Handy EKG: A Low-Cost Electrocardiograph for Primary Care

Q: What is the clinical evidence from this study?

Study design: Cross-Sectional. Population: Healthy volunteers (n=51). Intervention: Handy EKG (low-cost three-lead electrocardiograph) vs. Conventional 12-lead ECG (TDOU model CMS600G). Primary outcome: Diagnostic coincidence (similarity in morphology, amplitude, and duration of waves, segments, and complexes).

Jhiamluka Solano; Alejandro J. Calderón; Servio Paguada; Óscar Hernández; Erick Vladimir Reyes Marín; Hana Sandoval; Kellyn Funes; Raúl-José Palma-Mendoza

doi:10.7759/cureus.48563

November 9, 2023CureusOpen Access

Handy EKG: A Low-Cost Electrocardiograph for Primary Care

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Share

Key result

Handy EKG prototype achieves 96% diagnostic coincidence with conventional 12-lead ECG in healthy volunteers.

n=51

Figures

Why the study?

Cardiovascular diseases cause significant mortality worldwide and in Honduras, prompting the design of a low-cost three-lead electrocardiograph for primary care.

Does a low-cost three-lead electrocardiograph prototype provide equivalent lead I readings compared to a conventional 12-lead ECG in healthy volunteers?

Key Points

This research aims to evaluate a low-cost electrocardiograph designed for primary care settings and its effectiveness compared to conventional devices.
Designed and manufactured a three-lead electrocardiograph (Handy EKG) for primary care.
Collected readings from volunteers and compared them with a conventional 12-lead ECG.
Utilized Bluetooth connectivity and machine learning for device operation.
The Handy EKG achieved a 96% similarity in readings compared to the 12-lead ECG for wave morphology, amplitude, and duration.
Device showed effectiveness in diagnosing bradyarrhythmia and tachyarrhythmias.
The tool demonstrated potential for continuous monitoring in both primary care and hospital settings.

Study Design

Type

Cross-Sectional (n=51)

Multicenter

No

Structured PICO

Does a low-cost three-lead electrocardiograph prototype provide equivalent lead I readings compared to a conventional 12-lead ECG in healthy volunteers?

P

Population

51 healthy volunteers without any previous clinical diagnosis of heart disease who underwent ECG readings to validate a low-cost electrocardiograph prototype.

I

Intervention

Handy EKG, a low-cost three-lead electrocardiograph prototype with Bluetooth connectivity and machine learning capabilities.

C

Comparator

Conventional 12-lead ECG (TDOU model CMS600G).

O

Outcome

Similarity in morphology, amplitude, and duration of waves, segments, and complexes compared to a 12-lead ECG (specifically lead I).surrogate

A low-cost, portable three-lead ECG prototype provides lead I readings and basic diagnostic capabilities comparable to a conventional 12-lead ECG, offering a potential screening tool for resource-limited primary care settings.

Limitations

The study used only healthy volunteers, limiting the ability to test the device on various cardiac pathologies.
The prototype was more sensitive to noise and interference than the conventional device, rendering some readings non-assessable.
The device only reads one lead, limiting its capacity to detect pathologies present in other leads.
Readings were performed by junior doctors rather than cardiology specialists.
Used only healthy volunteers
Small sample size
Readings performed by junior doctors
Prototype more sensitive to noise than conventional device
Only assesses one lead (lead I) effectively for diagnosis

Ask about this paper

Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.

Implication

May support low-cost ECG screening development in primary care; leaves open validation in symptomatic patients.

Abstract

Background Cardiovascular diseases constitute the majority of noncommunicable disease deaths worldwide. In Honduras, cardiovascular diseases represent the fifth cause of death among individuals aged 45 to 49 years, while 20% of emergency room visits are due to cerebrovascular events, heart failure, and acute myocardial infarction. Methodology A low-cost three-lead electrocardiograph (ECG) (Handy EKG) was designed and manufactured for primary care. The device is supported by Bluetooth connectivity and machine learning. Device readings were collected from volunteers and compared to those obtained with a conventional 12-lead ECG. Results The device provided readings of lead one of a TDOU model CMS600G 12-lead ECG to monitor and diagnose bradyarrhythmia and tachyarrhythmias. Overall, 96% (49) of the readings showed a similarity in morphology, amplitude, and duration of waves, segments, and complexes compared to a 12-lead ECG. The device showed potential for application in primary care and intrahospital settings due to its continuous monitoring capabilities, portability, and possible connectivity with mobile devices. Conclusions The results indicate that the designed platform is safe, offers good quality in its operation at all levels, and provides ECG results equivalent to those of a conventional ECG in most cases (considering only one lead).

Discussion

No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.

Cite This Study

Solano et al. (2023) conducted a cross-sectional in Healthy volunteers (n=51). Handy EKG (low-cost three-lead electrocardiograph) vs. Conventional 12-lead ECG (TDOU model CMS600G) was evaluated on Diagnostic coincidence (similarity in morphology, amplitude, and duration of waves, segments, and complexes). The Handy EKG low-cost electrocardiograph prototype demonstrated a 96% diagnostic coincidence with a conventional 12-lead ECG in healthy volunteers.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a208571b9ae31350fa5e58b https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.48563

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Share

Handy EKG: A Low-Cost Electrocardiograph for Primary Care

Figures

Key Points

Study Design

Structured PICO

Limitations

Ask about this paper

Implication

Abstract

Discussion

Cite This Study

Handy EKG: A Low-Cost Electrocardiograph for Primary Care

Figures

Key Points

Study Design

Structured PICO

Limitations

Ask about this paper

Implication

Abstract

Discussion

Cite This Study

Keep reading

Keep reading