| Literature DB >> 33792550 |
Sunyoung Yoon1, Taerim Kim2, Taehwan Roh3, Hansol Chang1,2, Sung Yeon Hwang2, Hee Yoon2, Tae Gun Shin2, Min Seob Sim2, Ik Joon Jo2, Won Chul Cha1,2,4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death worldwide. Early recognition, diagnosis, and reperfusion are the key elements of treatment for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. The absence of a prehospital 12-lead electrocardiogram (P12ECG) can cause definitive treatment delay and repeated transfer. Although guidelines highly recommend the measurement and transmission of P12ECG data, P12ECG use has not been widely established.Entities:
Keywords: 12-lead electrocardiogram; ECG; EMT; cardiovascular; efficiency; electrocardiogram; electrocardiogram transmission; feasibility; prehospital; wearable; wearable patch device
Year: 2021 PMID: 33792550 PMCID: PMC8050747 DOI: 10.2196/24142
Source DB: PubMed Journal: JMIR Mhealth Uhealth ISSN: 2291-5222 Impact factor: 4.773
Figure 1(A) The conventional 12-lead electrocardiogram device used for the control condition (X-series, ZOLL Medical, Chelmsford, MA, USA). (B) Attachment of electrodes on the patient's body surface, which are connected to the main device.
Figure 2(A) Patchy-type wireless 12-lead electrocardiogram used for the intervention condition (HEALTHRIAN, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon, Republic of Korea). The device consists of two parts: a flexible patch with a socket and a transmitter. (B) Application of the device with the transmitter on the patient’s left chest area.
Functional comparison between the conventional 12-lead electrocardiogram (C-ECG) and patchy-type wireless 12-lead electrocardiogram (P-ECG) devices.
| Component | C-ECG | P-ECG |
| Electrode | 10 electrodes (separated) | Single electrode (combined as a patch) |
| Wire | 10 wires for each electrode | Wireless (conductible film on the patch) |
| Control | Manual control (minimum 10 steps) | Semiautomatic (4 steps) |
| Transmission | Messenger app (device supports email with a cellular dongle) | Built-in app |
Figure 3Definition of outcomes (intervals). The overall interval was defined as the interval from the "start" command to the acquisition of an electrocardiogram (ECG) image by a remote provider. C-ECG: conventional electrocardiogram; P-ECG: patchy-type electrocardiogram.
Figure 4Case-crossover design study process. There was a washout period before two trials. C-ECG: conventional 12-lead electrocardiogram; P-ECG: patchy-type wireless 12-lead electrocardiogram.
Demographic and study-related characteristics of the participants (N=18).
| Characteristic | Value | |
|
|
| |
|
| Women | 4 (22) |
|
| Men | 14 (78) |
| Age (years), median (IQR) | 35 (32-42) | |
|
|
| |
|
| Yes | 10 (56) |
|
| No | 8 (44) |
|
|
| |
|
| 0-4 | 4 (22) |
|
| 5-8 | 5 (28) |
|
| 9-18 | 9 (50) |
Comparison of time intervals between the conventional electrocardiogram (C-ECG) and patchy-type electrocardiogram (P-ECG) devices.
| Interval | C-ECG, median (IQR) | P-ECG, median (IQR) | |
| Interval 1 (preparation) | 26 (22-33) | 34 (31-47) | .03 |
| Interval 2 (attachment) | 77 (64-91) | 53 (43-75) | .03 |
| Interval 3 (acquisition) | 69 (66-75) | 24 (21-30) | <.001 |
| Interval 4 (transmission) | 74 (58-97) | 6 (4-8) | <.001 |
| Overall interval | 254 (247-270) | 130 (112-150) | <.001 |
aP values were calculated using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.
System Usability Scale adapted for assessment of participant satisfaction with the patchy-type wireless electrocardiogram (ECG) device.
| Question | Mean (SD)a |
| I think that I would like to use the ECG device frequently | 3.33 (0.91) |
| I found the ECG device to be unnecessarily complex | 2.50 (1.15) |
| I thought the ECG device was easy to use | 3.33 (0.84) |
| I think that I would need the support of a technical person to be able to use the ECG device | 2.39 (1.33) |
| I found that the various functions in the ECG device were well-integrated | 2.78 (0.94) |
| I thought there was too much inconsistency in the ECG device | 3.00 (0.69) |
| I would imagine that most people would learn to use the ECG device very quickly | 3.50 (0.79) |
| I found the ECG device very cumbersome to use | 3.22 (1.11) |
| I felt very confident using the ECG device | 3.06 (0.64) |
| I need to learn a lot of things before I could get going with the ECG device | 2.39 (1.14) |
| Total score | 73.75 (17.58) |
aScored on a scale from 1 (“strongly disagree”) to 5 (“strongly agree”).