CJC open · 2021
Diagnostic Efficacy of a Single-Lead Ambulatory 14-Day ECG Monitor in Symptomatic Children.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Côté Jean-Marc, Chetaille Philippe, Abadir Sylvia, Gosselin Louise, Simonyan David, Dallaire Frédéric
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The CardioSTAT is a single-lead ambulatory electrocardiography monitor that has been validated for use in adult patients. Recording is made through 2 electrodes positioned in a lead-I configuration, and the device allows monitoring for 2, 7, or 14 days. We sought to investigate the efficacy of this device in children with paroxysmal palpitations.
METHODS: In phase I, the quality of tracings from simultaneous CardioSTAT recordings and D1-lead recordings of a standard 12-lead electrocardiography machine in 23 children were compared. Phase II was a prospective observational cohort study comparing arrhythmia detection using the CardioSTAT vs currently used devices (24-hour Holter monitor and the Cardiomemo loop recorder) in 52 children complaining of palpitations.
RESULTS: In Phase I, all but 3 rhythm strips were correctly identified. The pacing spikes on 3 strips were not adequately identified by the observers for the CardioSTAT recording. In Phase II, symptomatic episodes were reported in 42%, 73%, and 100% of subjects during monitoring with the Holter, Cardiomemo, and CardioSTATdevices, respectively. An abnormal rhythm was detected in 13%, 23%, and 35% of subjects by the Holter, Cardiomemo, and CardioSTAT monitors, respectively. The underlying rhythm during symptomatic events was determined in 90% of cases with the CardioSTAT monitor, whereas it was determined in only 19% and 29% of cases using the Holter and Cardiomemo monitors, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: The CardioSTAT monitor provided good-quality tracings and was superior to the 24-hour Holter monitor and the Cardiomemo loop recorder in determining the presence or absence of pathologic arrhythmia in the study cohort.
METHODS: In phase I, the quality of tracings from simultaneous CardioSTAT recordings and D1-lead recordings of a standard 12-lead electrocardiography machine in 23 children were compared. Phase II was a prospective observational cohort study comparing arrhythmia detection using the CardioSTAT vs currently used devices (24-hour Holter monitor and the Cardiomemo loop recorder) in 52 children complaining of palpitations.
RESULTS: In Phase I, all but 3 rhythm strips were correctly identified. The pacing spikes on 3 strips were not adequately identified by the observers for the CardioSTAT recording. In Phase II, symptomatic episodes were reported in 42%, 73%, and 100% of subjects during monitoring with the Holter, Cardiomemo, and CardioSTATdevices, respectively. An abnormal rhythm was detected in 13%, 23%, and 35% of subjects by the Holter, Cardiomemo, and CardioSTAT monitors, respectively. The underlying rhythm during symptomatic events was determined in 90% of cases with the CardioSTAT monitor, whereas it was determined in only 19% and 29% of cases using the Holter and Cardiomemo monitors, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: The CardioSTAT monitor provided good-quality tracings and was superior to the 24-hour Holter monitor and the Cardiomemo loop recorder in determining the presence or absence of pathologic arrhythmia in the study cohort.