ArticlePloS one2026
Aligning cardiac monitoring with American Heart Association Guidelines: Impact on utilization, hemodynamic monitoring, and outcomes.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundOveruse of continuous cardiac monitoring can lead to poor patient experience, increased costs, and decreased efficiency. Because significant variation in continuous cardiac monitoring ordering exists, implementation strategies that promote care in alignment with practice standards and an examination of use cases that fall outside of standards are needed. The purpose of this study, therefore, was to evaluate if implementation of American Heart Association (AHA) practice standards on continuous cardiac monitoring could reduce utilization without jeopardizing patient safety.
methodsWe conducted a prospective pre-post study including a 2 year prospectively collected baseline against a 10-month post intervention period within a 10-hospital health system. An electronic health record (EHR) order set was implemented to align care with AHA continuous cardiac monitoring practice standards. We compared continuous cardiac monitoring utilization, adherence to standards, as well as clinical outcomes including mortality and length of stay. Finally, we investigated the rate and impact of hemodynamically significant events (hypotension, bradycardia, and tachycardia) before and after the intervention.
resultsWe compared 117,814 hospitalizations pre-implementation against 49,006 post implementation finding significant reductions in total telemetry use, and no significant change in outcomes. Overall, patients with telemetry use outside of standards had higher mortality, longer length of stay, and higher readmission rates. The intervention was associated with a higher rate of hypotensive events which occurred off cardiac monitoring. This was not associated with worse outcomes.
conclusionsAn EHR tool to align care with continuous cardiac monitoring practice standards safely reduced overall continuous cardiac monitoring utilization. Use outside of practice standards persisted and was primarily focused on monitoring for potential hemodynamic instability. We found no evidence that continuous cardiac monitoring was associated with improved outcomes in unstable patients. Continuous cardiac monitoring for potentially unstable patients can likely be replaced for non-cardiac indications with continuous heart rate monitoring.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.