Su-Kiat Chua1,2, Lung-Ching Chen2, Li-Ming Lien3,4, Huey-Ming Lo2, Zhen-Yu Liao2, Shu-Ping Chao2, Cheng-Yen Chuang2, Chiung-Zuan Chiu1,2. 1. School of Medicine, Fu Jen Catholic University, New Taipei City. 2. Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Shin Kong Wu Ho-Su Memorial Hospital. 3. College of Medicine, Taipei Medical University. 4. Department of Neurology, Shin Kong Wu Ho-Su Memorial Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although 24-hour Holter monitoring is routinely used for patients with suspected paroxysmal arrhythmia, its sensitivity in detecting such arrhythmias is insufficient. METHODS: We compared a 14-day electrocardiography (ECG) monitor patch - a single-use, noninvasive, waterproof, continuous monitoring patch - with a 24-hour Holter monitor in 32 consecutive patients with suspected arrhythmia. RESULTS: The 14-day ECG patch was well tolerated, and its rates of detection of relevant arrhythmias on days 1, 3, 7, and 14 were 13%, 28%, 47%, and 66%, respectively. The detection rate of paroxysmal arrhythmias was significantly higher for the 14-day ECG patch than for the 24-hour Holter monitor (66% vs. 9%, p < 0.001). Among the 32 patients, 202 atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter episodes were detected in 6 patients (22%) with the 14-day ECG patch; however, only 1 atrial fibrillation episode was detected in a patient (3%, p < 0.05) with the 24-hour Holter monitor. Other clinically relevant arrhythmias recorded on the 14-day ECG patch included 21 (65.5%) episodes of supraventricular tachycardia, 2 (6.3%) long pause, and 2 (6.3%) ventricular arrhythmias. The mean dermal response score immediately after removal of the 14-day ECG patch from the patients was 0.64, which indicated minimal erythema. CONCLUSIONS: The 14-day ECG patch was well tolerated and allowed for longer continuous monitoring than the 24-hour Holter monitor, thus resulting in improved clinical accuracy in the detection of paroxysmal arrhythmias. Future studies should examine the long-term effectiveness of 14-day ECG patches for managing selected patients.
BACKGROUND: Although 24-hour Holter monitoring is routinely used for patients with suspected paroxysmal arrhythmia, its sensitivity in detecting such arrhythmias is insufficient. METHODS: We compared a 14-day electrocardiography (ECG) monitor patch - a single-use, noninvasive, waterproof, continuous monitoring patch - with a 24-hour Holter monitor in 32 consecutive patients with suspected arrhythmia. RESULTS: The 14-day ECG patch was well tolerated, and its rates of detection of relevant arrhythmias on days 1, 3, 7, and 14 were 13%, 28%, 47%, and 66%, respectively. The detection rate of paroxysmal arrhythmias was significantly higher for the 14-day ECG patch than for the 24-hour Holter monitor (66% vs. 9%, p < 0.001). Among the 32 patients, 202 atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter episodes were detected in 6 patients (22%) with the 14-day ECG patch; however, only 1 atrial fibrillation episode was detected in a patient (3%, p < 0.05) with the 24-hour Holter monitor. Other clinically relevant arrhythmias recorded on the 14-day ECG patch included 21 (65.5%) episodes of supraventricular tachycardia, 2 (6.3%) long pause, and 2 (6.3%) ventricular arrhythmias. The mean dermal response score immediately after removal of the 14-day ECG patch from the patients was 0.64, which indicated minimal erythema. CONCLUSIONS: The 14-day ECG patch was well tolerated and allowed for longer continuous monitoring than the 24-hour Holter monitor, thus resulting in improved clinical accuracy in the detection of paroxysmal arrhythmias. Future studies should examine the long-term effectiveness of 14-day ECG patches for managing selected patients.
Authors: Paddy M Barrett; Ravi Komatireddy; Sharon Haaser; Sarah Topol; Judith Sheard; Jackie Encinas; Angela J Fought; Eric J Topol Journal: Am J Med Date: 2013-10-15 Impact factor: 4.965
Authors: Jeff S Healey; Stuart J Connolly; Michael R Gold; Carsten W Israel; Isabelle C Van Gelder; Alessandro Capucci; C P Lau; Eric Fain; Sean Yang; Christophe Bailleul; Carlos A Morillo; Mark Carlson; Ellison Themeles; Elizabeth S Kaufman; Stefan H Hohnloser Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2012-01-12 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Donald Lloyd-Jones; Robert Adams; Mercedes Carnethon; Giovanni De Simone; T Bruce Ferguson; Katherine Flegal; Earl Ford; Karen Furie; Alan Go; Kurt Greenlund; Nancy Haase; Susan Hailpern; Michael Ho; Virginia Howard; Brett Kissela; Steven Kittner; Daniel Lackland; Lynda Lisabeth; Ariane Marelli; Mary McDermott; James Meigs; Dariush Mozaffarian; Graham Nichol; Christopher O'Donnell; Veronique Roger; Wayne Rosamond; Ralph Sacco; Paul Sorlie; Randall Stafford; Julia Steinberger; Thomas Thom; Sylvia Wasserthiel-Smoller; Nathan Wong; Judith Wylie-Rosett; Yuling Hong Journal: Circulation Date: 2008-12-15 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Julian P J Halcox; Kathie Wareham; Antonia Cardew; Mark Gilmore; James P Barry; Ceri Phillips; Michael B Gravenor Journal: Circulation Date: 2017-08-28 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Paulus Kirchhof; Angelo Auricchio; Jeroen Bax; Harry Crijns; John Camm; Hans-Christoph Diener; Andreas Goette; Gerd Hindricks; Stefan Hohnloser; Lukas Kappenberger; Karl-Heinz Kuck; Gregory Y H Lip; Bertil Olsson; Thomas Meinertz; Silvia Priori; Ursula Ravens; Gerhard Steinbeck; Elisabeth Svernhage; Jan Tijssen; Alphons Vincent; Günter Breithardt Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2007-09-25 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Michael A Rosenberg; Michelle Samuel; Amit Thosani; Peter J Zimetbaum Journal: Pacing Clin Electrophysiol Date: 2012-12-13 Impact factor: 1.976
Authors: Eemu-Samuli Väliaho; Jukka A Lipponen; Pekka Kuoppa; Tero J Martikainen; Helena Jäntti; Tuomas T Rissanen; Maaret Castrén; Jari Halonen; Mika P Tarvainen; Tiina M Laitinen; Tomi P Laitinen; Onni E Santala; Olli Rantula; Noora S Naukkarinen; Juha E K Hartikainen Journal: Front Physiol Date: 2022-01-04 Impact factor: 4.566