Cargando…

Comparison Between the 24-hour Holter Test and 72-hour Single-Lead Electrocardiogram Monitoring With an Adhesive Patch-Type Device for Atrial Fibrillation Detection: Prospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND: There is insufficient evidence for the use of single-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) monitoring with an adhesive patch-type device (APD) over an extended period compared to that of the 24-hour Holter test for atrial fibrillation (AF) detection. OBJECTIVE: In this paper, we aimed to compare...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kwon, Soonil, Lee, So-Ryoung, Choi, Eue-Keun, Ahn, Hyo-Jeong, Song, Hee-Seok, Lee, Young-Shin, Oh, Seil, Lip, Gregory Y H
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: JMIR Publications 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9127648/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35532989
http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/37970
_version_ 1784712399200190464
author Kwon, Soonil
Lee, So-Ryoung
Choi, Eue-Keun
Ahn, Hyo-Jeong
Song, Hee-Seok
Lee, Young-Shin
Oh, Seil
Lip, Gregory Y H
author_facet Kwon, Soonil
Lee, So-Ryoung
Choi, Eue-Keun
Ahn, Hyo-Jeong
Song, Hee-Seok
Lee, Young-Shin
Oh, Seil
Lip, Gregory Y H
author_sort Kwon, Soonil
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: There is insufficient evidence for the use of single-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) monitoring with an adhesive patch-type device (APD) over an extended period compared to that of the 24-hour Holter test for atrial fibrillation (AF) detection. OBJECTIVE: In this paper, we aimed to compare AF detection by the 24-hour Holter test and 72-hour single-lead ECG monitoring using an APD among patients with AF. METHODS: This was a prospective, single-center cohort study. A total of 210 patients with AF with clinical indications for the Holter test at cardiology outpatient clinics were enrolled in the study. The study participants were equipped with both the Holter device and APD for the first 24 hours. Subsequently, only the APD continued ECG monitoring for an additional 48 hours. AF detection during the first 24 hours was compared between the two devices. The diagnostic benefits of extended monitoring using the APD were evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 200 patients (mean age 60 years; n=141, 70.5% male; and n=59, 29.5% female) completed 72-hour ECG monitoring with the APD. During the first 24 hours, both monitoring methods detected AF in the same 40/200 (20%) patients (including 20 patients each with paroxysmal and persistent AF). Compared to the 24-hour Holter test, the APD increased the AF detection rate by 1.5-fold (58/200; 29%) and 1.6-fold (64/200; 32%) with 48- and 72-hour monitoring, respectively. With the APD, the number of newly discovered patients with paroxysmal AF was 20/44 (45.5%), 18/44 (40.9%), and 6/44 (13.6%) at 24-, 48-, and 72-hour monitoring, respectively. Compared with 24-hour Holter monitoring, 72-hour monitoring with the APD increased the detection rate of paroxysmal AF by 2.2-fold (44/20). CONCLUSIONS: Compared to the 24-hour Holter test, AF detection could be improved with 72-hour single-lead ECG monitoring with the APD.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9127648
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher JMIR Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-91276482022-05-25 Comparison Between the 24-hour Holter Test and 72-hour Single-Lead Electrocardiogram Monitoring With an Adhesive Patch-Type Device for Atrial Fibrillation Detection: Prospective Cohort Study Kwon, Soonil Lee, So-Ryoung Choi, Eue-Keun Ahn, Hyo-Jeong Song, Hee-Seok Lee, Young-Shin Oh, Seil Lip, Gregory Y H J Med Internet Res Original Paper BACKGROUND: There is insufficient evidence for the use of single-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) monitoring with an adhesive patch-type device (APD) over an extended period compared to that of the 24-hour Holter test for atrial fibrillation (AF) detection. OBJECTIVE: In this paper, we aimed to compare AF detection by the 24-hour Holter test and 72-hour single-lead ECG monitoring using an APD among patients with AF. METHODS: This was a prospective, single-center cohort study. A total of 210 patients with AF with clinical indications for the Holter test at cardiology outpatient clinics were enrolled in the study. The study participants were equipped with both the Holter device and APD for the first 24 hours. Subsequently, only the APD continued ECG monitoring for an additional 48 hours. AF detection during the first 24 hours was compared between the two devices. The diagnostic benefits of extended monitoring using the APD were evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 200 patients (mean age 60 years; n=141, 70.5% male; and n=59, 29.5% female) completed 72-hour ECG monitoring with the APD. During the first 24 hours, both monitoring methods detected AF in the same 40/200 (20%) patients (including 20 patients each with paroxysmal and persistent AF). Compared to the 24-hour Holter test, the APD increased the AF detection rate by 1.5-fold (58/200; 29%) and 1.6-fold (64/200; 32%) with 48- and 72-hour monitoring, respectively. With the APD, the number of newly discovered patients with paroxysmal AF was 20/44 (45.5%), 18/44 (40.9%), and 6/44 (13.6%) at 24-, 48-, and 72-hour monitoring, respectively. Compared with 24-hour Holter monitoring, 72-hour monitoring with the APD increased the detection rate of paroxysmal AF by 2.2-fold (44/20). CONCLUSIONS: Compared to the 24-hour Holter test, AF detection could be improved with 72-hour single-lead ECG monitoring with the APD. JMIR Publications 2022-05-09 /pmc/articles/PMC9127648/ /pubmed/35532989 http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/37970 Text en ©Soonil Kwon, So-Ryoung Lee, Eue-Keun Choi, Hyo-Jeong Ahn, Hee-Seok Song, Young-Shin Lee, Seil Oh, Gregory Y H Lip. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 09.05.2022. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://www.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.
spellingShingle Original Paper
Kwon, Soonil
Lee, So-Ryoung
Choi, Eue-Keun
Ahn, Hyo-Jeong
Song, Hee-Seok
Lee, Young-Shin
Oh, Seil
Lip, Gregory Y H
Comparison Between the 24-hour Holter Test and 72-hour Single-Lead Electrocardiogram Monitoring With an Adhesive Patch-Type Device for Atrial Fibrillation Detection: Prospective Cohort Study
title Comparison Between the 24-hour Holter Test and 72-hour Single-Lead Electrocardiogram Monitoring With an Adhesive Patch-Type Device for Atrial Fibrillation Detection: Prospective Cohort Study
title_full Comparison Between the 24-hour Holter Test and 72-hour Single-Lead Electrocardiogram Monitoring With an Adhesive Patch-Type Device for Atrial Fibrillation Detection: Prospective Cohort Study
title_fullStr Comparison Between the 24-hour Holter Test and 72-hour Single-Lead Electrocardiogram Monitoring With an Adhesive Patch-Type Device for Atrial Fibrillation Detection: Prospective Cohort Study
title_full_unstemmed Comparison Between the 24-hour Holter Test and 72-hour Single-Lead Electrocardiogram Monitoring With an Adhesive Patch-Type Device for Atrial Fibrillation Detection: Prospective Cohort Study
title_short Comparison Between the 24-hour Holter Test and 72-hour Single-Lead Electrocardiogram Monitoring With an Adhesive Patch-Type Device for Atrial Fibrillation Detection: Prospective Cohort Study
title_sort comparison between the 24-hour holter test and 72-hour single-lead electrocardiogram monitoring with an adhesive patch-type device for atrial fibrillation detection: prospective cohort study
topic Original Paper
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9127648/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35532989
http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/37970
work_keys_str_mv AT kwonsoonil comparisonbetweenthe24hourholtertestand72hoursingleleadelectrocardiogrammonitoringwithanadhesivepatchtypedeviceforatrialfibrillationdetectionprospectivecohortstudy
AT leesoryoung comparisonbetweenthe24hourholtertestand72hoursingleleadelectrocardiogrammonitoringwithanadhesivepatchtypedeviceforatrialfibrillationdetectionprospectivecohortstudy
AT choieuekeun comparisonbetweenthe24hourholtertestand72hoursingleleadelectrocardiogrammonitoringwithanadhesivepatchtypedeviceforatrialfibrillationdetectionprospectivecohortstudy
AT ahnhyojeong comparisonbetweenthe24hourholtertestand72hoursingleleadelectrocardiogrammonitoringwithanadhesivepatchtypedeviceforatrialfibrillationdetectionprospectivecohortstudy
AT songheeseok comparisonbetweenthe24hourholtertestand72hoursingleleadelectrocardiogrammonitoringwithanadhesivepatchtypedeviceforatrialfibrillationdetectionprospectivecohortstudy
AT leeyoungshin comparisonbetweenthe24hourholtertestand72hoursingleleadelectrocardiogrammonitoringwithanadhesivepatchtypedeviceforatrialfibrillationdetectionprospectivecohortstudy
AT ohseil comparisonbetweenthe24hourholtertestand72hoursingleleadelectrocardiogrammonitoringwithanadhesivepatchtypedeviceforatrialfibrillationdetectionprospectivecohortstudy
AT lipgregoryyh comparisonbetweenthe24hourholtertestand72hoursingleleadelectrocardiogrammonitoringwithanadhesivepatchtypedeviceforatrialfibrillationdetectionprospectivecohortstudy