Actionable Ventricular Tachycardia During In-Hospital ECG Monitoring and Its Impact on Alarm Fatigue.

BackgroundVentricular 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]).PurposeThis 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.MethodsThis 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.ResultsIn 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.ConclusionsIn 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