ABSTRACT
Home cardiorespiratory monitoring has changed significantly since it was first introduced in the 1970s. It has improved from a simple alarm system to a sophisticated piece of equipment capable of monitoring the patient's electrocardiogram, respiratory effort, and oxygen saturations. In addition, the indications for using a monitor have also changed. The home monitor was initially used to reduce the incidence of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). Although there were several studies demonstrating the reduction of SIDS rates in communities where apnea programs existed, none was a prospective, double-blinded study or had adequate numbers to be clinically significant. Therefore, the American Academy of Pediatrics took the stance that monitors were not an effective way to reduce SIDS. However, when used appropriately, as part of a complete program (ie, the monitor is just one of many clinically based modalities), by a clinician with expertise in interpreting download tracings, home cardiorespiratory monitoring can be a useful, lifesaving, and economical tool to observe infants who are at increased risk of sudden death or increased morbidity secondary to intermittent hypoxia. [Pediatr Ann. 2017;46(8):e303-e308.].
Subject(s)
Apnea/diagnosis , Apnea/history , Electrocardiography/history , Oximetry/history , Polysomnography/history , Sudden Infant Death/prevention & control , Apnea/complications , Electrocardiography/instrumentation , Electrocardiography/methods , History, 20th Century , History, 21st Century , Humans , Infant , Oximetry/instrumentation , Oximetry/methods , Polysomnography/instrumentation , Polysomnography/methods , Sudden Infant Death/etiology , United StatesABSTRACT
A large cohort of infants (8,998) at high risk for sudden and unexpected death was followed with home cardiorespiratory monitoring over a five-year period. These infants included premature infants (23-36 weeks post-conceptual age), SIDS siblings, and infants who experienced an Apparent Life-Threatening Event. The overall SIDS rate in this high-risk population was 0.55/1,000, a rate significantly less than the 0.85 deaths/1,000 reported in the "general population" of Georgia over this same time period. In addition, we report our experience with using home monitors as a diagnostic tool, as well as how monitors can actually be cost-effective. Editorial opinions, and lay press summaries of the CHIME study (JAMA, May 2, 2001) imply that home cardiorespirtory monitors are of little value. Despite the fact that the study never made this claim, many clinicians are now referring to this study as evidence that home monitoring is ineffective and not needed. This article disputes those misconceptions about home cardiorespiratory monitors based on our experience with a large high-risk population of infants.
