Indian pacing and electrophysiology journal · 2019
Comparison of arrhythmia detection by conventional Holter and a novel ambulatory ECG system using patch and Android App, over 24 h period.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Karunadas Chakkalakkal Prabhakaran, Mathew Cibu
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Ambulatory electrocardiogram (AECG) is done for evaluation of arrhythmia. Commonly used AECG system is 24 h Holter. Patch based second generation AECG monitoring devices, which can record for longer periods, are now available.
OBJECTIVE: Android App based WebCardio using WiPatch is a new AECG system which records ECG in two leads for 72 h. Our study compared the arrhythmia detection by WebCardio and conventional Holter by simultaneously connecting both for 24 h in patients having indication for AECG.
METHODS: The AECG of patients who had simultaneous recording with WebCardio and conventional Holter, in the department of Cardiology, Medical College, Thrissur were evaluated. Ability to detect any of the 6 arrhythmias :1) atrial fibrillation (AF), 2) atrioventricular (AV) block, 3) sinus pause of ≥3 s (SP), 4) supraventricular tachycardia (SVT), 5) premature ventricular complex (PVC) and 6) ventricular tachycardia (VT)/ventricular fibrillation (VF) was compared. Detection of each arrhythmia was also compared.
RESULTS: 141 patients had simultaneous recordings by both systems of AECG. The WebCardio picked up at least one of the 6 arrhythmias; AF, AV block, SP, SVT, PVC or VT/VF in 98 cases compared to 88 in the Holter (McNemars test, two tail P = 0.006). In eleven cases WebCardio detected an arrhythmia where Holter could not. In one case Holter identified an arrhythmia and WebCardio could not. Individual arrhythmias; AF, SP, SVT and VT/VF were detected equally by both systems. AV block (23 Vs 18, p = 0.0625) and PVCs (83 Vs 74, p = 0.0636) were detected in more number of cases in WebCardio. In the five cases where WebCardio alone identified AV block, four had poor quality of P wave in the Holter.
CONCLUSION: Arrhythmia was picked up in more number of patients by the WebCardio compared to Holter. This was due to higher pickup of AV block and PVCs by WebCardio. Difference in AV block identification was due to better quality of P in WebCardio. WebCardio is a good alternative to Holter for AECG.
OBJECTIVE: Android App based WebCardio using WiPatch is a new AECG system which records ECG in two leads for 72 h. Our study compared the arrhythmia detection by WebCardio and conventional Holter by simultaneously connecting both for 24 h in patients having indication for AECG.
METHODS: The AECG of patients who had simultaneous recording with WebCardio and conventional Holter, in the department of Cardiology, Medical College, Thrissur were evaluated. Ability to detect any of the 6 arrhythmias :1) atrial fibrillation (AF), 2) atrioventricular (AV) block, 3) sinus pause of ≥3 s (SP), 4) supraventricular tachycardia (SVT), 5) premature ventricular complex (PVC) and 6) ventricular tachycardia (VT)/ventricular fibrillation (VF) was compared. Detection of each arrhythmia was also compared.
RESULTS: 141 patients had simultaneous recordings by both systems of AECG. The WebCardio picked up at least one of the 6 arrhythmias; AF, AV block, SP, SVT, PVC or VT/VF in 98 cases compared to 88 in the Holter (McNemars test, two tail P = 0.006). In eleven cases WebCardio detected an arrhythmia where Holter could not. In one case Holter identified an arrhythmia and WebCardio could not. Individual arrhythmias; AF, SP, SVT and VT/VF were detected equally by both systems. AV block (23 Vs 18, p = 0.0625) and PVCs (83 Vs 74, p = 0.0636) were detected in more number of cases in WebCardio. In the five cases where WebCardio alone identified AV block, four had poor quality of P wave in the Holter.
CONCLUSION: Arrhythmia was picked up in more number of patients by the WebCardio compared to Holter. This was due to higher pickup of AV block and PVCs by WebCardio. Difference in AV block identification was due to better quality of P in WebCardio. WebCardio is a good alternative to Holter for AECG.