Impact of continuous and wireless monitoring of vital signs on clinical outcomes: a propensity-matched observational study of surgical ward patients
An erratum to this article was published (Br J Anaesth, Oct 2024 ↗)
Main findingResult — go to the resultOdds ratio 3.42 95% CI 3.19–3.67Authors' conclusion
Patients who received continuous ward monitoring were less likely to die or be admitted to ICU than those who received intermittent monitoring.
Study context
- Population
- Patients admitted to general surgical wards, single tertiary medical centre, USA, January 2018–December 2019initially screened
- Participants
- 34,636 patients
- Exposure
- Intermittent vs continuous wireless vital sign monitoring
- Intermittent monitoringn = 12,345
- Continuous wireless monitoringn = 7,955reference
- Outcome
- Composite of:
- In-hospital mortality
- ICU transfer during hospitalisation
Methodological detailspropensity-matched, single-centre
- Propensity-matched
- Single-centre
Main finding
As reported in the abstract
Odds ratio
3.42
95% CI 3.19–3.67
P < 0.001
Intermittent monitoring vs Continuous wireless monitoring
OR 3.42 (95% CI 3.19–3.67); P < 0.001
Observational data: associations, not effects.
Secondary outcomes
| Outcome | OR (95% CI) | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Heart failure | 1.48 (1.21–1.81) | P < 0.001 | |
| MI | 3.87 (2.71–5.71) | P < 0.001 | |
| AKI | 1.32 (1.09–1.57) | P < 0.001 | |
| Rapid response team interventionSimilar in both groups | 0.86 (0.79–1.06) | P = 0.726 | |
| 0.20.5125Odds ratio (log scale) |
Original publication
Impact of continuous and wireless monitoring of vital signs on clinical outcomes: a propensity-matched observational study of surgical ward patients. Br J Anaesth. Published 21 December 2023. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →