Why the study?
The reliability of interpretations provided by smartphone-based portable ECG devices for detecting arrhythmia and abnormal cases remains questioned.
Does a smartphone-based portable ECG device accurately detect atrial and ventricular arrhythmias compared to a 12-lead gold standard ECG in patients with suspected cardiac conditions?
Does a smartphone-based portable ECG device accurately detect atrial and ventricular arrhythmias compared to a 12-lead gold standard ECG in patients with suspected cardiac conditions?
The smartphone-based Spandan ECG device provides highly accurate detection of atrial and ventricular arrhythmias, comparable to a 12-lead gold standard ECG.
Smartphone ECG reliability for arrhythmia detection remains uncertain; leaves open need for prospective validation against gold-standard ECG.
The Interpretation provided by the smartphone-based Portable ECG devices is still questioned for its reliability and are a subject of study for the detection of arrhythmia and abnormal cases. The heart abnormality is the marker of the uncertain change in the electrical activity of the heart. Hence, its early and true detection can prevent sudden cardiac death and, in some cases even Myocardial Infarction. This study provides insights into such kind of smartphone-based ECG device in comparison to the 12-lead gold standard ECG. Arrhythmia Detection for both atrial and ventricular abnormalities is done by 12- lead ECG machines. Here, we have compared and observed the performance of one such kind of portable device with clinical interpretation and 12 lead gold standard generated computer interpretations. Among the 153 number of enrolled participants 110 subjects were taken into the consideration as per the study protocols. The trials were validated according to the specificity and sensitivity of the smartphone-based ECG which was evaluated at 97.2% specific and 98.63% sensitive in detecting the ventricular and atrial abnormalities in the subjects. Whereas, NPV and PPV were evaluated at 97.2 % and 98.6% respectively.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chandola et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: