Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Validation of Adhesive Single-Lead ECG Device Compared with Holter Monitoring among Non-Atrial Fibrillation Patients
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Validation of Adhesive Single-Lead ECG Device Compared with Holter Monitoring among Non-Atrial Fibrillation Patients
Do you wish to request the book?
Validation of Adhesive Single-Lead ECG Device Compared with Holter Monitoring among Non-Atrial Fibrillation Patients
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Validation of Adhesive Single-Lead ECG Device Compared with Holter Monitoring among Non-Atrial Fibrillation Patients
2021
Overview
There are few reports on head-to-head comparisons of electrocardiogram (ECG) monitoring between adhesive single-lead and Holter devices for arrhythmias other than atrial fibrillation (AF). This study aimed to compare 24 h ECG monitoring between the two devices in patients with general arrhythmia. Twenty-nine non-AF patients with a workup of pre-diagnosed arrhythmias or suspicious arrhythmic episodes were evaluated. Each participant wore both devices simultaneously, and the cardiac rhythm was monitored for 24 h. Selective ECG parameters were compared between the two devices. Two cardiologists independently compared the diagnoses of each device. The two most frequent monitoring indications were workup of premature atrial contractions (41.4%) and suspicious arrhythmia-related symptoms (37.9%). The single-lead device had a higher noise burden than the Holter device (0.04 ± 0.05% vs. 0.01 ± 0.01%, p = 0.024). The number of total QRS complexes, ventricular ectopic beats, and supraventricular ectopic beats showed an excellent degree of agreement between the two devices (intraclass correlation coefficients = 0.991, 1.000, and 0.987, respectively). In addition, the minimum/average/maximum heart rates showed an excellent degree of agreement. The two cardiologists made coherent diagnoses for all 29 participants using both monitoring methods. In conclusion, the single-lead adhesive device could be an acceptable alternative for ambulatory ECG monitoring in patients with general arrhythmia.
Publisher
MDPI AG,MDPI
Subject
