Key result
Smartphone ECG matches standard ECG for heart rate classification, yielding ~82% interpretable tracings in foals.
Why the study?
Smartphone-based ECG technology has spread as a complementary screening and monitoring tool, but its feasibility and accuracy in healthy foals needed assessment.
Does a smartphone-based electrocardiograph provide accurate ECG recordings compared to standard base-apex electrocardiography in healthy foals?
Observational (n=22)
Single-blind
No
Does a smartphone-based electrocardiograph provide accurate ECG recordings compared to standard base-apex electrocardiography in healthy foals?
A smartphone-based ECG device provides reliable single-lead ECG tracings for heart rate and interval measurements in healthy foals, offering a feasible tool for field screening.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
May support field screening in healthy foals; leaves open validation in diseased animals before clinical adoption.
Smartphone-based technology for ECG recording has recently spread as a complementary tool for electrocardiographic screening and monitoring in adult horses and in other animal species. The present study aimed to assess the feasibility and accuracy of a smartphone-based ECG in healthy foals. This was a prospective observational study (authorization n. 45865/2016) including 22 foals aged less than 21 days. A reference standard base-apex ECG (rECG) was acquired, and a smartphone ECG (sECG) was recorded immediately after by using a smartphone-based single lead electrocardiograph. All ECG tracings were evaluated in a blind fashion by a single board-certified cardiologist, who judged whether the tracings were acceptable for interpretation and performed ECG measurements and diagnosis. The Spearman correlation coefficient, the Cohen’s k test and the Bland-Altman test were used to assess the agreement between sECG and rECG. All sECG tracings were acceptable for interpretation. All foals showed sinus rhythm on both rRCG and sECG tracings, with perfect agreement in heart rate classification (κ = 0.87; p < 0.001). No clinically relevant differences were found in the assessment of waves and intervals duration. Concerning P wave and QRS complex polarity, the percentage of agreement between rECG and sECG was 78% and 83%, respectively. About ECG tracing quality, rECG and sECG showed a substantial agreement (κ = 0.624; p < 0.001). In conclusion, the smartphone-based ECG device tested in the present study recorded good quality single-lead ECG tracings in foals, reliable for heart rate and ECG measurements, but different polarity of P waves and QRS complexes was found in some foals in comparison to rECG.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bindi et al. (2023) conducted an observational in Healthy foals (n=22). Smartphone-based single lead electrocardiograph (AliveCor KardiaMobile) vs. Reference standard base-apex ECG (rECG) was evaluated on Agreement in heart rate classification between smartphone ECG and reference standard ECG (κ 0.87, 95% CI 0.623-1.116, p=<0.001). The smartphone-based ECG device showed almost perfect agreement with standard base-apex ECG for heart rate classification (κ = 0.87) and produced interpretable single-lead tracings in 82% of healthy foals.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: