Prospective comparison of the diagnostic utility of a standard event monitor versus a "leadless" portable ECG monitor in the evaluation of patients with palpitations

Daniel Scherr, Darshan Dalal, Charles A. Henrikson, David D Spragg, Ronald D Berger, Hugh Calkins, Alan Cheng

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Introduction: Current ambulatory ECG monitoring systems are limited in their ability to diagnose patients with palpitations. The aim of this prospective study was to compare a new "leadless" ambulatory monitor with a standard event monitor in the evaluation of patients with palpitations. Methods: Eighteen consecutive patients (11 female, 56±16 years) referred for evaluation of palpitations were provided with both a standard event monitor and a "leadless" monitor for 30 days. They were asked to record episodes of palpitations with both monitoring devices. Results: All 18 individuals were compliant with the "leadless" monitor for the 30-day period while only 14 (78%) patients were compliant with the standard event monitor (p=0.10). During a combined monitoring period of 563 days, 159 symptomatic episodes were recorded with the "leadless" ECG monitor (8.8±9.7 per patient, range 1-35) and 169 symptomatic episodes were recorded with the event monitor (12±8.3 per patient, range 1-33) (p=NS). The "leadless" ECG monitor recorded arrhythmias in 13 of 18 patients (72%) and the standard event monitor recorded arrhythmias in 8 of 14 patients (57%) (p=NS). Conclusion: The "leadless" ECG monitor is associated with high patient compliance and results in high quality ECG recordings. The diagnostic yield of this monitoring system is equivalent to a standard event monitor.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)39-44
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology
Volume22
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 2008

Fingerprint

Electrocardiography
Cardiac Arrhythmias
Ambulatory Monitoring
Aptitude
Patient Compliance
Prospective Studies
Equipment and Supplies

Keywords

  • Ambulatory Monitor
  • Arrhythmias
  • ECG
  • Palpitations

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Cite this

@article{b519fb82685d4f1cad6f9943dd0d9c71,
title = "Prospective comparison of the diagnostic utility of a standard event monitor versus a {"}leadless{"} portable ECG monitor in the evaluation of patients with palpitations",
abstract = "Introduction: Current ambulatory ECG monitoring systems are limited in their ability to diagnose patients with palpitations. The aim of this prospective study was to compare a new {"}leadless{"} ambulatory monitor with a standard event monitor in the evaluation of patients with palpitations. Methods: Eighteen consecutive patients (11 female, 56±16 years) referred for evaluation of palpitations were provided with both a standard event monitor and a {"}leadless{"} monitor for 30 days. They were asked to record episodes of palpitations with both monitoring devices. Results: All 18 individuals were compliant with the {"}leadless{"} monitor for the 30-day period while only 14 (78{\%}) patients were compliant with the standard event monitor (p=0.10). During a combined monitoring period of 563 days, 159 symptomatic episodes were recorded with the {"}leadless{"} ECG monitor (8.8±9.7 per patient, range 1-35) and 169 symptomatic episodes were recorded with the event monitor (12±8.3 per patient, range 1-33) (p=NS). The {"}leadless{"} ECG monitor recorded arrhythmias in 13 of 18 patients (72{\%}) and the standard event monitor recorded arrhythmias in 8 of 14 patients (57{\%}) (p=NS). Conclusion: The {"}leadless{"} ECG monitor is associated with high patient compliance and results in high quality ECG recordings. The diagnostic yield of this monitoring system is equivalent to a standard event monitor.",
keywords = "Ambulatory Monitor, Arrhythmias, ECG, Palpitations",
author = "Daniel Scherr and Darshan Dalal and Henrikson, {Charles A.} and Spragg, {David D} and Berger, {Ronald D} and Hugh Calkins and Alan Cheng",
year = "2008",
month = "6",
doi = "10.1007/s10840-008-9251-0",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "22",
pages = "39--44",
journal = "Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology",
issn = "1383-875X",
publisher = "Springer Netherlands",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Prospective comparison of the diagnostic utility of a standard event monitor versus a "leadless" portable ECG monitor in the evaluation of patients with palpitations

AU - Scherr, Daniel

AU - Dalal, Darshan

AU - Henrikson, Charles A.

AU - Spragg, David D

AU - Berger, Ronald D

AU - Calkins, Hugh

AU - Cheng, Alan

PY - 2008/6

Y1 - 2008/6

N2 - Introduction: Current ambulatory ECG monitoring systems are limited in their ability to diagnose patients with palpitations. The aim of this prospective study was to compare a new "leadless" ambulatory monitor with a standard event monitor in the evaluation of patients with palpitations. Methods: Eighteen consecutive patients (11 female, 56±16 years) referred for evaluation of palpitations were provided with both a standard event monitor and a "leadless" monitor for 30 days. They were asked to record episodes of palpitations with both monitoring devices. Results: All 18 individuals were compliant with the "leadless" monitor for the 30-day period while only 14 (78%) patients were compliant with the standard event monitor (p=0.10). During a combined monitoring period of 563 days, 159 symptomatic episodes were recorded with the "leadless" ECG monitor (8.8±9.7 per patient, range 1-35) and 169 symptomatic episodes were recorded with the event monitor (12±8.3 per patient, range 1-33) (p=NS). The "leadless" ECG monitor recorded arrhythmias in 13 of 18 patients (72%) and the standard event monitor recorded arrhythmias in 8 of 14 patients (57%) (p=NS). Conclusion: The "leadless" ECG monitor is associated with high patient compliance and results in high quality ECG recordings. The diagnostic yield of this monitoring system is equivalent to a standard event monitor.

AB - Introduction: Current ambulatory ECG monitoring systems are limited in their ability to diagnose patients with palpitations. The aim of this prospective study was to compare a new "leadless" ambulatory monitor with a standard event monitor in the evaluation of patients with palpitations. Methods: Eighteen consecutive patients (11 female, 56±16 years) referred for evaluation of palpitations were provided with both a standard event monitor and a "leadless" monitor for 30 days. They were asked to record episodes of palpitations with both monitoring devices. Results: All 18 individuals were compliant with the "leadless" monitor for the 30-day period while only 14 (78%) patients were compliant with the standard event monitor (p=0.10). During a combined monitoring period of 563 days, 159 symptomatic episodes were recorded with the "leadless" ECG monitor (8.8±9.7 per patient, range 1-35) and 169 symptomatic episodes were recorded with the event monitor (12±8.3 per patient, range 1-33) (p=NS). The "leadless" ECG monitor recorded arrhythmias in 13 of 18 patients (72%) and the standard event monitor recorded arrhythmias in 8 of 14 patients (57%) (p=NS). Conclusion: The "leadless" ECG monitor is associated with high patient compliance and results in high quality ECG recordings. The diagnostic yield of this monitoring system is equivalent to a standard event monitor.

KW - Ambulatory Monitor

KW - Arrhythmias

KW - ECG

KW - Palpitations

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=44749089941&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=44749089941&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s10840-008-9251-0

DO - 10.1007/s10840-008-9251-0

M3 - Article

C2 - 18386169

AN - SCOPUS:44749089941

VL - 22

SP - 39

EP - 44

JO - Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology

JF - Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology

SN - 1383-875X

IS - 1

ER -