Affiliation:
1. Department of Population Health and Pathobiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC
2. Center for Integrative Mammalian Research, Department of Clinical Sciences, School of Veterinary Medicine, Ross University, Basseterre, St. Kitts, West Indies
3. School of Health Systems and Public Health, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa
Abstract
Abstract
OBJECTIVE
To assess and compare the quality of smartphone ECG tracings to standard (base-apex) ECG tracings and assess agreement of ECG parameters between smartphone-based ECG and standard ECG.
ANIMALS
25 rams.
PROCEDURES
The rams were consecutively examined with standard ECG and smartphone-based ECG (KardiaMobile; AliveCor Inc) after physical examination. ECGs were compared for quality score, heart rate, and ECG waves, complexes, and intervals. Quality scores were based on the presence or absence of baseline undulation and tremor artifacts using a 3-point scoring system (lowest possible = 0; highest possible = 3). A lower score was indicative of a better-quality ECG.
RESULTS
Smartphone-based ECGs were interpretable in 65% of cases, while 100% of standard ECGs were interpretable. Standard ECG quality was superior to smartphone-based ECG quality, with no agreement in the quality between devices (κ coefficient, –0.0062). There was good agreement for heart rate with mean difference 2.86 beats/min (CI, –3.44 to 9.16) between the standard and smartphone ECGs. Good agreement was observed for P wave amplitude with mean difference 0.02 mV (CI, –0.01 to 0.05), QRS duration with mean difference –10.5 ms (CI, –20.96 to –0.04), QT interval with mean difference –27.14 ms (CI, –59.36 to 5.08), T wave duration with mean difference –30.00 ms (CI, –66.727 to 6.727), and T wave amplitude with mean difference –0.07 mV (CI, –0.22 to 0.08) between the 2 devices.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE
Our findings indicate good agreement between standard and smartphone ECG for most parameters, although 35% of smartphone ECGs were uninterpretable.
Publisher
American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA)
Reference16 articles.
1. Detection of heart rate and rhythm with a smartphone-based electrocardiograph versus a reference standard electrocardiograph in dogs and cats;Kraus MS,2016
2. Home monitoring of heart rate and heart rhythm with a smartphone-based ECG in dogs;Vezzosi T,2019
3. Diagnostic accuracy of a smartphone electrocardiograph in dogs: comparison with standard 6-lead electrocardiography;Vezzosi T,2016
4. Utility and accuracy of a smartphone-based electrocardiogram device as compared to a standard base-apex electrocardiogram in the horse;Kraus MS,2019
5. Comparison between smartphone electrocardiography and standard three-lead base apex electrocardiography in healthy horses;Welch-Huston B,2020
Cited by
2 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献