The Simple ECG Monitoring Trial (Comparison of a Novel Recording System With a Standard Holter Monitor)
|Syncope Pre-syncope Atrial Fibrillation Supraventricular Tachycardia||Device: Standard Holter/Investigational patch|
|Study Design:||Observational Model: Cohort
Time Perspective: Prospective
|Official Title:||The Simple ECG Monitoring Trial (Comparison of a Simple ECG Recording System With a Standard ECG Recording System for Holter Monitoring)|
- To compare the *diagnostic yield and *ECG signal quality of the standard Holter with that of the Simple ECG Monitoring patch [ Time Frame: 24 Hours ]
- Diagnostic yield is the proportion of patients for whom an arrhythmogenic source of symptoms is established, or ruled out. The two systems will be correlated following completion of blinded batch reviews.
- ECG signal quality is scoring the ability of each system to record electrical activity from the atrium (P-waves)using the following scale: Excellent, Good, Fair, Poor, Non-existent.
- Skin comfort or discomfort: Was skin irritated? [ Time Frame: 48 Hours ]
User will rate skin comfort on a pre-determined scale: none, mild, moderate, severe.
Clinician will examine and rate patient's skin irritation when device is removed, using a pre-determined scale: none, mild, moderate, severe.
- Device comfort [ Time Frame: 48 Hours ]
Was device comfortable to wear? User will rate on a pre-determined scale: very uncomfortable, mildly uncomfortable, comfortable.
Was device inconspicuous under clothing? User will rate on a pre-determined scale: conspicuous, inconspicuous.
Was ability to sleep affected by wearing the device? User will rate on a pre-determined scale: yes, no.
- Device stability and contact [ Time Frame: 48 Hours ]Did the device stay in place in the chest location where it was attached? Clinician will evaluate visually, and rate on a pre-determined scale: yes, no.
- User interface [ Time Frame: 48 Hours ]
Was the patient able to access the button on the device to 'mark' events, such as sensing an episode of palpitations? User will rate on a pre-determined scale: Yes, no.
Did the clinician find the device easy to attach to patient? Clinician will rate on a pre-determined scale with a rating of 1 through 5: 1 = very easy to attach and 5 = very hard to attach.
Did the clinician find the device easy to remove from the patient? Clinician will rate on a pre-determined scale with a rating of 1 through 5: 1 = very easy to remove and 5 = very hard to remove.
|Study Start Date:||August 2011|
|Study Completion Date:||October 2011|
|Primary Completion Date:||October 2011 (Final data collection date for primary outcome measure)|
Device: Standard Holter/Investigational patch
- Cardiac Science Burdick Holter.
- Investigational patch trilobite system.
Externally applied cardiac rhythm monitors are common tools used to diagnose symptoms that may or may not be related to cardiac rhythm abnormalities. Common problems that may lead to the use of cardiac rhythm monitors are syncope (loss of consciousness), near-syncope (near loss of consciousness), palpitations (the sensation of an abnormal heart beat), or monitoring of known cardiac rhythm problems like atrial fibrillation. The purpose of this research is to confirm the clinical value of a much easier-to-use cardiac rhythm monitoring system, hereafter referred to as the Investigational Monitoring System. Prior to discussing the investigational monitoring system, we will review standard electrocardiographic monitoring tools used to evaluate the heart's rhythm.
Excluding a routine 12 lead electrocardiogram that takes a snapshot view of the hearts electrical signal, the most common tool for monitoring the heart rhythm is a Holter monitor. A Holter monitor is also called an ambulatory cardiac monitor. A Holter monitor records every heartbeat for 24 hours. It requires wearing multiple electrodes and carrying a recording system that is usually worn on a belt or on a holster strap. Such systems are relatively bulky and difficult to conceal in public venues. Also, their electrodes often disconnect, especially during sleep when the patient is unaware of electrode detachments that can occur when turning or during exercise. Moreover, they can't be worn during showering. These shortcomings notwithstanding, standard Holters remain the standard of care.
Please refer to this study by its ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01382953
|United States, Illinois|
|University of Chicago|
|Chicago, Illinois, United States, 60637|
|United States, Washington|
|Gene Trobaugh Cardiology|
|Enumclaw, Washington, United States, 98022|
|Auckland City Hospital|
|Auckland, New Zealand, 1001|
|Christchurch, New Zealand, 4710|
|Principal Investigator:||Gust H. Bardy, MD||Seattle Institute for Cardiac Research|