Author:
Aagaard Nikolaj,Olsen Markus Harboe,Rasmussen Oliver Wiik,Grønbaek Katja K.,Mølgaard Jesper,Haahr-Raunkjaer Camilla,Elvekjaer Mikkel,Aasvang Eske K.,Meyhoff Christian S.
Abstract
AbstractTechnological advances allow continuous vital sign monitoring at the general ward, but traditional vital signs alone may not predict serious adverse events (SAE). This study investigated continuous heart rate variability (HRV) monitoring’s predictive value for SAEs in acute medical and major surgical patients. Data was collected from four prospective observational studies and two randomized controlled trials using a single-lead ECG. The primary outcome was any SAE, secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality and specific non-fatal SAE groups, all within 30 days. Subgroup analyses of medical and surgical patients were performed. The primary analysis compared the last 24 h preceding an SAE with the last 24 h of measurements in patients without an SAE. The area under a receiver operating characteristics curve (AUROC) quantified predictive performance, interpretated as low prognostic ability (0.5–0.7), moderate prognostic ability (0.7–0.9), or high prognostic ability (> 0.9). Of 1402 assessed patients, 923 were analysed, with 297 (32%) experiencing at least one SAE. The best performing threshold had an AUROC of 0.67 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.63–0.71) for predicting cardiovascular SAEs. In the surgical subgroup, the best performing threshold had an AUROC of 0.70 (95% CI 0.60–0.81) for neurologic SAE prediction. In the medical subgroup, thresholds for all-cause mortality, cardiovascular, infectious, and neurologic SAEs had moderate prognostic ability, and the best performing threshold had an AUROC of 0.85 (95% CI 0.76–0.95) for predicting neurologic SAEs. Predicting SAEs based on the accumulated time below thresholds for individual continuously measured HRV parameters demonstrated overall low prognostic ability in high-risk hospitalized patients. Certain HRV thresholds had moderate prognostic ability for prediction of specific SAEs in the medical subgroup.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference51 articles.
1. McQuillan P, Pilkington S, Allan A, Taylor B, Short A, Morgan G, et al. Confidential inquiry into quality of care before admission to intensive care. BMJ. 1998;316(7148):1853–8. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.316.7148.1853.
2. McGloin H, Adam SK, Singer M. Unexpected deaths and referrals to intensive care of patients on general wards. Are some cases potentially avoidable? J R Coll Phys Lond. 1999;33(3):255–9.
3. Smith MEB, Chiovaro JC, O’Neil M, Kansagara D, Quiñones AR, Freeman M, et al. Early warning system scores for clinical deterioration in hospitalized patients: a systematic review. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2014;11(9):1454–65. https://doi.org/10.1513/AnnalsATS.201403-102OC.
4. Gerry S, Bonnici T, Birks J, Kirtley S, Virdee PS, Watkinson PJ, et al. Early warning scores for detecting deterioration in adult hospital patients: systematic review and critical appraisal of methodology. BMJ. 2020;369:m1501. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m1501.
5. Tarassenko L, Hann A, Young D. Integrated monitoring and analysis for early warning of patient deterioration. Br J Anaesth. 2006;97(1):64–8. https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/ael113.