Remote ECG Monitoring by ECG247 Smart Heart Sensor

Jarle Jortveit, Rune Fensli, Jarle Jortveit, Rune Fensli

Abstract

Background: Heart rhythm disorders are common and may be associated with serious complications. The quality of the ECG signal is crucial to detect and classify arrhythmias. Most available devices for assessment arrhythmias do not allow for remote monitoring. The Norwegian ECG247 Smart Heart Sensor is a new remote patch monitor developed to simplify the assessment of arrhythmias. This study was aimed at evaluating the quality of the ECG signal from the ECG247 Smart Heart Sensor compared to standard 12-lead ECG.

Methods: ECG recordings with ECG247 Smart Heart Sensor and a standard 12-lead ECG recorder were performed in 97 volunteers at Sorlandet Hospital, Arendal, Norway, in 2019. All ECGs were analysed by two independent cardiologists.

Results: A total of 97 participants (53% men, age 48 (±14) years) were included in the study. The ability for both systems to use recorded ECG data for arrhythmia detection was good (100%). The quality of the P-wave (mean score 1.1 vs. 1.5) and the QRS complex (mean score 1.0 vs. 1.0) from the ECG247 Smart Heart Sensor and that from the 12-lead ECG were comparable (scale: 1: extremely good, 9: not accepted). Noise artefacts were a minor issue in all recordings.

Conclusions: The ECG quality from the ECG247 Smart Heart Sensor was comparable to the ECG quality from the standard 12-lead ECG. The ECG247 Smart Heart Sensor may enable easy and remote diagnostics of heart rhythm disorders. This trial is registered with NCT04700865.

Conflict of interest statement

JJ has received speaking fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi. He is a shareholder in AppSens AS and is employed in the company. RF is a shareholder in AppSens AS and is employed in the company.

Copyright © 2022 Jarle Jortveit and Rune Fensli.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
The ECG247 Smart Heart Sensor system: sensor with real-time arrhythmia detection, smartphone application, back-end cloud service with postprocessing arrhythmia analyser, and web portal.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Parallel ECG recordings with ECG247 Smart Heart Sensor and Schiller Cardiovit AT-102 G2 ECG recorder.

References

    1. Lip G. Y. H., Brechin C. M., Lane D. A. The global burden of atrial fibrillation and stroke: a systematic review of the epidemiology of atrial fibrillation in regions outside North America and Europe. Chest . 2012;142(6):1489–1498. doi: 10.1378/chest.11-2888.
    1. Fredriksson T., Kemp Gudmundsdottir K., Frykman V., et al. Intermittent vs continuous electrocardiogram event recording for detection of atrial fibrillation-compliance and ease of use in an ambulatory elderly population. Clinical cardiology . 2020;43(4):355–362. doi: 10.1002/clc.23323.
    1. Holter N. J. New method for heart studies. Science . 1961;134(3486):1214–1220. doi: 10.1126/science.134.3486.1214.
    1. Hindricks G., Potpara T., Dagres N., et al. 2020 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of atrial fibrillation developed in collaboration with the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS): The Task Force for the diagnosis and management of atrial fibrillation of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Developed with the special contribution of the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) of the ESC. European Heart Journal . 2020;42(5):373–498. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehaa612.
    1. Steinhubl S. R., Waalen J., Edwards A. M., et al. Effect of a home-based wearable continuous ECG monitoring patch on detection of undiagnosed atrial fibrillation: the mSToPS randomized clinical trial. JAMA . 2018;320(2):146–155. doi: 10.1001/jama.2018.8102.
    1. Sandberg E. L., Grenne B. L., Berge T., et al. Diagnostic accuracy and usability of the ECG247 smart heart sensor compared to conventional Holter technology. Journal of Healthcare Engineering . 2021;2021 doi: 10.1155/2021/5230947.
    1. Device for an electrode part for a wireless biopotential measurement unit. US 8,311,603. 2012, .
    1. Lancaster G. A., Dodd S., Williamson P. R. Design and analysis of pilot studies: recommendations for good practice. Journal of evaluation in clinical practice . 2004;10:307–312. doi: 10.1111/j..2002.384.doc.x.
    1. Barrett P. M., Komatireddy R., Haaser S., et al. Comparison of 24-hour Holter monitoring with 14-day novel adhesive patch electrocardiographic monitoring. The American journal of medicine . 2014;127:p. 95–e11. doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2013.10.003.
    1. Fensli R., Pedersen P. E., Gundersen T., Hejlesen O. Sensor acceptance model - measuring patient acceptance of wearable sensors. Methods of information in medicine . 2008;47:89–95. doi: 10.3414/me9106.
    1. Zimetbaum P. J., Kim K. Y., Josephson M. E., Goldberger A. L., Cohen D. J. Diagnostic yield and optimal duration of continuous-loop event monitoring for the diagnosis of palpitations. A cost-effectiveness analysis. Annals of internal medicine . 1998;128:890–895. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-128-11-199806010-00002.
    1. Freedman B., Camm J., Calkins H., et al. Screening for atrial fibrillation: a report of the AF-SCREEN International Collaboration. Circulation . 2017;135:1851–1867. doi: 10.1161/circulationaha.116.026693.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

3
Subscribe