Cargando…

Diagnostic Efficacy of a Single-Lead Ambulatory 14-Day ECG Monitor in Symptomatic Children

BACKGROUND: The CardioSTAT is a single-lead ambulatory electrocardiography monitor that has been validated for use in adult patients. Recording is made through 2 electrodes positioned in a lead-I configuration, and the device allows monitoring for 2, 7, or 14 days. We sought to investigate the effic...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Côté, Jean-Marc, Chetaille, Philippe, Abadir, Sylvia, Gosselin, Louise, Simonyan, David, Dallaire, Frédéric
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8640594/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34901802
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cjco.2021.06.011
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: The CardioSTAT is a single-lead ambulatory electrocardiography monitor that has been validated for use in adult patients. Recording is made through 2 electrodes positioned in a lead-I configuration, and the device allows monitoring for 2, 7, or 14 days. We sought to investigate the efficacy of this device in children with paroxysmal palpitations. METHODS: In phase I, the quality of tracings from simultaneous CardioSTAT recordings and D1-lead recordings of a standard 12-lead electrocardiography machine in 23 children were compared. Phase II was a prospective observational cohort study comparing arrhythmia detection using the CardioSTAT vs currently used devices (24-hour Holter monitor and the Cardiomemo loop recorder) in 52 children complaining of palpitations. RESULTS: In Phase I, all but 3 rhythm strips were correctly identified. The pacing spikes on 3 strips were not adequately identified by the observers for the CardioSTAT recording. In Phase II, symptomatic episodes were reported in 42%, 73%, and 100% of subjects during monitoring with the Holter, Cardiomemo, and CardioSTATdevices, respectively. An abnormal rhythm was detected in 13%, 23%, and 35% of subjects by the Holter, Cardiomemo, and CardioSTAT monitors, respectively. The underlying rhythm during symptomatic events was determined in 90% of cases with the CardioSTAT monitor, whereas it was determined in only 19% and 29% of cases using the Holter and Cardiomemo monitors, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The CardioSTAT monitor provided good-quality tracings and was superior to the 24-hour Holter monitor and the Cardiomemo loop recorder in determining the presence or absence of pathologic arrhythmia in the study cohort.