• Bradley A Rowland, Vida Motamedi, Frederic Michard, Amit K Saha, and Ashish K Khanna.
• Department of Internal Medicine, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, USA.
• Br J Anaesth. 2024 Mar 1; 132 (3): 519527519-527.

BackgroundContinuous and wireless vital sign monitoring is superior to intermittent monitoring in detecting vital sign abnormalities; however, the impact on clinical outcomes has not been established.MethodsWe performed a propensity-matched analysis of data describing patients admitted to general surgical wards between January 2018 and December 2019 at a single, tertiary medical centre in the USA. The primary outcome was a composite of in-hospital mortality or ICU transfer during hospitalisation. Secondary outcomes were the odds of individual components of the primary outcome, and heart failure, myocardial infarction, acute kidney injury, and rapid response team activations. Data are presented as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and n (%).ResultsWe initially screened a population of 34,636 patients (mean age 58.3 (Range 18-101) yr, 16,456 (47.5%) women. After propensity matching, intermittent monitoring (n=12 345) was associated with increased risk of a composite of mortality or ICU admission (OR 3.42, 95% CI 3.19-3.67; P<0.001), and heart failure (OR 1.48, 95% CI 1.21-1.81; P<0.001), myocardial infarction (OR 3.87, 95% CI 2.71-5.71; P<0.001), and acute kidney injury (OR 1.32, 95% CI 1.09-1.57; P<0.001) compared with continuous wireless monitoring (n=7955). The odds of rapid response team intervention were similar in both groups (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.79-1.06; P=0.726).ConclusionsPatients who received continuous ward monitoring were less likely to die or be admitted to ICU than those who received intermittent monitoring. These findings should be confirmed in prospective randomised trials.Copyright © 2023 British Journal of Anaesthesia. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

26 keywords...

hide…