OBJECTIVE: To compare the speed and reliability of electrocardiogram (ECG) transmissions from the prehospital setting to a conventional table facsimile device and to an advanced mobile phone in a Helicopter Emergency Medical Service System (HEMS). METHODS: Eighteen authentic ECGs stored in the memory module of a monitor defibrillator were used. The ECGs were (1) sent directly from the monitor defibrillator to a table fax and an advanced mobile phone at the HEMS base; (2) printed out and sent from a mobile fax connected to an ordinary mobile phone to the table fax and the advanced mobile phone at the HEMS base; (3) printed out and sent from an ordinary table fax as well as from a table fax connected to a satellite phone system to the receiving devices at the HEMS base. RESULTS: When the ECGs were sent from the table fax via satellite, the transmission times were longer to the advanced mobile phone than to the table fax at the HEMS base (1 min 54 s+/-0 min 21 s vs. 1 min 37 s+/-0 min 20 s, (mean+/-SD), (P<0.01). Regarding transmission from the other fax devices, there were no differences in transmission times between the two receiving devices. The fastest way to transmit ECGs to the advanced mobile phone was to send it from conventional table fax (1 min 22 s+/-0 min 18 s) and the longest transmission times were with mobile fax connected to mobile phone (5 min 23 s+/-3 min 5 s). In all ECGs transmitted except one the cardiac rhythm and ST-changes could be recognised. CONCLUSION: An advanced mobile phone is as fast and reliable as a conventional table fax in receiving ECGs. A mobile phone with advanced features is a practical tool for HEMS physicians who need to evaluate ECGs in the prehospital setting.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the speed and reliability of electrocardiogram (ECG) transmissions from the prehospital setting to a conventional table facsimile device and to an advanced mobile phone in a Helicopter Emergency Medical Service System (HEMS). METHODS: Eighteen authentic ECGs stored in the memory module of a monitor defibrillator were used. The ECGs were (1) sent directly from the monitor defibrillator to a table fax and an advanced mobile phone at the HEMS base; (2) printed out and sent from a mobile fax connected to an ordinary mobile phone to the table fax and the advanced mobile phone at the HEMS base; (3) printed out and sent from an ordinary table fax as well as from a table fax connected to a satellite phone system to the receiving devices at the HEMS base. RESULTS: When the ECGs were sent from the table fax via satellite, the transmission times were longer to the advanced mobile phone than to the table fax at the HEMS base (1 min 54 s+/-0 min 21 s vs. 1 min 37 s+/-0 min 20 s, (mean+/-SD), (P<0.01). Regarding transmission from the other fax devices, there were no differences in transmission times between the two receiving devices. The fastest way to transmit ECGs to the advanced mobile phone was to send it from conventional table fax (1 min 22 s+/-0 min 18 s) and the longest transmission times were with mobile fax connected to mobile phone (5 min 23 s+/-3 min 5 s). In all ECGs transmitted except one the cardiac rhythm and ST-changes could be recognised. CONCLUSION: An advanced mobile phone is as fast and reliable as a conventional table fax in receiving ECGs. A mobile phone with advanced features is a practical tool for HEMS physicians who need to evaluate ECGs in the prehospital setting.