A Randomized Trial of Telemetry Compared With Unmonitored Floor Admissions in ED Patients With Low-Risk Chest Pain

Many patients admitted to the hospital with concern for cardiopulmonary and other acute illnesses are routinely placed on electrocardiographic monitoring (telemetry). Telemetry surveillance theoretically allows the clinical staff to monitor admitted patients for the development of both brady- and tachydysrhythmias. The goal is to identify dysrhythmias immediately via active cardiac monitoring in the very few patients who develop them, rather than identifying the dysrhythmia after the patient becomes symptomatic. However, the overwhelming majority (greater than 99 percent) of monitored patients do not experience any significant arrhythmia. The liberal use of monitoring in unnecessary situations may give the hospital staff a false sense of security and/or desensitize them to alarms. Studies also suggest the liberal use of telemetry inflates costs and clogs telemetry beds with little potential for benefit. These findings have contributed to the American Heart Association's statement that telemetry is of no benefit in patients with chest pain who are clinically low-risk or who are awake and alert and can describe their angina. Importantly, previous findings provide a foundation for identifying patients that do not need to undergo monitoring, but no study to date has rigorously prospectively applied these criteria in a randomized trial to determine the impact of selective telemetry utilization on clinical care and resources.

This study is a pragmatic, randomized, controlled trial of telemetry compared with unmonitored floor admissions in ED patients with low-risk chest pain. The primary aim is to determine, relative to telemetry admission, if admission to an unmonitored floor bed saves resources without an increased rate of adverse events in ED patients admitted with chest pain and low-risk features. In addition, the study will evaluate the effects of the same intervention in the same population on secondary outcomes including defibrillation, cardioversion or acute IV antiarrhythmic/vasoactive therapy. Finally, the study will associate reasons for telemetry exclusion, including provider discretion, with subsequent adverse events.