Comparison of 6-lead smartphone ECG and 12-lead ECG in athletes and a genetic heart disease population.

Angus J Davis, John W Orchard, Daniel McGhie, Daniel Broadbridge, Hariharan Raju, Andre La Gerche, Rajesh Puranik, Belinda Gray, Jennifer De Jongh, Tim Driscoll, Jessica J Orchard
{"title":"Comparison of 6-lead smartphone ECG and 12-lead ECG in athletes and a genetic heart disease population.","authors":"Angus J Davis, John W Orchard, Daniel McGhie, Daniel Broadbridge, Hariharan Raju, Andre La Gerche, Rajesh Puranik, Belinda Gray, Jennifer De Jongh, Tim Driscoll, Jessica J Orchard","doi":"10.1080/17434440.2024.2443113","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Smartphone electrocardiograms (iECGs) are an innovative method of capturing transient arrhythmias that are occasionally experienced by athletes. This study aimed to assess the accuracy of a 6-lead iECG compared with 12-lead ECG in athletes and those with known genetic heart disease (positive controls).</p><p><strong>Research design and methods: </strong>Each participant had a resting 12-lead ECG (supine) and a 30 s 6-lead iECG (seated) taken within 2 h. Manual measurements of heart rate, QTc, and PR intervals, and QRS duration were completed using digital calipers. Bland-Altman analysis was used to assess the quantitative agreement of measurements.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The 6-lead readings for heart rate were faster than the 12-lead in athletes (<i>n</i> = 233) and positive controls (<i>n</i> = 49). All other measurements were shorter in the 6-lead. QTc mean difference was smaller in the positive controls (4.7 ± 26.0 ms) than in athletes (12.5 ± 25.0 ms). The largest difference was in PR intervals, both in athletes (12.8 ± 17.7 ms) and positive controls (7.6 ± 18.9 ms). QRS duration had the smallest mean difference (0.6 ± 9.0 ms in athletes, 1.0 ± 12.7 ms in positive controls).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The 6-lead readings had reasonable agreement with the 12-lead ECG. A 6-lead iECG is a reasonable option to opportunistically capture arrhythmias that may occur infrequently, but should not replace a 12-lead if available.</p>","PeriodicalId":94006,"journal":{"name":"Expert review of medical devices","volume":" ","pages":"1-7"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Expert review of medical devices","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17434440.2024.2443113","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Smartphone electrocardiograms (iECGs) are an innovative method of capturing transient arrhythmias that are occasionally experienced by athletes. This study aimed to assess the accuracy of a 6-lead iECG compared with 12-lead ECG in athletes and those with known genetic heart disease (positive controls).

Research design and methods: Each participant had a resting 12-lead ECG (supine) and a 30 s 6-lead iECG (seated) taken within 2 h. Manual measurements of heart rate, QTc, and PR intervals, and QRS duration were completed using digital calipers. Bland-Altman analysis was used to assess the quantitative agreement of measurements.

Results: The 6-lead readings for heart rate were faster than the 12-lead in athletes (n = 233) and positive controls (n = 49). All other measurements were shorter in the 6-lead. QTc mean difference was smaller in the positive controls (4.7 ± 26.0 ms) than in athletes (12.5 ± 25.0 ms). The largest difference was in PR intervals, both in athletes (12.8 ± 17.7 ms) and positive controls (7.6 ± 18.9 ms). QRS duration had the smallest mean difference (0.6 ± 9.0 ms in athletes, 1.0 ± 12.7 ms in positive controls).

Conclusions: The 6-lead readings had reasonable agreement with the 12-lead ECG. A 6-lead iECG is a reasonable option to opportunistically capture arrhythmias that may occur infrequently, but should not replace a 12-lead if available.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
比较运动员和遗传性心脏病人群的 6 导联智能手机心电图和 12 导联心电图。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Proactive esophageal cooling during radiofrequency cardiac ablation: data update including applications in very high-power short duration ablation. BComparison of supraglottic airway device vs. endotracheal intubation for initial airway management in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Effects of elevated body mass index on the success of total knee and total hip arthroplasty: a comprehensive overview. Current status of routine use of veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation during lung transplantation. Comparison of 6-lead smartphone ECG and 12-lead ECG in athletes and a genetic heart disease population.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1