Aims: Mobile, portable ECG-recorders allow the assessment of heart rhythm in out-of-hospital conditions and may prove useful for monitoring patients with cardiovascular diseases. However, the effectiveness of these portable devices has not been tested in everyday practice.
Methods and results: A group of 98 consecutive cardiology patients [62 males (63%), mean age 69 ± 12.9 years] were included in an academic care centre. For each patient, a standard 12-lead electrocardiogram (SE), as well as a Kardia Mobile 6L (KM) and Istel (IS) HR-2000 ECG were performed. Two groups of experienced physicians analysed obtained recordings. After analysing ECG tracings from SE, KM, and IS, quality was marked as good in 82%, 80%, and 72% of patients, respectively (P < 0.001). There were no significant differences between devices in terms of detecting sinus rhythm [SE (60%, n = 59), KM (58%, n = 56), and IS (61%, n = 60); SE vs. KM P = 0.53; SE vs. IS P = 0.76) and atrial fibrillation [SE (22%, n = 22), KM (22%, n = 21), and IS (18%, n = 18); (SE vs. KM P = 0.65; SE vs. IS = 0.1)]. KM had a sensitivity of 88.1% and a specificity of 89.7% for diagnosing sinus rhythm. IS showed 91.5% and 84.6% sensitivity and specificity, respectively. The sensitivity of KM in detecting atrial fibrillation was higher than IS (86.4% vs. 77.3%), but their specificity was comparable (97.4% vs. 98.7%).
Conclusion: Novel, portable devices are useful in showing sinus rhythm and detecting atrial fibrillation in clinical practice. However, ECG measurements concerning conduction and repolarization should be clarified with a standard 12-lead electrocardiogram.
Keywords: Arrhythmia; Atrial fibrillation; Mobile devices; Telemedicine.
© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.