The study aimed to check the accuracy of AI-powered mobile cardiac telemetry (MCT) and electrocardiogram (ECG) monitors operated by trained specialists. Researchers recruited 46 patients from an arrhythmia clinic (outpatient) and asked them to wear both an MCT and a long-term continuous ECG monitor. In addition, two electrophysiologists were called in to see whether significant arrhythmias had been correctly detected and diagnosed.

The research team discovered that overall, compared to the MCT monitors, the ECG monitors detected more serious arrhythmias (24% vs. 50%). In addition, in 12 patients, ECG monitors detected findings not recorded by MCT monitors, including four atrial fibrillation cases. Dr. Willcox M of the Alaska Heart and Vascular Institute, the study's main author, said that because each cardiac monitor uses various reporting techniques to analyze recorded rhythms, it may be difficult for doctors to receive and understand final reports. He also mentions that the research aimed to comprehend the accuracy of two often used choices for monitoring heart rhythm by comparing them to one another. Human supervision and feedback have proven to be the most effective combination for identifying significant arrhythmias and improving patient outcomes.

Conclusion:

MCT monitors driven by artificial intelligence were less accurate in detecting severe arrhythmias than electrocardiogram monitors maintained by experienced experts, according to new results presented at Heart Rhythm 2021. The ECG also recorded other conditions such as atrial fibrillation, which the MCT could not register.

post
Keywords

Disease Condition,Investigation Modality,Arrhyhtmias,Investigation and Imaging,DARR_others,Electrocardiography

Tags

Disease Condition ,Investigation Modality,Arrhythmias,Investigation and Imaging,DARR_others,Electrocardiography