2023 journal article
Overall good agreement of smartphone-based and standard base-apex electrocardiography in healthy sheep
JAVMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN VETERINARY MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 261(9).
TL;DR:
Good agreement between standard and smartphone ECG for most parameters is indicated, although 35% of smartphone ECGs were uninterpretable.
(via Semantic Scholar)
open access via avmajournals.avma.org (publisher PDF)
UN Sustainable Development Goal Categories
3. Good Health and Well-being
(Web of Science)
Source: Web Of Science
Added: November 13, 2023
Abstract OBJECTIVE To assess and compare the quality of smartphone ECG tracings to standard (base-apex) ECG tracings and assess agreement of ECG parameters between smartphone-based ECG and standard ECG. ANIMALS 25 rams. PROCEDURES The rams were consecutively examined with standard ECG and smartphone-based ECG (KardiaMobile; AliveCor Inc) after physical examination. ECGs were compared for quality score, heart rate, and ECG waves, complexes, and intervals. Quality scores were based on the presence or absence of baseline undulation and tremor artifacts using a 3-point scoring system (lowest possible = 0; highest possible = 3). A lower score was indicative of a better-quality ECG. RESULTS Smartphone-based ECGs were interpretable in 65% of cases, while 100% of standard ECGs were interpretable. Standard ECG quality was superior to smartphone-based ECG quality, with no agreement in the quality between devices (κ coefficient, –0.0062). There was good agreement for heart rate with mean difference 2.86 beats/min (CI, –3.44 to 9.16) between the standard and smartphone ECGs. Good agreement was observed for P wave amplitude with mean difference 0.02 mV (CI, –0.01 to 0.05), QRS duration with mean difference –10.5 ms (CI, –20.96 to –0.04), QT interval with mean difference –27.14 ms (CI, –59.36 to 5.08), T wave duration with mean difference –30.00 ms (CI, –66.727 to 6.727), and T wave amplitude with mean difference –0.07 mV (CI, –0.22 to 0.08) between the 2 devices. CLINICAL RELEVANCE Our findings indicate good agreement between standard and smartphone ECG for most parameters, although 35% of smartphone ECGs were uninterpretable.