Content uploaded by Michael Sampson
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Michael Sampson on Mar 07, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
Michael Sampson
Continuous ECG monitoring in hospital: part 2, practical issues
British Journal of Cardiac Nursing, March 2018, Vol 13, No 3, p. 128-134.
This is the accepted manuscript version of a published work that appeared in final form in the
British Journal of Cardiac Nursing, copyright (c) MA Healthcare, after technical editing by the
publisher. To access the final edited and published work see
https://www.magonlinelibrary.com/doi/10.12968/bjca.2018.13.3.128
Originally published March 2018.
Abstract
Continuous monitoring of the electrocardiogram (ECG) is a common intervention performed by
cardiac nurses. In the first article of this two-part series, we evaluated the principal indications for
ECG monitoring. These are the detection of arrhythmias, monitoring for myocardial ischaemia, and
measurement of the QT interval. In this second article, the practical issues surrounding ECG
monitoring are evaluated. The use of 3- and 5-electrode systems is discussed, and is related to ECG
theory and normal coronary artery anatomy. Recommendations are made for lead selection, correct
electrode placement, and the recording of 12-lead ECGs. The article concludes with a consideration
of safe practice in respect of alarm management, and considers both individual and organisational
approaches to reducing inappropriate alarms.
Key words
ECG monitoring, arrhythmia, myocardial ischaemia, QT interval, ECG lead
Introduction
Continuous monitoring of the electrocardiogram (ECG) is a common intervention performed by
cardiac nurses. Last month, we evaluated the principal indications for ECG monitoring. These are
the detection of arrhythmias, monitoring for myocardial ischaemia, and measurement of the QT
interval. In this second article we conclude our review of the topic by examining the practical issues
that nurses face in relation to ECG monitoring. These include correct electrode positioning,
adequate skin preparation, and the appropriate selection of ECG leads. We evaluate the theory that
underpins ECG monitoring, and provide practical advice on how to set up 3- and 5-lead monitoring
systems. The article concludes with an evaluation of alarm management, and considers how to
reduce inappropriate alarms and ensure patient safety.
2
Leads and electrodes
Before discussing specific issues relating to ECG monitoring, we need to define two key terms. In
clinical practice, we often talk about a “3-lead ECG” or a “5-lead ECG”. Unfortunately, this
terminology is somewhat misleading. In ECG terms, a “lead” is a recording of the heart’s electrical
activity, taken from a specific anatomical location, and not an electrical cable (Garcia, 2015). For
example, lead I views the heart from the left-hand side of the body, while lead aVF views it from
below. These different leads are obtained from skin electrodes placed on the body. It would be
more correct to describe monitoring systems as “3-electrode” or “5-electrode”, and that’s the
convention we’ll use in this article.
To understand the relationship between leads and electrodes, it’s useful to think about the 12-lead
ECG. A 12-lead ECG records 12 different electrical views of the heart, using 10 skin electrodes
(Hampton, 2013). The leads can be divided into two groups (figure 1).
Figure 1. The layout of the 12-lead ECG. The rhythm strip is a longer printout of lead II.
• The limb leads are I, II, III, aVR, aVL, and aVF. They are recorded using four electrodes; one
attached to each limb. The standard position for these electrodes is on the wrists and ankles
(Campbell et al, 2017).
• The chest (or precordial) leads are V1, V2, V3, V4, V5 and V6. They are recorded using the six
electrodes placed across the chest. Unlike the limb leads, each electrode corresponds with a
single ECG lead (Hampton, 2013).
3
The purpose of recording so many leads is to build up a three-dimensional picture of the heart’s
electrical activity (Garcia, 2015). The limb leads view the heart in a frontal plane, and see electrical
activity from a number of different angles (figure 2). The chest leads view the heart in a transverse
plane (i.e. through the chest wall), again from multiple angles (figure 3).
Figure 2. Anatomical perspective of the six limb leads
Figure 3. Anatomical perspective of the six chest leads
4
This detailed picture of cardiac electrical activity is extremely useful when diagnosing cardiac
conditions such as ischaemia, which are often localised to one area of the heart. For this purpose,
the ECG leads can be considered in three broad groups which correspond to anatomical regions of
the heart, and the coronary arteries that supply them (Houghton and Gray, 2014): -
• Inferior leads: II, III and aVF. These leads view the heart from below, and get a good view of the
diaphragmatic surface of the left ventricle. This area of the heart is supplied by the right
coronary artery (RCA) in most people (Cademartiri et al, 2008).
• Lateral leads: I, aVL, V5 and V6. These leads view the left-hand side of the heart, and “see” the
lateral wall of the left ventricle. The predominant artery supplying this region of the heart is the
left circumflex artery (LCx) (Rinta-Kiikka et al, 2014).
• Anteroseptal leads: V1, V2, V3, V4. These leads sit over the front of the left ventricle, and view
its anterior, apical and septal regions. These areas are supplied primarily by the left anterior
descending (LAD) artery (Tortora and Nielsen, 2014).
Although continuous monitoring of all 12 ECG leads is possible, and is performed on some units, in
many clinical areas only one or two leads are constantly evaluated. This reduces the number of
electrodes that must be placed on the patient, as well as the complexity of the monitoring
equipment required. It also reduces the number of electrical views obtained; careful lead selection
is therefore required, especially when ischaemia monitoring is initiated (Sandau and Smith, 2009).
The lead(s) selected will depend on the monitor being used, the number of electrodes, and the
indication for monitoring. Let’s examine the two common monitoring setups, 3-electrode and 5-
electrode, and think about which ECG lead(s) might be selected for monitoring.
3-electrode ECG monitoring
3-electrode is the simplest form of continuous ECG monitoring, and is commonly employed in a
range of clinical settings including cardiac and intensive care units, operating theatres, and
resuscitation situations (Jevon, 2010). The system uses three limb electrodes, which are colour
coded: -
• Right arm (RA – red)
• Left arm (LA – yellow)
• Left leg (LL - green)
Note that these colours refer to European equipment, and are different in the USA.
Rather than placing the electrodes on the limbs, they are positioned on the chest wall (Hatchett,
2017). This modification was first described by Mason and Likar (1966), and was developed for
exercise testing. Moving the limb leads away from the extremities allows greater patient movement,
and reduces artefact, making it suitable for both exercise testing and continuous ECG monitoring
(Pahlm and Wagner, 2008). Although suitable for these applications, it should be noted that Mason-
Likar electrode positions alter the amplitude of the QRS voltage in the inferior leads, and shift the
cardiac axis to the right (Jowett et al, 2005). Diagnostic 12-lead ECGs should, therefore, be
performed using limb leads placed at the limb extremities, and not on the chest wall (Campbell et al,
2017).
5
For continuous ECG monitoring, the positions of the three electrodes are as follows (figure 4): -
• RA (red) - below the right clavicle
• LA (yellow) - below the left clavicle
• LL (green) - on the lower part of the ribcage, on the left-hand side
Figure 4. 3-electrode monitoring
Placement of ECG electrodes is a relatively simple task; however, care must be taken to ensure good
adhesion and correct location (Hatchett, 2017). Skin must be dry and free from oil, loose skin flakes
or excessive hair (Campbell et al, 2017). If necessary, skin should be cleaned with soap and water, or
an alcohol wipe, prior to electrode placement. Loose skin can be removed by gentle exfoliation
using a dry gauze swab, and chest hair removed by shaving or clipping in those areas where
electrodes will be placed (American Association of Critical Care Nurses [AACCN], 2013). Although
the placement of the arm electrodes below the clavicles is standard practice (Hatchett, 2017; Jevon,
2010), it should be noted that the right arm electrode is positioned where a defibrillator pad would
be placed. In patients at high risk of cardiac arrest, or who may need transcutaneous pacing,
placement of arm electrodes on the shoulders is recommended, keeping the chest clear for
defibrillation pads (Resuscitation Council UK, 2016). For the same reason, the left leg electrode
should be placed low down on the rib cage, and not immediately below the axilla.
3-electrode systems typically allow a single ECG lead to be displayed and monitored. The available
leads with this setup are I, II and III. These are referred to as the standard limb leads, and are the
three leads used in the early years of electrocardiography (AlGhatrif and Lindsay, 2012). For
arrhythmia monitoring, lead II is typically selected as P-waves and QRS complexes are usually upright
in this view, facilitating rhythm interpretation (Sandau et al, 2017). If lead II does not give a clear
ECG trace, the monitor can be adjusted to display lead I or III (Hatchett, 2017). If the ECG trace is
poor in all leads, electrode position and adherence should be checked. Although 3-electrode
6
systems are ideal for rhythm monitoring, the limited range of leads available make them a poor
choice for monitoring ischaemia or the QT interval. For these applications, a 5-electrode system is
better.
5-electrode ECG monitoring
In 5-electrode monitoring, two additional electrodes are added (figure 5): -
• A right leg electrode (RL - black)
• A chest electrode (V - white)
Figure 5. 5-electrode monitoring
The right leg electrode is placed on the lower ribcage, to the right-hand side of the body. Placement
of this electrode makes the remaining limb leads available; the “augmented” limb leads aVR, aVL
and aVF (Hampton, 2013). The chest electrode is typically placed in the V1 position – the fourth
intercostal space at the right sternal margin (Hatchett, 2017). This lead gets a good view of atrial
electrical activity, so is useful in rhythm interpretation (Bennett, 2013). It is also useful in the
diagnosis of bundle branch blocks (BBB), as characteristic QRS changes are seen in V1 (Garcia, 2015).
If a different chest lead is required, the white electrode must physically be moved to that position.
For example, to monitor V4, the white electrode must be placed in the fifth intercostal space, in the
mid-clavicular line (Campbell et al, 2017). As 5-electrode monitors often allow two ECG leads to be
displayed and monitored, leads II and V1 are recommended for arrhythmia monitoring (Sandau and
Smith, 2009).
7
If a change in rhythm is detected during monitoring, and time allows (i.e. the patient is not in cardiac
arrest or close to it), a 12-lead ECG should be recorded using standard electrode positions (Pitcher
and Nolan, 2015). This ensures documentation of the arrhythmia, and may be helpful for rhythm
interpretation. Information available on the 12-lead may also have prognostic importance, or guide
future treatment such as catheter ablation (Bennett, 2013).
ST-segment monitoring
As discussed above, lead selection is one of the most important considerations in ST-segment
monitoring (Sandau et al, 2017). Ischaemia is often localised to one area of the heart; the leads that
“see” that area must be monitored if ischaemia is to be detected. If patients present with an
ischaemic ECG, this should form the basis for initial lead selection by identifying the ”ST fingerprint”
(Collins, 2010). This refers to the pattern of ST elevation or depression seen at admission; the leads
showing the most important changes are selected for subsequent monitoring.
When no prior ischaemic changes have been recorded, the leads that are most likely to detect
ischaemia should be selected (Sandau and Smith, 2009). Myocardial infarction most often affects
the anteroseptal and inferior regions of the heart (Hreybe and Saba, 2009). In suspected ACS,
selection of leads monitoring these regions is therefore suggested; leads III and V3 are common
choices (Collins, 2010). In a study using experimental coronary artery occlusion, ST elevation was
greatest in these two leads, although aVF had the greatest sensitivity and specificity for right
coronary artery occlusion (Haeberlin et al, 2014).
Following cardiac surgery, or PCI, lead selection should be guided by the vessels that have been
revascularized; for example, V3 is a good choice following PCI to the LAD (Sandau et al, 2017). Given
the limitations imposed by continuous monitoring (e.g. limited lead choice, modified electrode
positions), a standard 12-lead ECG should be recorded at least once per shift, and whenever
significant changes in ST-segments are detected (Sandau and Smith, 2009).
The main limitation to ST-segment monitoring, aside from those discussed above, is the large
variation in the ST-segment itself. There are multiple causes of ST-segment elevation or depression,
many of which are benign or unrelated to cardiac ischaemia (Garcia, 2015). The ST-segment is
deviated in bundle branch blocks, ventricular pacing, ventricular hypertrophy, and chronic digoxin
use (Houghton and Gray, 2014). Evaluation may be difficult or impossible in patients with these
conditions. ST-segment monitoring is also difficult in restless patients, because of artefact, and
should not be attempted if patients are agitated (Sangkachand et al, 2011).
Monitoring the QT interval
There are three methods of monitoring the QT interval; continuous fully automated, semi-
automated, and manual (Sandau et al, 2017). The method chosen will depend to some degree on
the monitoring equipment available, as well as usual practice within the individual unit.
Continuous, fully automated QT interval monitoring is a feature available on some, but not all,
modern patient monitors (Chenoweth et al, 2017). Special software allows the monitor to sample all
available ECG leads, and calculate representative QT and RR intervals. These are used to calculate
the QTc automatically every five minutes, with the result displayed on the monitor (Zhou et al,
2009). This has the advantage that changes in the QTc can be mapped over time; significant
8
prolongation can be picked up quickly and acted on. A study by Chenworth et al (2017)
demonstrated moderate correlation between measurements using an automated system and 12-
lead ECGs. The authors concluded that while the automated system was useful for trend evaluation,
12-lead ECG remains the standard for evaluation, and should be used to confirm the QT interval
before changes to treatment are made.
In semi-automated systems, electronic callipers are accessed via the monitor, and are used to
measure the QT interval and RR interval on the displayed rhythm strip. The monitor uses these
values to calculate the QTc (Sandau et al, 2017). Although this allows more flexibility than an
automated system, and greater human oversight, it also means that nurses must remember to take
measurements. Unless this is incorporated into standard observation charts and clinical routines, it
may be forgotten (Pickham and Drew, 2008). As with fully automated systems, significant changes
must be corroborated by 12-lead ECG.
Manual evaluation implies measurement of the QT interval using manual callipers and a 12-lead
ECG. This remains the gold standard for evaluation of the QT interval, and is probably the most
widely used method in clinical practice (Chenworth et al, 2017; Pickham and Drew, 2008; Sandau et
al, 2017). In practice, many clinicians use the QTc calculated by the ECG machine, which is printed at
the top of the recording. While this is often the most accurate calculation of the QT interval, ECG
machines are not infallible and manual verification is recommended (Bennett, 2013). Most clinicians
use Bazett’s formula to calculate QTc from the QT and R-R intervals (Rautaharju et al, 2009) (figure
6). This is fairly straightforward: -
• The QT interval appears longer in some leads than others, and may be difficult to measure if the
onset and offset of waveforms are unclear. Choose a lead in which the QT appears the longest,
and which also has a clear beginning to the QRS complex, and a clear end to the T-wave
(Pickham and Drew, 2008). Rautaharju et al (2009) suggest that leads V2 and V3 often have the
longest QT intervals, while Yaldren and Richley (2014) suggest lead II as the clearest for
measurement. Other suggested leads are I, III and V5 (Yaldren and Richley, 2014).
• Measure from the beginning of the QRS complex to the end of the T-wave. Do not include U-
waves; if they merge with the T-wave, choose a lead in which they do not appear if possible
(Rautaharju et al, 2009). Multiply each millimetre by 0.04 seconds to calculate the QT interval.
If you don’t have callipers, count small squares; each small square is 1 millimetre.
• Next, measure the preceding R-R interval; this is the time interval between the two previous QRS
complexes. This is best measured by placing the tips of the callipers on the peaks of the R-waves
(Garcia, 2015). If the ECG shows atrial fibrillation, a mean R-R interval should be calculated by
either adding the shortest and longest R-R intervals, and dividing by two, or by averaging
multiple R-R intervals (Sandau et al, 2017). Multiply the number of millimetres by 0.04 seconds
to give the R-R interval, and then work out the square root using a calculator.
• Divide the square root of the R-R interval into the QT interval to give the QTc in seconds (figure
6). Multiply by 1000 for the same value in milliseconds.
• A number of online calculators exist to make this easier. All you need to use them is the heart
rate, and measured QT interval. One example can be found at
https://www.mdcalc.com/corrected-qt-interval-qtc
9
Figure 6. Using Bazett’s formula to calculate the QTc from the QT and R-R intervals
Note that because 12-lead ECG machines measure the QT interval in all 12 leads, and calculate using
the earliest QRS and latest T-wave, the QTc will often be slightly longer than that calculated
manually using a single lead (Rautaharju et al, 2009). For manual calculations, use the same lead for
every measurement; document the QTc in the patients notes (Pickham and Drew, 2008).
The suggested frequency of QT monitoring is a minimum of eight hourly, however frequency should
be increased for patients who are clinically unstable, or whose QTc is already prolonged (Sandau et
al, 2017). Progressive increases in QTc should be reported to the patient’s medical team, and urgent
advice sought if the QTc exceeds 500ms as a change in treatment, for example drug discontinuation,
may be required (Bennett, 2013). Bear in mind that increases in QRS width will also increase the
QTc; if the patient has a bundle branch block or is ventricularly paced, the effect of increased QRS
width on the QT interval should be factored in (Rautaharju et al, 2009). Close monitoring for TdP is
essential in any patient with significant QT prolongation.
Alarm management
The final consideration in continuous ECG monitoring is alarm management. Alarms are an essential
element of any monitoring system; their purpose is to alert the clinician to a change in physiological
parameters that requires action (Spratt, 2016). Unfortunately, most alerts are false alarms; in other
words, they do not require intervention on the part of the nurse. Drew et al (2014) studied audible
alarms in an intensive care unit over a 31-day period. On average, there were 187 alarms per bed
per day, of which less than 12% required action.
This high burden of false alarm is widely reported in the literature, and is undesirable for several
reasons (Graham and Cvach, 2010). Firstly, false alarms add to the clinical workload; dealing with
them reduces the time available for more important patient care. Secondly, regular false alarms
desensitize staff, and may lead to slow or inadequate responses when genuine emergencies occur.
Pelter and Drew (2015) describe the case of a man admitted for observation with chest pain and a
non-diagnostic 12-lead ECG. During the night shift, the monitor alarmed repeatedly because of
“bradycardia” and “asystole”. Each time, the patient was checked, and the rate and rhythm were
normal. After consulting with the on-call doctor, the nurse switched off the alarms. When the
patient was checked several hours later, he was cold and pulseless; the presumed cause of death
was ventricular arrhythmia secondary to myocardial ischaemia. This was not detected because the
alarms had been disabled. Similar case studies have been reported elsewhere; a US report on the
10
problem documented 98 adverse events in four years, 80 of which resulted in death (Joint
Commission, 2013).
The level of harm reported makes appropriate alarm management a priority for any nurse caring for
monitored patients. Alarms needs to be sensitive enough to detect important changes in patient
physiology, but not so sensitive that insignificant changes or artefact trigger alarms (Spratt, 2016).
Alarms can be divided into three categories: -
• Parameter violation - upper and lower limits for physiological measurements are set by the
user, and the alarm sounds if the parameter is exceeded. In ECG monitoring, parameter alarms
would include upper and lower heart rate limits, ST-segment deviation, and QTc prolongation.
• Arrhythmia - ECG rhythm is constantly evaluated by software that analyses waveform
morphology and rhythm. An alarm sounds if an abnormal rhythm is detected.
• Technical – for example poor signal, lead disconnection, and power failure.
Parameter violations are the most common cause of false alarms, and often result from limits that
are too narrow (Spratt, 2016). Typical default settings for heart rate are a low of 60bpm, and a high
of 120bpm. If the patient has a naturally low resting heart rate, or is beta-blocked, the alarm will
constantly sound when the rate falls below 60. Given that no action is taken in this case, a lower
limit would be more appropriate. Similarly, a patient with atrial fibrillation, and a heart rate
averaging 110bpm, will frequently trip the upper alarm limit due to fluctuation in heart rate. A
higher upper limit is appropriate if the problem is known, and treatment already underway (Pelter
and Drew, 2015). This underlines the importance of patient assessment; alarms should be checked
and adjusted to individual circumstances when taking over the care of any monitored patient, and
should only sound when an actionable change in physiology occurs (AACCN, 2013). Changes to
default settings within organisations can also be helpful. Altering default heart rate limits to a low of
50bpm, and a high of 150bpm, reduced alarm frequency by 43% in a study by Graham and Cvach
(2010).
Preventing false arrhythmia and technical alarms relies largely on correct electrode placement, and
appropriate lead selection (Sendelbach and Funk, 2013). Poor skin preparation can result in lead
detachment, and unnecessary alarms, whilst poorly sited electrodes can suffer from poor signal or
interference from patient movement (Hatchett, 2017). Selecting the best lead for monitoring
rhythm, ST-segment or QTc has been discussed already, however lead selection must also include
assessment of the size of the QRS complex and T-wave (Pelter and Drew, 2015). A low amplitude
QRS complex can result in under-detection by the monitor, and result in false bradycardia or asystole
alarms. This was the cause of the false alarms in the case study discussed earlier. A lead with a T-
wave that is very tall can result in overcounting – the monitor thinks the T-wave is another QRS, and
double counts the heart rate as a result. When false alarms occur, electrode placement, lead
selection, and alarm parameters should all be reviewed with the aim of preventing further false
alarms. Alarms should never be permanently silenced (Pelter and drew, 2015). Training is
recommended to ensure that clinicians are familiar with monitoring equipment, and know how to
adjust and troubleshoot alarms (AACCN, 2013).
11
Conclusion
ECG monitoring can be a lifesaving intervention when used appropriately, however patients must be
carefully selected, and the right type of monitoring instigated. This monitoring compliments, but
does not replace, the need for regular evaluation using a 12-lead ECG, which remains the gold
standard for assessment of rhythm, ischaemia, and repolarisation.
Key areas issues in ECG monitoring include adequate skin preparation, correct siting of electrodes,
and well-judged lead selection. Good practice in these areas ensures effective monitoring, and helps
to prevent false alarms. Practice must be underpinned by a knowledge of the patient’s history and
previous ECGs, the reason for monitoring, and an understanding of ECG theory. Nurses must be
familiar with the equipment used, and know how to adjust and troubleshoot alarms. Most
importantly, all clinicians need to recognise the limitations of continuous ECG monitoring, and
ensure that action or omission does not result in monitoring failure.
Key points
• Common monitoring setups include 3- and 5-electrode systems. 3-electrode systems can
monitor ECG leads I, II or III, and typically display a single lead. 5-electrode systems can monitor
these leads plus aVR, aVL, aVF, and a single chest lead. 5-electrode systems can often display
two ECG leads.
• For arrhythmia monitoring, lead II is usually selected on 3-electrode systems. On 5-electrode
systems, V1 is usually added.
• For ST-segment monitoring, lead selection is determined by the circumstances and prior ECG. In
known or suspected ACS, lead selection is based on ST-segment changes on the presenting ECG;
if these are absent, leads III and V3 are commonly monitored. Following cardiac surgery or PCI,
lead selection should be based on the arteries that have been revascularized.
• In QT interval monitoring, the QTc may be measured automatically, semi-automatically, or
manually. Measurement by 12-lead ECG is considered the gold standard; many clinicians use the
machine calculated QTc, although manual verification is recommended. When evaluating the
QTc manually, select a lead in which the QT appears the longest, but in which QRS onset and T-
wave offset are clear. Use Bazett’s formula to convert QT to QTc.
• Alarms are essential, and alert clinicians to important changes in physiology. They are often
poorly used, resulting in multiple false alarms, and alarm fatigue. Individualising alarm
parameters, correct electrode placement, and well-judged lead selection reduces the number of
false alarms. The cause of false alarms should always be investigated; alarms should never be
permanently disabled.
12
CPD questions
1. Find out what type of monitors are in use on your ward or unit. Make sure that you know how
to switch between ECG leads, and alter alarm parameters.
2. Would you know how to monitor a patient for ST segment changes, or QT prolongation? If not,
find out how this is usually done on your ward or unit, and familiarise yourself with the changes
that occur on the ECG, and how to measure them.
3. Think about a busy shift that you have worked recently. How much time did you spend dealing
with unnecessary alarms? In hindsight, how could you have reduced this?
References
AlGhatrif M, Lindsay J (2012) A brief review: history to understand fundamentals of
electrocardiography. Journal of community hospital internal medicine perspectives. 2(1):14383.
American Association of Critical Care Nurses (2013) AACCN practice alert: Alarm management,
available at https://www.aacn.org/clinical-resources/practice-alerts/alarm-management accessed
20/12/2017.
Bennett DH (2013) Bennett’s Cardiac Arrhythmias: Practical notes on interpretation and treatment,
8th edition, London: Hodder Arnold.
Cademartiri F, La Grutta L, Malagò L, Alberghina F, Meijboom WB, Pugliese F, Maffei E, Palumbo AA,
Aldrovandi A, Fusaro M, Brambilla V, Coruzzi P, Midiri M, Mollet NRA, Krestin GP (2008) Prevalence
of anatomical variants and coronary anomalies in 543 consecutive patients studied with 64-slice CT
coronary angiography, Eur Radiol, 18: 781–791.
Campbell B, Richley D, Ross C, Eggett CJ (2017) Clinical Guidelines by Consensus: Recording a
standard 12-lead electrocardiogram. An approved method by the Society for Cardiological Science
and Technology (SCST). Available at:
http://www.scst.org.uk/resources/SCST_ECG_Recording_Guidelines_2017 (accessed 30/11/2017)
Chenoweth JA, Hougham AM, Colby DK, Ford JB, Sandhu J, Albertson TE, Sutter ME (2017)
Monitoring the corrected QT in the acute care setting: A comparison of the 12-lead
electrocardiogram and bedside monitor. The American Journal of Emergency Medicine. In press.
Collins ML (2010) Using continuous ST-segment monitoring, Nursing2016, 40:11-3.
Drew BJ, Harris P, Zègre-Hemsey JK, Mammone T, Schindler D, Salas-Boni R, Bai Y, Tinoco A, Ding Q,
Hu X (2014) Insights into the problem of alarm fatigue with physiologic monitor devices: a
comprehensive observational study of consecutive intensive care unit patients. PloS one.
9(10):e110274.
Garcia TB (2015) 12-lead ECG: The Art of Interpretation. 2nd Edition. Burlington, Ma : Jones and
Bartlett
Graham KC, Cvach M (2010) Monitor alarm fatigue: standardizing use of physiological monitors and
decreasing nuisance alarms, American Journal of Critical Care, 19(1):28-34.
13
Haeberlin A, Studer E, Niederhauser T, Stoller M, Marisa T, Goette J, Jacomet M, Traupe T, Seiler C,
Vogel R (2014) Electrocardiographic ST-segment monitoring during controlled occlusion of coronary
arteries. Journal of Electrocardiology. 47(1):29-37.
Hampton JR (2013) The ECG made easy, 8th edition, London: Churchill Livingstone.
Hatchett R (2017) Cardiac monitoring and the use of a systematic approach in interpreting
electrocardiogram rhythms, Nursing Standard, 32, 11, 51-62.
Houghton AR & Gray D (2014) Making sense of the ECG: A hands-on guide, 4th edition, Boca Raton:
CRC Press.
Hreybe H & Saba S (2009) Location of Acute Myocardial Infarction and Associated Arrhythmias and
Outcome, Clinical Cardiology, 32(5), 274-277.
Jevon P (2010) An introduction to electrocardiogram monitoring, Nursing in Critical Care, 15(1), 34-
38.
Joint Commission (2013) Sentinel Event Alert Issue 50: Medical device alarm safety in hospitals,
available at https://www.jointcommission.org/sea_issue_50/ accessed 20/12/2017.
Jowett NI, Turner AM, Cole A, Jones PA. (2005) Modified electrode placement must be recorded
when performing 12-lead electrocardiograms. Postgraduate Medical Journal. 81(952):122-5
Mason RE, Likar I. (1966) A new system of multiple-lead exercise electrocardiography. Am Heart J
71:196.
Pahlm O, Wagner GS. (2008) Potential solutions for providing standard electrocardiogram recordings
from nonstandard recording sites. Journal of Electrocardiology. 41(3):207-10.
Pelter MM, Drew BJ (2015) Harm from alarm fatigue, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality,
available at https://psnet.ahrq.gov/webmm/case/362/harm-from-alarm-fatigue (accessed
06/12/2017)
Pickham D, Drew BJ (2008) QT/QTc interval monitoring in the emergency department. Journal of
Emergency Nursing. 34(5):428-34.
Pitcher D, Nolan J (2015) Peri-arrest arrhythmias. Resuscitation Council UK, London. http://tinyurl.
com/ogeh2jt (accessed 30/11/2017)
Rautaharju PM, Surawicz B & Gettes LS (2009) AHA/ACCF/HRS Recommendations for the
Standardization and Interpretation of the Electrocardiogram. Part IV: The ST Segment, T and U
Waves, and the QT Interval. A Scientific Statement from the American Heart Association
Electrocardiography and Arrhythmias Committee, Council on Clinical Cardiology; the American
College of Cardiology Foundation; and the Heart Rhythm Society, Circulation, 119, e241-e250.
Resuscitation Council (UK) (2016) Advanced Life Support. Seventh edition. RCUK, London.
Rinta-Kiikka I, Tuohinen S, Ryymin P, Kosonen P, Huhtala H, Gorgels A, Bayes de Luna A, Nikus K
(2014) Correlation of Electrocardiogram and Regional Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging Findings
in ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction: A Literature Review, Ann Noninvasive Electrocardiol, 19(6),
509–523.
Sangkachand P, Sarosario B, Funk M (2011) Continuous ST-segment monitoring: nurses’ attitudes,
practices, and quality of patient care. American Journal of Critical Care. 20(3):226-38.
14
Sandau KE, Funk M, Auerbach A et al (2017) Update to Practice Standards for Electrocardiographic
Monitoring in Hospital Settings: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association,
Circulation, 136:e273–e344. DOI: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000527
Sandau KE, Smith M (2009) Continuous ST-segment monitoring: 3 case studies in progressive care.
Crit Care Nurse. 29(5):18-30.
Sendelbach S, Funk M (2013) Alarm Fatigue; A Patient Safety Concern. AACN advanced critical care.
24(4):378-86.
Spratt G (2016) Three steps to reduce alarm fatigue and improve patient safety, AARC Times, August
2016, 13-16.
Tortora GJ & Nielsen MT (2014) Principles of human anatomy, 13th edition, Hoboken, NJ : Wiley.
Yaldren J & Richley D (2014) Accurate measurement and assessment of the QT interval, British
Journal of Cardiac Nursing, 9(3), 137-141.
Yaldren J & Richley D (2014) Accurate measurement and assessment of the QT interval, British
Journal of Cardiac Nursing, 9(3), 137-141.
Zhou SH, Helfenbein ED, Lindauer JM, Gregg RE, Feild DQ.(2009) Philips QT interval measurement
algorithms for diagnostic, ambulatory, and patient monitoring ECG applications. Ann Noninvasive
Electrocardiol. 14(suppl):S3–S8