Comparison of 6-lead smartphone ECG and 12-lead ECG in athletes and a genetic heart disease population.

Expert review of medical devices Pub Date : 2025-01-01 Epub Date: 2024-12-17 DOI:10.1080/17434440.2024.2443113
Angus J Davis, John W Orchard, Daniel McGhie, Daniel Broadbridge, Hariharan Raju, Andre La Gerche, Rajesh Puranik, Belinda Gray, Jennifer De Jongh, Tim Driscoll, Jessica J Orchard
{"title":"Comparison of 6-lead smartphone ECG and 12-lead ECG in athletes and a genetic heart disease population.","authors":"Angus J Davis, John W Orchard, Daniel McGhie, Daniel Broadbridge, Hariharan Raju, Andre La Gerche, Rajesh Puranik, Belinda Gray, Jennifer De Jongh, Tim Driscoll, Jessica J Orchard","doi":"10.1080/17434440.2024.2443113","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Smartphone electrocardiograms (iECGs) are an innovative method of capturing transient arrhythmias that are occasionally experienced by athletes. This study aimed to assess the accuracy of a 6-lead iECG compared with 12-lead ECG in athletes and those with known genetic heart disease (positive controls).</p><p><strong>Research design and methods: </strong>Each participant had a resting 12-lead ECG (supine) and a 30 s 6-lead iECG (seated) taken within 2 h. Manual measurements of heart rate, QTc, and PR intervals, and QRS duration were completed using digital calipers. Bland-Altman analysis was used to assess the quantitative agreement of measurements.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The 6-lead readings for heart rate were faster than the 12-lead in athletes (<i>n</i> = 233) and positive controls (<i>n</i> = 49). All other measurements were shorter in the 6-lead. QTc mean difference was smaller in the positive controls (4.7 ± 26.0 ms) than in athletes (12.5 ± 25.0 ms). The largest difference was in PR intervals, both in athletes (12.8 ± 17.7 ms) and positive controls (7.6 ± 18.9 ms). QRS duration had the smallest mean difference (0.6 ± 9.0 ms in athletes, 1.0 ± 12.7 ms in positive controls).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The 6-lead readings had reasonable agreement with the 12-lead ECG. A 6-lead iECG is a reasonable option to opportunistically capture arrhythmias that may occur infrequently, but should not replace a 12-lead if available.</p>","PeriodicalId":94006,"journal":{"name":"Expert review of medical devices","volume":" ","pages":"99-105"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Expert review of medical devices","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17434440.2024.2443113","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/12/17 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Smartphone electrocardiograms (iECGs) are an innovative method of capturing transient arrhythmias that are occasionally experienced by athletes. This study aimed to assess the accuracy of a 6-lead iECG compared with 12-lead ECG in athletes and those with known genetic heart disease (positive controls).

Research design and methods: Each participant had a resting 12-lead ECG (supine) and a 30 s 6-lead iECG (seated) taken within 2 h. Manual measurements of heart rate, QTc, and PR intervals, and QRS duration were completed using digital calipers. Bland-Altman analysis was used to assess the quantitative agreement of measurements.

Results: The 6-lead readings for heart rate were faster than the 12-lead in athletes (n = 233) and positive controls (n = 49). All other measurements were shorter in the 6-lead. QTc mean difference was smaller in the positive controls (4.7 ± 26.0 ms) than in athletes (12.5 ± 25.0 ms). The largest difference was in PR intervals, both in athletes (12.8 ± 17.7 ms) and positive controls (7.6 ± 18.9 ms). QRS duration had the smallest mean difference (0.6 ± 9.0 ms in athletes, 1.0 ± 12.7 ms in positive controls).

Conclusions: The 6-lead readings had reasonable agreement with the 12-lead ECG. A 6-lead iECG is a reasonable option to opportunistically capture arrhythmias that may occur infrequently, but should not replace a 12-lead if available.

比较运动员和遗传性心脏病人群的 6 导联智能手机心电图和 12 导联心电图。
背景:智能手机心电图(iECGs)是一种捕捉运动员偶尔经历的短暂性心律失常的创新方法。本研究旨在评估6导联iECG与12导联心电图在运动员和已知遗传性心脏病患者(阳性对照)中的准确性。研究设计与方法:每位受试者在2小时内静息12导联心电图(仰卧)和30秒6导联心电图(坐位)。手动测量心率,QTc和PR间隔,QRS持续时间使用数字卡尺完成。Bland-Altman分析用于评估测量结果的定量一致性。结果:6导联的心率读数比运动员(n = 233)和阳性对照(n = 49)的12导联更快。所有其他测量值都比6导联短。阳性对照组的QTc平均值(4.7±26.0 ms)小于运动员组(12.5±25.0 ms)。最大的差异是PR间隔,运动员(12.8±17.7 ms)和阳性对照(7.6±18.9 ms)。QRS持续时间的平均差异最小(运动员为0.6±9.0 ms,阳性对照为1.0±12.7 ms)。结论:6导联读数与12导联心电图吻合较好。6导联iECG是一种合理的选择,可以机会地捕捉可能不经常发生的心律失常,但如果可用,不应取代12导联。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信