I am of the opinion that technology is useless if not used properly. I prefer (and in fact it is standard practice in my unit) to monitor rhythms in whatever lead would be most useful -- that is, if a patient had stents placed in the RCA and LAD, I would monitor lead II (inferior) and V3 or V4 (anterior). Likewise, if someone is having a inferior/lateral MI, I would monitor leads II and V6. Makes sense, right?

I sometimes work agency in other hospitals and find that in those units it is standard to monitor leads II and V1, no matter what the patient is in for. In fact, they reprimand me for monitoring other -more useful- leads.

Comments?

Makes sense to me. What drives me nuts is when people don't put monitor/EKG leads in the proper place. Call me silly I still count ribs.

Or, my favorite, the "Augmented Belly Button Lead".

You got it!

Originally posted by JohnnyGage

Or, my favorite, the "Augmented Belly Button Lead".

:roll A real GRRRRRRR with me on All your good points!

You are correct to use the technology @ hand. Lead II is just what everyone learned in school. Use the MCL1 or the others if you need to. Stick by your guns. Play with the filter & gain & lead placement (if leads are posterior of the subclavians, then both should be, not just one). You will find your monitor will sense better if you do! Great job!