COMPARISON OF ARRHYTHMIA DETECTION BY CONVENTIONAL HOLTER

AND A NOVEL AMBULATORY ECG SYSTEM USING PATCH AND ANDROID

APP, OVER 24 H PERIOD
The study compared the ability to detect arrhythmias using two different systems: the
conventional 24-hour Holter monitor and a novel ambulatory ECG system called
WebCardio, which uses an Android patch and app.
Here are the key findings: WebCardio vs Holter
1. WebCardio recorded ECG in two leads for 72 hours.
2. Holter, the conventional system, recorded ECG for 24 hours.
3. Simultaneous recordings were performed in patients with an indication for ambulatory
ECG.
4. WebCardio detected at least one of the following six arrhythmias more frequently
than Holter:
 Atrial fibrillation
 Atrioventricular block
 Sinus pause
 Supraventricular tachycardia
 Ventricular tachycardia
 Ventricular fibrillation.
5. In eleven cases, WebCardio detected an arrhythmia that Holter missed, while Holter
identified an arrhythmia in one case that WebCardio missed.
6. Both systems detected individual arrhythmias equally
7. The better identification of atrioventricular block by WebCardio was attributed to the
higher quality of the P waves in their recordings.
TO NOTE:
It is essential to note that the arrhythmias evaluated in our study and the Zio patch study
differ. Our study included a larger number of patients with arrhythmias compared to the
Zio patch study.
CONCLUSION
1. WebCardio is a promising alternative to Holter for ambulatory ECG monitoring.
2. Its longer recording duration and better detection of certain arrhythmias make it a
valuable tool in clinical practice.
URL: https://europepmc.org/article/MED/31866554