Khaldoun G Tarakji1, Oussama M Wazni2, Thomas Callahan2, Mohamed Kanj2, Ali H Hakim2, Kathy Wolski2, Bruce L Wilkoff2, Walid Saliba2, Bruce D Lindsay2. 1. Section of Cardiac Pacing and Electrophysiology, Robert and Suzanne Tomsich Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Heart and Vascular Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio. Electronic address: tarakjk@ccf.org. 2. Section of Cardiac Pacing and Electrophysiology, Robert and Suzanne Tomsich Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Heart and Vascular Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A novel technology incorporates electrodes into an iPhone case that records an electrocardiographic tracing. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to examine the feasibility and efficacy of this technology to monitor patients after the atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation procedure and to assess patients' feedback on its ease of use. METHODS: Patients with AF undergoing ablation who had iPhones were screened for enrollment. They were provided with an AliveCor heart monitor (AHM) case and a traditional transtelephonic monitor (TTM). Patients were asked to record their rhythm using both monitors simultaneously whenever they had symptoms or at least once a week. AHM recordings were sent to a secure e-mail account, and TTM recordings were transmitted to our Holter laboratory using landlines. All AHM recordings were reviewed by 1 of 2 blinded electrophysiologists. TTM recordings were reviewed by the primary electrophysiologist. The κ coefficient was calculated to assess agreement between AHM and TTM recordings. Sensitivity and specificity for the detection of AF and atrial flutter with the AHM compared to the TTM were calculated. RESULTS: Sixty patients were enrolled (mean age 60 ± 12 years), and 55 completed the study. There were 389 simultaneous AHM and TTM recordings. The κ statistic was 0.82, indicating excellent agreement between AHM and TTM recordings. If we consider AF and atrial flutter as one diseased state, the AHM had 100% sensitivity and 97% specificity for the detection of AF and atrial flutter. Only 2% of patients found it difficult to use the AHM, and the large majority (92%) preferred to use the AHM to monitor their AF as opposed to the TTM. CONCLUSION: The AHM is an alternative method for monitoring patients with AF after the ablation procedure. Most patients found it easy to use.
BACKGROUND: A novel technology incorporates electrodes into an iPhone case that records an electrocardiographic tracing. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to examine the feasibility and efficacy of this technology to monitor patients after the atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation procedure and to assess patients' feedback on its ease of use. METHODS:Patients with AF undergoing ablation who had iPhones were screened for enrollment. They were provided with an AliveCor heart monitor (AHM) case and a traditional transtelephonic monitor (TTM). Patients were asked to record their rhythm using both monitors simultaneously whenever they had symptoms or at least once a week. AHM recordings were sent to a secure e-mail account, and TTM recordings were transmitted to our Holter laboratory using landlines. All AHM recordings were reviewed by 1 of 2 blinded electrophysiologists. TTM recordings were reviewed by the primary electrophysiologist. The κ coefficient was calculated to assess agreement between AHM and TTM recordings. Sensitivity and specificity for the detection of AF and atrial flutter with the AHM compared to the TTM were calculated. RESULTS: Sixty patients were enrolled (mean age 60 ± 12 years), and 55 completed the study. There were 389 simultaneous AHM and TTM recordings. The κ statistic was 0.82, indicating excellent agreement between AHM and TTM recordings. If we consider AF and atrial flutter as one diseased state, the AHM had 100% sensitivity and 97% specificity for the detection of AF and atrial flutter. Only 2% of patients found it difficult to use the AHM, and the large majority (92%) preferred to use the AHM to monitor their AF as opposed to the TTM. CONCLUSION: The AHM is an alternative method for monitoring patients with AF after the ablation procedure. Most patients found it easy to use.
Authors: Hugh Calkins; Gerhard Hindricks; Riccardo Cappato; Young-Hoon Kim; Eduardo B Saad; Luis Aguinaga; Joseph G Akar; Vinay Badhwar; Josep Brugada; John Camm; Peng-Sheng Chen; Shih-Ann Chen; Mina K Chung; Jens Cosedis Nielsen; Anne B Curtis; D Wyn Davies; John D Day; André d'Avila; N M S Natasja de Groot; Luigi Di Biase; Mattias Duytschaever; James R Edgerton; Kenneth A Ellenbogen; Patrick T Ellinor; Sabine Ernst; Guilherme Fenelon; Edward P Gerstenfeld; David E Haines; Michel Haissaguerre; Robert H Helm; Elaine Hylek; Warren M Jackman; Jose Jalife; Jonathan M Kalman; Josef Kautzner; Hans Kottkamp; Karl Heinz Kuck; Koichiro Kumagai; Richard Lee; Thorsten Lewalter; Bruce D Lindsay; Laurent Macle; Moussa Mansour; Francis E Marchlinski; Gregory F Michaud; Hiroshi Nakagawa; Andrea Natale; Stanley Nattel; Ken Okumura; Douglas Packer; Evgeny Pokushalov; Matthew R Reynolds; Prashanthan Sanders; Mauricio Scanavacca; Richard Schilling; Claudio Tondo; Hsuan-Ming Tsao; Atul Verma; David J Wilber; Teiichi Yamane Journal: Heart Rhythm Date: 2017-05-12 Impact factor: 6.343
Authors: Hugh Calkins; Karl Heinz Kuck; Riccardo Cappato; Josep Brugada; A John Camm; Shih-Ann Chen; Harry J G Crijns; Ralph J Damiano; D Wyn Davies; John DiMarco; James Edgerton; Kenneth Ellenbogen; Michael D Ezekowitz; David E Haines; Michel Haissaguerre; Gerhard Hindricks; Yoshito Iesaka; Warren Jackman; José Jalife; Pierre Jais; Jonathan Kalman; David Keane; Young-Hoon Kim; Paulus Kirchhof; George Klein; Hans Kottkamp; Koichiro Kumagai; Bruce D Lindsay; Moussa Mansour; Francis E Marchlinski; Patrick M McCarthy; J Lluis Mont; Fred Morady; Koonlawee Nademanee; Hiroshi Nakagawa; Andrea Natale; Stanley Nattel; Douglas L Packer; Carlo Pappone; Eric Prystowsky; Antonio Raviele; Vivek Reddy; Jeremy N Ruskin; Richard J Shemin; Hsuan-Ming Tsao; David Wilber Journal: Heart Rhythm Date: 2012-03-01 Impact factor: 6.343
Authors: Hugh Calkins; Gerhard Hindricks; Riccardo Cappato; Young-Hoon Kim; Eduardo B Saad; Luis Aguinaga; Joseph G Akar; Vinay Badhwar; Josep Brugada; John Camm; Peng-Sheng Chen; Shih-Ann Chen; Mina K Chung; Jens Cosedis Nielsen; Anne B Curtis; D Wyn Davies; John D Day; André d'Avila; N M S Natasja de Groot; Luigi Di Biase; Mattias Duytschaever; James R Edgerton; Kenneth A Ellenbogen; Patrick T Ellinor; Sabine Ernst; Guilherme Fenelon; Edward P Gerstenfeld; David E Haines; Michel Haissaguerre; Robert H Helm; Elaine Hylek; Warren M Jackman; Jose Jalife; Jonathan M Kalman; Josef Kautzner; Hans Kottkamp; Karl Heinz Kuck; Koichiro Kumagai; Richard Lee; Thorsten Lewalter; Bruce D Lindsay; Laurent Macle; Moussa Mansour; Francis E Marchlinski; Gregory F Michaud; Hiroshi Nakagawa; Andrea Natale; Stanley Nattel; Ken Okumura; Douglas Packer; Evgeny Pokushalov; Matthew R Reynolds; Prashanthan Sanders; Mauricio Scanavacca; Richard Schilling; Claudio Tondo; Hsuan-Ming Tsao; Atul Verma; David J Wilber; Teiichi Yamane Journal: Europace Date: 2018-01-01 Impact factor: 5.214
Authors: David D McMANUS; Jo Woon Chong; Apurv Soni; Jane S Saczynski; Nada Esa; Craig Napolitano; Chad E Darling; Edward Boyer; Rochelle K Rosen; Kevin C Floyd; Ki H Chon Journal: J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol Date: 2015-11-13
Authors: Jonathan S Steinberg; Niraj Varma; Iwona Cygankiewicz; Peter Aziz; Paweł Balsam; Adrian Baranchuk; Daniel J Cantillon; Polychronis Dilaveris; Sergio J Dubner; Nabil El-Sherif; Jaroslaw Krol; Malgorzata Kurpesa; Maria Teresa La Rovere; Suave S Lobodzinski; Emanuela T Locati; Suneet Mittal; Brian Olshansky; Ewa Piotrowicz; Leslie Saxon; Peter H Stone; Larisa Tereshchenko; Mintu P Turakhia; Gioia Turitto; Neil J Wimmer; Richard L Verrier; Wojciech Zareba; Ryszard Piotrowicz Journal: Ann Noninvasive Electrocardiol Date: 2017-05 Impact factor: 1.468