Perioperative medicine & outcomes
Continuous vs Intermittent Postoperative Vital Sign Monitoring: A Cluster Randomized Crossover Trial
Authors' conclusion
In this cluster randomized crossover trial of continuous compared with intermittent vital sign monitoring, continuous monitoring reduced the duration of desaturation in patients recovering from noncardiac surgery on general hospital wards.
Study context
- Population
- Patients recovering from noncardiac surgery on general hospital wards
- Participants
- 798 patients
- Comparison
- Continuous unblinded vs intermittent vital sign monitoring
- Unblinded continuous monitoringn = 404
- Blinded intermittent monitoringn = 394reference
- Primary endpoint
- Durations of hypotension, hypoxemia and tachycardia exceeding alert thresholds
- Follow-up
- Initial 48 hours of ward admission or until the third postoperative morning
Methodological detailsmultiple crossover, cluster, 2 postoperative hospital wards
- Multiple crossover
- Cluster
- 2 postoperative hospital wards
Primary result
Duration of oxygen saturation <90% · 48 hours
Geometric means ratio
0.86
95% CI 0.78–0.95
P = 0.002
By group
As reported in the abstract
Secondary outcomes
New oxygen therapy
Interventions
- Number of interventions similar
Original publication
Continuous vs Intermittent Postoperative Vital Sign Monitoring: A Cluster Randomized Crossover Trial. JAMA Netw Open. Published 2 March 2026. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →