Impact on Patient Outcomes of Continuous Vital Sign Monitoring on Medical Wards: Propensity-Matched Analysis.

Background: Continuous and wireless vital sign (VS) monitoring on hospital wards is superior to intermittent VS monitoring at detecting VS abnormalities; however, the impact on clinical outcomes remains to be confirmed. A recent propensity-matched study of primary surgical patients found decreased odds of intensive care unit (ICU) admission and mortality in patients receiving continuous monitoring. Primary surgical patients are inherently different from their medical counterparts who typically have high morbidity, including frailty. Continuous monitoring research has been limited in primary medical patients.

Objective: This study aims to evaluate the clinical outcomes of primary medical patients who received either continuous or, as a contemporaneous control, intermittent vital monitoring as the standard of care using propensity matching.

Methods: Propensity-matched analysis of a population-based sample of 7971 patients admitted to the medical wards between January 2018 and December 2019 at a single, tertiary United States medical center. The continuous monitoring device measures oxygen saturation, heart rate, respiratory rate, continuous noninvasive blood pressure, and either 3-lead or 5-lead electrocardiogram. Patients received either 12 hours or more of continuous and wireless VS monitoring (n=1450) or intermittent VS monitoring (n=6521). The primary outcome was the odds of a composite of in-hospital mortality or ICU transfer during hospitalization. Secondary outcomes were the odds of individual components of the primary outcome, as well as heart failure (HF), myocardial infarction (MI), acute kidney injury (AKI), and rapid response team (RRT) activations.

Results: Those who received intermittent VS monitoring had greater odds of a composite of in-hospital mortality or ICU admission (odds ratio [OR] 2.79, 95% CI 1.89-4.25; P<.001) compared with those who had continuous and wireless VS monitoring. The odds of HF (OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.83-1.28; P=.77), MI (OR 1.58, 95% CI 0.77-3.47; P=.23), AKI (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.62-1.02; P=.06), and RRT activation (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.75-1.19; P=.62) were similar in both groups.

Conclusions: In this propensity-matched study, medical ward patients who received standard of care intermittent VS monitoring were at nearly 3 times greater odds of transfer to the ICU or death compared with those who received continuous VS monitoring. Our study was primarily limited by the inability to match patients on admission diagnosis due to limitations in electronic health record data. Other limitations included the number of and reasons for false alarms, which can be challenging with continuous monitoring strategies. Given the limitations of this work, these observations need to be confirmed with prospective interventional trials.