Why the study?
Does a two-lead system with an esophageal capsule-electrode improve automated detection of supraventricular and ventricular arrhythmias compared to conventional surface leads?
Does a two-lead system with an esophageal capsule-electrode improve automated detection of supraventricular and ventricular arrhythmias compared to conventional surface leads?
An esophageal capsule-electrode system enables automated, on-line computer diagnosis of complex supraventricular and ventricular arrhythmias that are typically missed by conventional surface leads.
May enable automated detection of complex arrhythmias missed by surface leads; leaves open prospective validation trials.
Computerized arrhythmia monitors recognize only a few of the significant arrhythmias and generally fail to detect arrhythmias of supraventricular origin. This is because conventional surface leads, which are sufficient for QRS recognition, are highly inadequate for automated P-wave detection. A new two-lead system, which includes a swallowable capsule-electrode for esophageal monitoring of atrial activity, is used in an on-line arrhythmia monitor. Three interval measurements (AA, AR and RR) and a QRS shape measurement provide the foundation for a detailed interpretation of each beat. Building on the single-beat analysis, a contextual diagnostic algorithm then recognizes and reports on-line the following arrhythmias: couplets, bigeminy, trigeminy, ventricular tachycardia, supraventricular tachycardia, atrial flutter, atrial fibrillation, ventricular tachycardia with retrograde conduction to the atria, first-degree block, second-degree block, Wenckebach periodicity, advanced block, third-degree block and sinus bradycardia.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jenkins et al. (1979) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 2 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: