Mehta Devin D, Nazir Noreen T, Trohman Richard G, Volgman Annabelle S
Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Rush University Medical Center, 1750 West Harrison Street, Jelke 1021, Chicago, IL, USA.
Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Rush University Medical Center, 1750 West Harrison Street, Jelke 1021, Chicago, IL, USA.
J Electrocardiol. 2015 Jul-Aug;48(4):710-6. doi: 10.1016/j.jelectrocard.2015.04.017. Epub 2015 May 1.
Portable ECG devices are widely available yet there are limited data on their accuracy, physician and patient perceptions, and ease of use. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of 4 single-lead portable ECG devices compared to a conventional 3-lead hospital cardiac monitor and to assess physician and patient perceptions of portable ECG devices.
Twenty consecutive hospitalized patients were provided 4 portable ECG devices for 30 second cardiac rhythm recording. ECG rhythm strips from the portable ECG devices were interpreted by a group of 5 physician reviewers. The reviewers then compared the portable ECG device rhythm strips to simultaneously recorded hospital cardiac monitor rhythm strips to determine physician preference. A cardiac electrophysiologist interpreted ECG rhythm strips from the hospital cardiac monitor as the "gold standard." Rhythm interpretations of the portable ECG devices and the hospital cardiac monitor were analyzed to evaluate clinical accuracy. Patient perceptions were evaluated by a 20-item questionnaire.
There was less than 50% concordance of portable ECG device rhythm strips with the hospital cardiac monitor (when uninterpretable rhythm strips were included). Physicians usually preferred interpreting ECGs from hospital cardiac monitors compared to portable ECG devices. Manufacturer instructions were insufficient to allow patients to operate portable ECG devices in a limited time. Most patients felt comfortable using a portable ECG device if prescribed by a physician.
Portable ECG devices may be a reasonable option for long-term rhythm surveillance in select patients. Widespread use of these devices cannot be endorsed unless improvements in their accuracy are properly addressed.
便携式心电图设备广泛可得,但关于其准确性、医生和患者的看法以及易用性的数据有限。本研究的目的是评估4种单导联便携式心电图设备与传统三导联医院心脏监护仪相比的准确性,并评估医生和患者对便携式心电图设备的看法。
连续20名住院患者被提供4种便携式心电图设备用于记录30秒的心律。一组5名医生审阅者对便携式心电图设备的心电图节律条进行解读。审阅者随后将便携式心电图设备的节律条与同时记录的医院心脏监护仪节律条进行比较,以确定医生的偏好。一名心脏电生理学家将医院心脏监护仪的心电图节律条解读为“金标准”。分析便携式心电图设备和医院心脏监护仪的节律解读以评估临床准确性。通过一份包含20个条目的问卷评估患者的看法。
便携式心电图设备的节律条与医院心脏监护仪的一致性低于50%(当包括无法解读的节律条时)。与便携式心电图设备相比,医生通常更喜欢解读医院心脏监护仪的心电图。制造商的说明不足以让患者在有限时间内操作便携式心电图设备。如果由医生开处方,大多数患者使用便携式心电图设备会感到舒适。
对于特定患者的长期节律监测,便携式心电图设备可能是一个合理的选择。除非其准确性得到适当改善,否则不能认可这些设备的广泛使用。