Elsevier

American Heart Journal

Volume 203, September 2018, Pages 109-117
American Heart Journal

Research Letters
Comparison of 2 ambulatory patch ECG monitors: The benefit of the P-wave and signal clarity

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ahj.2018.03.022Get rights and content

Section snippets

Methods

This study compared 2 FDA-approved monitors: the ZioPatch Monitor, Zio-XT (iRhythm Technologies, Inc, San Francisco, CA) and the Carnation Ambulatory Monitoring, CAM (BDx, Inc, Seattle, WA) (Figure 1).

The primary outcomes of this prospective comparative study were to compare the ECG signal clarity and to determine whether there were differences in rhythm types diagnosed between the 2 monitors. Secondary end points were whether variances in the findings on the CAM or Zio-XT resulted in

Patient demographics

Thirty consecutive patients consented to the study. Patient age was 73.1 ± 7.1 years (range 52–87), with 20 men and 10 women. One patient was found to have no data recorded on the Zio-XT upon analysis by the Zio-XT reading center, and therefore, comparative ECG analysis was available for 29 of 30 patients.

Arrhythmia inventory

A total of 86.7 ± 0.6 arrhythmias were inventoried from the Zio-XT AEM set and 121.7 ± 2.1 from the CAM AEM set, P < .001. Atrial tachycardia was the most common individual arrhythmia

Discussion

There are several important findings in our study. (1) The CAM recordings identified more episodes of atrial tachycardia, atrial flutter, and nonsustained VT compared to the Zio-XT monitor. (2) The CAM ECGs were ranked higher in clarity compared to the Zio-XT, allowing physician reviewers more confidence in making a specific rhythm diagnosis. (3) Both monitors were generally easy to apply and remove, and most patients had a good experience with both. (4) Differences in specific arrhythmias

Conclusions

This study demonstrates that differences in specific rhythm diagnosis and ECG clarity may exist between commercially available patch ambulatory ECG monitors. In this study, we found higher rhythm specificity with a CAM AEM. Further comparative studies should be performed.

For a more detailed description of the methods, results, and for more ECG examples from this clinical study, please refer to the electronic supplement accompanying this manuscript.

The following are the supplementary data

References (12)

There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (0)

View full text