Willcox ME, Compton SJ, Bardy GH. Continuous ECG monitoring versus mobile telemetry: A comparison of arrhythmia diagnostics in human- versus algorithmic-dependent systems.
Heart Rhythm O2 2022;
2:543-559. [PMID:
34988499 PMCID:
PMC8703156 DOI:
10.1016/j.hroo.2021.09.008]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/18/2022] Open
Abstract
Background
Clinicians rarely scrutinize the full disclosure of a myriad of FDA-approved long-term rhythm monitors, and they rely on manufacturers to detect and report relevant rhythm abnormalities.
Objective
The objective of this study is to compare the diagnostic accuracy between mobile cardiac telemetry (MCT), which uses an algorithm-based detection strategy, and continuous long-term electrocardiography (LT-ECG) monitoring, which uses a human-based detection strategy.
Methods
In an outpatient arrhythmia clinic, we enrolled 50 sequential patients ordered to wear a 30-day MCT, to simultaneously wear a continuous LT-ECG monitor. Periods of concomitant wear of both devices were examined using the associated report, which was over-read by 2 electrophysiologists.
Results
Forty-six of 50 patients wore both monitors simultaneously for an average of 10.3 ± 4.4 days (range: 1.2–14.8 days). During simultaneous recording, patients were more often diagnosed with arrhythmia by LT-ECG compared to MCT (23/46 vs 11/46), P = .018. Similarly, more arrhythmia episodes were detected during simultaneous recording with the LT-ECG compared to MCT (61 vs 19), P < .001. This trend remained consistent across arrhythmia subtypes, including ventricular tachycardia (13 patients by LT-ECG vs 7 by MCT), atrioventricular (AV) block (3 patients by LT-ECG vs 0 by MCT), and AV node reentrant tachycardia (2 patients by LT-ECG vs 0 by MCT). Atrial fibrillation (AF) was documented by both monitors in 2 patients; however, LT-ECG monitoring captured 4 additional AF episodes missed by MCT.
Conclusion
In a time-controlled, paired analysis of 2 disparate rhythm monitors worn simultaneously, human-dependent LT-ECG arrhythmia detection significantly outperformed algorithm-based MCT arrhythmia detection.
Collapse