Raymond R Bond1, Dewar D Finlay2, James McLaughlin2, Daniel Guldenring2, Andrew Cairns2, Alan Kennedy2, Robert Deans3, Albert L Waldo4, Aaron Peace5. 1. Ulster University, Northern Ireland, UK. Electronic address: rb.bond@ulster.ac.uk. 2. Ulster University, Northern Ireland, UK. 3. eNNOVEA Medical, Columbus, OH. 4. Harrington Heart & Vascular Institute, University Hospitals Case Medical Center, Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Cleveland, OH. 5. Altnagelvin Hospital, Department of Cardiology, Western Health and Social Care Trust, Londonderry, Northern Ireland, UK.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The CardioQuick Patch® (CQP) has been developed to assist operators in accurately positioning precordial electrodes during 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) acquisition. This study describes the CQP design and assesses the device in comparison to conventional electrode application. METHODS:Twenty ECG technicians were recruited and a total of 60 ECG acquisitions were performed on the same patient model over four phases: (1) all participants applied single electrodes to the patient; (2) all participants were then re-trained on electrode placement and on how to use the CQP; (3) participants were randomly divided into two groups, the standard group applied single electrodes and the CQP group used the CQP; (4) after a one day interval, the same participants returned to carry out the same procedure on the same patient (measuring intra-practitioner variability). Accuracy was measured with reference to pre-marked correct locations using ultra violet ink. NASA-TLK was used to measure cognitive workload and the Systematic Usability Scale (SUS) was used to quantify the usability of the CQP. RESULTS: There was a large difference between the minimum time taken to complete each approach (CQP=38.58s vs. 65.96s). The standard group exhibited significant levels of electrode placement error (V1=25.35mm±29.33, V2=18.1mm±24.49, V3=38.65mm±15.57, V4=37.73mm±12.14, V5=35.75mm±15.61, V6=44.15mm±14.32). The CQP group had statistically greater accuracy when placing five of the six electrodes (V1=6.68mm±8.53 [p<0.001], V2=8.8mm±9.64 [p=0.122], V3=6.83mm±8.99 [p<0.001], V4=14.90mm±11.76 [p<0.001], V5=8.63mm±10.70 [p<0.001], V6=18.13mm±14.37 [p<0.001]). There was less intra-practitioner variability when using the CQP on the same patient model. NASA TLX revealed that the CQP did increase the cognitive workload (CQP group=16.51%±8.11 vs. 12.22%±8.07 [p=0.251]). The CQP also achieved a high SUS score of 91±7.28. CONCLUSION: The CQP significantly improved the reproducibility and accuracy of placing precordial electrodes V1, V3-V6 with little additional cognitive effort, and with a high degree of usability.
RCT Entities:
INTRODUCTION: The CardioQuick Patch® (CQP) has been developed to assist operators in accurately positioning precordial electrodes during 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) acquisition. This study describes the CQP design and assesses the device in comparison to conventional electrode application. METHODS: Twenty ECG technicians were recruited and a total of 60 ECG acquisitions were performed on the same patient model over four phases: (1) all participants applied single electrodes to the patient; (2) all participants were then re-trained on electrode placement and on how to use the CQP; (3) participants were randomly divided into two groups, the standard group applied single electrodes and the CQP group used the CQP; (4) after a one day interval, the same participants returned to carry out the same procedure on the same patient (measuring intra-practitioner variability). Accuracy was measured with reference to pre-marked correct locations using ultra violet ink. NASA-TLK was used to measure cognitive workload and the Systematic Usability Scale (SUS) was used to quantify the usability of the CQP. RESULTS: There was a large difference between the minimum time taken to complete each approach (CQP=38.58s vs. 65.96s). The standard group exhibited significant levels of electrode placement error (V1=25.35mm±29.33, V2=18.1mm±24.49, V3=38.65mm±15.57, V4=37.73mm±12.14, V5=35.75mm±15.61, V6=44.15mm±14.32). The CQP group had statistically greater accuracy when placing five of the six electrodes (V1=6.68mm±8.53 [p<0.001], V2=8.8mm±9.64 [p=0.122], V3=6.83mm±8.99 [p<0.001], V4=14.90mm±11.76 [p<0.001], V5=8.63mm±10.70 [p<0.001], V6=18.13mm±14.37 [p<0.001]). There was less intra-practitioner variability when using the CQP on the same patient model. NASA TLX revealed that the CQP did increase the cognitive workload (CQP group=16.51%±8.11 vs. 12.22%±8.07 [p=0.251]). The CQP also achieved a high SUS score of 91±7.28. CONCLUSION: The CQP significantly improved the reproducibility and accuracy of placing precordial electrodes V1, V3-V6 with little additional cognitive effort, and with a high degree of usability.