Prospective comparison of the diagnostic utility of a standard event monitor versus a “leadless” portable ECG monitor in the evaluation of patients with palpitations

IntroductionCurrent ambulatory ECG monitoring systems are limited in their ability to diagnose patients with palpitations. The aim of this prospective study was to compare a new “leadless” ambulatory monitor with a standard event monitor in the evaluation of patients with palpitations.MethodsEighteen consecutive patients (11 female, 56 ± 16 years) referred for evaluation of palpitations were provided with both a standard event monitor and a “leadless” monitor for 30 days. They were asked to record episodes of palpitations with both monitoring devices.ResultsAll 18 individuals were compliant with the “leadless” monitor for the 30-day period while only 14 (78%) patients were compliant with the standard event monitor (p = 0.10). During a combined monitoring period of 563 days, 159 symptomatic episodes were recorded with the “leadless” ECG monitor (8.8 ± 9.7 per patient, range 1–35) and 169 symptomatic episodes were recorded with the event monitor (12 ± 8.3 per patient, range 1–33) (p = NS). The “leadless” ECG monitor recorded arrhythmias in 13 of 18 patients (72%) and the standard event monitor recorded arrhythmias in 8 of 14 patients (57%) (p = NS).ConclusionThe “leadless” ECG monitor is associated with high patient compliance and results in high quality ECG recordings. The diagnostic yield of this monitoring system is equivalent to a standard event monitor.