duration for each V-tach event were measured from bedside monitor electrocardiography. Adverse patient outcomes included a code blue event and/or death. Results: In 460 ICU patients, 50 (11%) had 151 true V-tach events (range 1–20). Of the 50 patients, 40 (80%) had only nonactionable V-tach (97 events); 3 (6%) had both actionable and nonactionable V-tach (32 events); and 7 patients (14%) had only actionable V-tach (23 events). There were differences in duration comparing actionable versus nonactionable V-tach (mean 56.19 ± 116.87 seconds vs. 4.28 ± 4.09 seconds; P = 0.001) and maximal heart rate (188.81 ± 116.83 bpm vs. 150.79 ± 28.26 bpm; P = 0.001). Of the 50 patients, 3 (6%) had a code blue, 2 died, and all were in the actionable V-tach group. Conclusions: In our sample, <1% experienced a code blue following true V-tach. Heart rate and duration for actionable V-tach were much faster and longer than that for nonactionable V-tach. Current default settings typically used for electrocardiographic monitoring (i.e., ≥6 beats ≥100 bpm) appear to be too conservative and can lead to crisis/red level nuisance alarms that contribute to alarm fatigue. A prospective study designed to test whether adjusting default settings to these higher levels is safe for patients is needed.

No abstract

Background Excessive electrocardiographic alarms contribute to “alarm fatigue,” which can lead to patient harm. In a prior study, one-third of audible electrocardiographic alarms were for accelerated ventricular rhythm (AVR), and most of these alarms were false. It is uncertain whether true AVR alarms are clinically relevant. Objectives To determine from bedside electrocardiographic monitoring data (1) how often true AVR alarms are acknowledged by clinicians, (2) whether such alarms are actionable, and (3) whether such alarms are associated with adverse outcomes (“code blue,” death). Methods Secondary analysis using data from a study conducted in an academic medical center involving 5 adult intensive care units with 77 beds. Electronic health records of 23 patients with 223 true alarms for AVR were examined. Results The mean age of the patients was 62.9 years, and 61% were white and male. All 223 of the true alarms were configured at the warning level (ie, 2 continuous beeps), and 215 (96.4%) lasted less than 30 seconds. Only 1 alarm was acknowledged in the electronic health record. None of the alarms were clinically actionable or led to a code blue or death. Conclusions True AVR alarms may contribute to alarm fatigue. Hospitals should reevaluate the need for close monitoring of AVR and consider configuring this alarm to an inaudible message setting to reduce the risk of patient harm due to alarm fatigue. Prospective studies involving larger patient samples and varied monitors are warranted.