Ambulatory patient-activated arrhythmia monitoring

A wrist-applied transtelephonic device (WrTTD) and a precordial (PrTTD) patient-activated transtelephonic electrocardiographic (ECG) recorder were compared objectively (quality of ECG traces) and subjectively (device preference) in a prospective randomized crossover study of 24 patients. All underwent cardioversion for chronic atrial fibrillation and were then randomized to each device for 1 month. The ECG traces were sent weekly with additional traces if symptomatic. Self-administered questionnaires were completed after 1 month with each device, and the first five telemetered ECG traces for each patient were blindly assessed by two experienced cardiologists. Although the QRS complexes were smaller with the WrTTD (P < .001), the quality of the traces was similar. In particular, there was no significant difference in number of nondiagnostic traces, ability to detect atrial activity, degree of baseline fluctuation, or amount of artifact. Overall, patients preferred the PrTTD (P = .02). Patients found the PrTTD easier to use (P = .007) and were able to apply it more rapidly (P = .02). The quality of ECG traces obtained from the upper limbs by using a wrist-applied transtelephonic device was concluded to be comparable with those obtained by direct precordial application. In order to increase patient acceptability of the former, further improvements to simplify its operation are necessary.