Key result
The CardioSTAT monitor determined the underlying rhythm during symptomatic events in 90% of cases, compared to 19% with a 24-hour Holter monitor and 29% with a Cardiomemo loop recorder.
Why the study?
The CardioSTAT single-lead ambulatory ECG monitor is validated in adults, but its efficacy in children with paroxysmal palpitations needed investigation.
Does the CardioSTAT monitor improve arrhythmia detection compared to Holter and loop recorders in children with palpitations?
Cohort (n=75)
Does the CardioSTAT monitor improve arrhythmia detection compared to Holter and loop recorders in children with palpitations?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The CardioSTAT 14-day ambulatory ECG monitor is superior to 24-hour Holter and loop recorders for determining the underlying rhythm during symptomatic palpitations in children.
BACKGROUND: The CardioSTAT is a single-lead ambulatory electrocardiography monitor that has been validated for use in adult patients. Recording is made through 2 electrodes positioned in a lead-I configuration, and the device allows monitoring for 2, 7, or 14 days. We sought to investigate the efficacy of this device in children with paroxysmal palpitations. METHODS: In phase I, the quality of tracings from simultaneous CardioSTAT recordings and D1-lead recordings of a standard 12-lead electrocardiography machine in 23 children were compared. Phase II was a prospective observational cohort study comparing arrhythmia detection using the CardioSTAT vs currently used devices (24-hour Holter monitor and the Cardiomemo loop recorder) in 52 children complaining of palpitations. RESULTS: In Phase I, all but 3 rhythm strips were correctly identified. The pacing spikes on 3 strips were not adequately identified by the observers for the CardioSTAT recording. In Phase II, symptomatic episodes were reported in 42%, 73%, and 100% of subjects during monitoring with the Holter, Cardiomemo, and CardioSTATdevices, respectively. An abnormal rhythm was detected in 13%, 23%, and 35% of subjects by the Holter, Cardiomemo, and CardioSTAT monitors, respectively. The underlying rhythm during symptomatic events was determined in 90% of cases with the CardioSTAT monitor, whereas it was determined in only 19% and 29% of cases using the Holter and Cardiomemo monitors, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The CardioSTAT monitor provided good-quality tracings and was superior to the 24-hour Holter monitor and the Cardiomemo loop recorder in determining the presence or absence of pathologic arrhythmia in the study cohort.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Côté et al. (2021) conducted a cohort in paroxysmal palpitations (n=75). CardioSTAT monitor vs. 24-hour Holter monitor and Cardiomemo loop recorder was evaluated on determination of underlying rhythm during symptomatic events. The CardioSTAT monitor determined the underlying rhythm during symptomatic events in 90% of cases, compared to 19% with a 24-hour Holter monitor and 29% with a Cardiomemo loop recorder.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: