• Users Online: 72
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2019  |  Volume : 8  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 173-182

Wellysis S-PAtch Cardio versus Conventional Holter Ambulatory Electrocardiographic Monitoring (The PACER Trial): Preliminary Results


1 Department of Cardiology, Medanta - Mediclinic, New Delhi, India
2 Division of Clinical and Preventive Cardiology, Department of Cardiology, Medanta Heart Institute, Gurgaon, Haryana, India

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Satyanarayana Upadhyayula
MD, FEM, FIMSA MIAE, Department of Cardiology, Medanta . Mediclinic, New Delhi
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/JCPC.JCPC_43_19

Rights and Permissions

Aims and Objectives: The Wellysis S-PAtch Cardio versus Conventional Holter Ambulatory Electrocardiographic Monitoring (PACER) trial consists of multiple arms. First arm is a prospective, interventional, nonrandomized, single group assignment, diagnostic substudy with intention to treat. This head-to-head trial aims to compare the diagnostic yield, or ability to detect arrhythmias – especially paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PAF) – of the conventional Ambulatory Holter monitoring device with the Wellysis S-Patch Cardio, a novel, low-profile device consisting of a single positive bipolar lead corresponding to the standard limb lead II (n = 10). Second arm is a validation substudy of the Wellysis S-Patch Cardio device in terms of overall performance (n = 86). Background: It is widely recognized that technology can improve the health of populations in countries around the world. Smartphone technology is at the forefront of innovation in low-, middle-, and high-income countries. The smartphone technology has already improved the doctor–patient interaction, reducing costs and improving care for patients. Methodology: In the comparator arm, patients who satisfied the eligibility criteria as well as referred for ambulatory ECG monitoring were consented and enrolled prospectively to have the Holter monitor and the Wellysis S-Patch Cardio device placed simultaneously (n = 10) for 24–48 h and the incidence of clinically significant arrhythmias were compared. A feedback questionnaire was given to patients/paramedics and clinicians after completion of the study. The overall performance (patient, paramedic and clinician feedback and questionnaire derived subjective composite index of comfort, usability, interference with daily activities, adverse events, adaptability, robustness, repeatability, durability, clinical analysis, clarity of recorded signals, efficiency, accuracy, and cost-effectiveness) of Wellysis S-Patch Cardio device was compared with multi lead Holter Monitor in this head to head trial (n = 10). In the validation arm patients who satisfied the eligibility were consented and enrolled prospectively to have the Wellysis S-Patch Cardio device placed (n = 86) for 24–48 h and the incidence of clinically significant arrhythmias noted. Results: Preliminary results from the comparator arm (n = 10), Mc Nemars analysis, revealed odds ratio 1.000, 95% confidence interval 0.072–13.796, χ2 = 0.250, DF = 1, P < 0.6171; supporting the null hypothesis-Wellysis S-Patch Cardio is comparable to Holter in terms of Overall Performance (comfort, usability, interference with daily activities, adverse events, adaptability, robustness, repeatability, durability, clinical analysis, clarity of recorded signals, efficiency, accuracy, and cost-effectiveness). Conclusion: Multi lead ambulatory Holter monitoring remains the gold standard for arrhythmia detection. However, Wellysis S-Patch Cardio device has a definite complementary role in the detection of PAF in cryptogenic stroke patients.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed312    
    Printed22    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded47    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal