Abstract
Aims
Mobile, portable ECG-recorders allow the assessment of heart rhythm in out-of-hospital conditions and may prove useful for monitoring patients with cardiovascular diseases. However, the effectiveness of these portable devices has not been tested in everyday practice.
Methods and results
A group of 98 consecutive cardiology patients (62 males [63%], mean age 69 ± 12.9 years) were included in an academic care centre. For each patient, a standard 12-lead electrocardiogram (SE), as well as a Kardia Mobile 6L (KM) and Istel (IS) HR-2000 ECG were performed. Two groups of experienced physycians analyzed obtained recordings. After analyzing ECG tracings from SE, KM, and IS, quality was marked as good in 82%, 80%, and 72% of patients, respectively (p < 0.001). There were no significant differences between devices in terms of detecting sinus rhythm (SE [60%, n = 59], KM [58%, n = 56], and IS [61%, n = 60]; SE vs KM p = 0.53; SE vs IS p = 0.76) and atrial fibrillation (SE [22%, n = 22], KM [22%, n = 21], and IS [18%, n = 18]; (SE vs KM p = 0.65; SE vs IS = 0.1). KM had a sensitivity of 88.1% and a specificity of 89.7% for diagnosing sinus rhythm. IS showed 91.5% and 84.6% sensitivity and specificity, respectively. The sensitivity of KM in detecting atrial fibrillation was higher than IS (86.4% vs. 77.3%), but their specificity was comparable (97.4% vs. 98.7%).
Conclusion
Novel, portable devices are useful in showing sinus rhythm and detecting atrial fibrillation in clinical practice. However, ECG measurements concerning conduction and repolarisation should be clarified with a standard 12-lead electrocardiogram.
Personalized management of atrial fibrillation: Proceedings from the fourth Atrial Fibrillation competence NETwork/European Heart Rhythm Association consensus conference
