Agreement of Computerized QT and QTc Interval Measurements Between Both Bedside and Expert Nurses Using Electronic Calipers.
Journal
The Journal of cardiovascular nursing
ISSN: 1550-5049
Titre abrégé: J Cardiovasc Nurs
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8703516
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 Oct 2023
02 Oct 2023
Historique:
medline:
3
10
2023
pubmed:
3
10
2023
entrez:
3
10
2023
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
In hospitalized patients, QT/QTc (heart rate corrected) prolongation on the electrocardiogram (ECG) increases the risk of torsade de pointes. Manual measurements are time-consuming and often inaccurate. Some bedside monitors automatically and continuously measure QT/QTc; however, the agreement between computerized versus nurse-measured values has not been evaluated. The aim of this study was to examine the agreement between computerized QT/QTc and bedside and expert nurses who used electronic calipers. This was a prospective observational study in 3 intensive care units. Up to 2 QT/QTc measurements (milliseconds) per patient were collected. Bland-Altman test was used to analyze measurement agreement. A total of 54 QT/QTc measurements from 34 patients admitted to the ICU were included. The mean difference (bias) for QT comparisons was as follows: computerized versus expert nurses, -11.04 ± 4.45 milliseconds (95% confidence interval [CI], -2.3 to -19.8; P = .016), and computerized versus bedside nurses, -13.72 ± 6.70 (95% CI, -0.70 to -26.8; P = .044). The mean bias for QTc comparisons was as follows: computerized versus expert nurses, -12.46 ± 5.80 (95% CI, -1.1 to -23.8; P = .035), and computerized versus bedside nurses, -18.49 ± 7.90 (95% CI, -3.0 to -33.9; P = .022). Computerized QT/QTc measurements calculated by bedside monitor software and measurements performed by nurses were in close agreement; statistically significant differences were found, but differences were less than 20 milliseconds (on-half of a small box), indicating no clinical significance. Computerized measurements may be a suitable alternative to nurse-measured QT/QTc. This could reduce inaccuracies and nurse burden while increasing adherence to practice recommendations. Further research comparing computerized QT/QTc from bedside monitoring to standard 12-lead electrocardiogram in a larger sample, including non-ICU patients, is needed.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
In hospitalized patients, QT/QTc (heart rate corrected) prolongation on the electrocardiogram (ECG) increases the risk of torsade de pointes. Manual measurements are time-consuming and often inaccurate. Some bedside monitors automatically and continuously measure QT/QTc; however, the agreement between computerized versus nurse-measured values has not been evaluated.
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study was to examine the agreement between computerized QT/QTc and bedside and expert nurses who used electronic calipers.
METHODS
METHODS
This was a prospective observational study in 3 intensive care units. Up to 2 QT/QTc measurements (milliseconds) per patient were collected. Bland-Altman test was used to analyze measurement agreement.
RESULTS
RESULTS
A total of 54 QT/QTc measurements from 34 patients admitted to the ICU were included. The mean difference (bias) for QT comparisons was as follows: computerized versus expert nurses, -11.04 ± 4.45 milliseconds (95% confidence interval [CI], -2.3 to -19.8; P = .016), and computerized versus bedside nurses, -13.72 ± 6.70 (95% CI, -0.70 to -26.8; P = .044). The mean bias for QTc comparisons was as follows: computerized versus expert nurses, -12.46 ± 5.80 (95% CI, -1.1 to -23.8; P = .035), and computerized versus bedside nurses, -18.49 ± 7.90 (95% CI, -3.0 to -33.9; P = .022).
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Computerized QT/QTc measurements calculated by bedside monitor software and measurements performed by nurses were in close agreement; statistically significant differences were found, but differences were less than 20 milliseconds (on-half of a small box), indicating no clinical significance. Computerized measurements may be a suitable alternative to nurse-measured QT/QTc. This could reduce inaccuracies and nurse burden while increasing adherence to practice recommendations. Further research comparing computerized QT/QTc from bedside monitoring to standard 12-lead electrocardiogram in a larger sample, including non-ICU patients, is needed.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37787695
doi: 10.1097/JCN.0000000000001048
pii: 00005082-990000000-00138
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.
Références
Sandau KE, Funk M, Auerbach A, 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.
doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000527
Pickham D, Helfenbein E, Shinn JA, et al. High prevalence of corrected qt interval prolongation in acutely ill patients is associated with mortality: results of the QT in practice (QTIP) study. Crit Care Med. 2012;40(2):394–399. doi:10.1097/CCM.0b013e318232db4a.
doi: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e318232db4a
Drew BJ, Califf RM, Funk M, et al. 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.
doi: 10.1161/01.CIR.0000145144.56673.59
Pickham D, Helfenbein E, Shinn JA, Chan G, Funk M, Drew BJ. How many patients need QT interval monitoring in critical care units? Preliminary report of the QT in practice study. J Electrocardiol. 2010;43(6):572–576. doi:10.1016/j.jelectrocard.2010.05.016.
doi: 10.1016/j.jelectrocard.2010.05.016
Drew BJ, Ackerman MJ, Funk M, et al. Prevention of torsade de pointes in hospital settings: A scientific statement from the American Heart Association and the American College of Cardiology Foundation. Circulation. 2010;121(8):1047–1060. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.109.192704.
doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.109.192704
Pickham D, Shinn JA, Chan GK, Funk M, Drew BJ. Quasi-experimental study to improve nurses' QT-interval monitoring: results of QTIP study. Am J Crit Care. 2012;21(3):195–200. doi:10.4037/ajcc2012245.
doi: 10.4037/ajcc2012245
Viskin S, Rosovski U, Sands AJ, et al. Inaccurate electrocardiographic interpretation of long QT: the majority of physicians cannot recognize a long QT when they see one. Heart Rhythm. 2005;2(6):569–574. doi:10.1016/j.hrthm.2005.02.011.
doi: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2005.02.011
Bogossian H, Linz D, Heijman J, et al. QTc evaluation in patients with bundle branch block. Int J Cardiol Heart Vasc. 2020;30:100636. doi:10.1016/j.ijcha.2020.100636.
doi: 10.1016/j.ijcha.2020.100636
Patel PJ, Borovskiy Y, Killian A, et al. Optimal QT interval correction formula in sinus tachycardia for identifying cardiovascular and mortality risk: findings from the Penn Atrial Fibrillation Free Study. Heart Rhythm. 2016;13(2):527–535. doi:10.1016/j.hrthm.2015.11.008.
doi: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2015.11.008
Vink AS, Neumann B, Lieve KVV, et al. Determination and interpretation of the QT interval. Circulation. 2018;138(21):2345–2358. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.118.033943.
doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.118.033943
Janssen GH, Rijkenberg S, van der Voort PH. Validation of continuous QTc measurement in critically ill patients. J Electrocardiol. 2016;49(1):81–86. doi:10.1016/j.jelectrocard.2015.10.001.
doi: 10.1016/j.jelectrocard.2015.10.001
Helfenbein ED, Zhou SH, Lindauer JM, et al. An algorithm for continuous real-time QT interval monitoring. J Electrocardiol. 2006;39(4 suppl):S123–S127. doi:10.1016/j.jelectrocard.2006.05.018.
doi: 10.1016/j.jelectrocard.2006.05.018
Cvach M. Monitor alarm fatigue: an integrative review. Biomed Instrum Technol. 2012;46(4):268–277. doi:10.2345/0899-8205-46.4.268.
doi: 10.2345/0899-8205-46.4.268
Fidler RL, Pelter MM, Drew BJ, et al. Understanding heart rate alarm adjustment in the intensive care units through an analytical approach. PloS One. 2017;12(11):e0187855. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0187855.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0187855
Winters BD, Cvach MM, Bonafide CP, et al. Technological distractions (part 2): a summary of approaches to manage clinical alarms with intent to reduce alarm fatigue. Crit Care Med. 2018;46(1):130–137. doi:10.1097/ccm.0000000000002803.
doi: 10.1097/ccm.0000000000002803
Helfenbein ED, Ackerman MJ, Rautaharju PM, et al. An algorithm for QT interval monitoring in neonatal intensive care units. J Electrocardiol. 2007;40(6 Suppl):S103–S110. doi:10.1016/j.jelectrocard.2007.06.019.
doi: 10.1016/j.jelectrocard.2007.06.019
Luo S, Michler K, Johnston P, Macfarlane PW. A comparison of commonly used QT correction formulae: the effect of heart rate on the QTc of normal ECGs. J Electrocardiol. 2004;37(suppl):81–90. doi:10.1016/j.jelectrocard.2004.08.030.
doi: 10.1016/j.jelectrocard.2004.08.030
Philips. Instructions for Use: Intellivue Patient Monitor: Mx400/450/500/600/700/800. Germany: Philips; 2013. https://medaval.ie/docs/manuals/Intellivue-Manual.pdf. Accessed September 10, 2023.
Altman DG, Bland JM. Measurement in medicine: the analysis of method comparison studies. J R Stat Soc Series D (The Statistician). 1983;32(3):307–317. doi:10.2307/2987937.
doi: 10.2307/2987937
Lehnert B. M.B. L. Package ‘blandaltmanleh'. 2021. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/BlandAltmanLeh/index.html. Accessed August 30, 2021.
R Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. 2021. https://www.R-project.org/. Accessed August 30, 2021.
Bates D, Machler M, Bolker BM, Walker SC. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J Stat Software. 2015;67(1):1–48. doi:10.18637/jss.v067.i01.
doi: 10.18637/jss.v067.i01
Sandau KE, Sendelbach S, Fletcher L, Frederickson J, Drew BJ, Funk M. Computer-assisted interventions to improve QTc documentation in patients receiving QT-prolonging drugs. Am J Crit Care. 2015;24(2):e6–e15. doi:10.4037/ajcc2015240.
doi: 10.4037/ajcc2015240