PubMed · 15571299
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
Corinna B Brunckhorst. 2004-11-03. [CME-ECG 2].. https://doi.org/10.1024/0369-8394.93.45.1861
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
OBJECTIVE: To present an unpublished reason for an arrhythmic electrocardiogram (ECG) recording during kangaroo care in a preterm infant. DESIGN: Case report. PATIENT: Preterm infant. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A preterm infant exhibited cardiac arrhythmia on the ECG monitor during kangaroo care, leading to interruption of kangarooing. Arrhythmia disappeared after placing the baby back into the incubator. The most likely reasons for arrhythmia were excluded. However, arrhythmia reappeared upon continuation of kangaroo care. ECG monitoring revealed the reason for the monitoring error. CONCLUSIONS: ECG monitoring during kangaroo care should cause error because of superimposed electric activity from the parent. Oxygen saturation represents a more reliable method of monitoring during kangaroo care.
We used Kaplan-Meier 2-year survival analysis on CAST registry patients to estimate prognostic power of VPC frequency (> or =10/hr), presence of nonsustained ventricular tachycardia (NSVT), left ventricular ejection fraction, and presence of diabetes. We also used meta-analysis of reports in the literature to estimate prognostic power of signal-averaged electrocardiogram (SAECG) and electrophysiological tests (EPS) as well as VPCs, NSVT, and LVEF. Combined results from CAST analysis and literature meta-analysis yielded sensitivity and specificity for VPCs, NSVT, SAECG, LVEF, Diabetes, and EPS. The overall 2 year event rate for life-threatening arrhythmias or death was 7.88% for 51,144 cases in the combined CAST and literature data. After segmenting the population 21.3% were diabetic with a predicted 2 yr event rate of 13.5% and 78.7% were nondiabetic event rate of 6.4%. We defined low risk as <10% and high risk as > or =30%. Otherwise predicted event rate was classified as "unstratified." When all possible combination of noninvasive tests were applied, a prominent difference in the proportions of cases at risk between the diabetics and nondiabetics was revealed. When the unstratified cases were subsequently tested with EPS, the difference between the two groups was even more marked.