Kardia Mobile applicability in clinical practice: A comparison of Kardia Mobile and standard 12-lead electrocardiogram records in 100 consecutive patients of a tertiary cardiovascular care center.

BACKGROUND Mobile devices are gaining a rising number of users in all countries around the globe Novel solutions to diagnose patients with out of hospital onset of arrhythmic symptoms can be easily used to record such events but the effectiveness of these devices remain unknown METHODS In a group of 100 consecutive patients of an academic cardiology care center mean age 68 14 2 years males 66 a standard 12 lead electrocardiogram ECG and a Kardia Mobile KM record were registered Both versions were assessed by three independant groups of physicians RESULTS The analysis of comparisons for standard ECG and KM records showed that the latter is of lower quality p Under 0 001 It was non inferior for detection of atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter showed weaker rhythm detection in pacemaker stimulation p 0 008 and was superior in sinus rhythm detection p 0 02 though The sensitivity of KM to detect pathological Q wave was low compared to specificity 20 6 vs 93 7 respectively p Under 0 001 Basic intervals measured by the KM device namely PQ RR and QT were significantly different shorter than those observed in the standard ECG method 160 ms vs 180 ms p Under 0 001 853 ms vs 880 ms p 0 03 and 393 ms vs 400 ms p Under 0 001 respectively CONCLUSIONS Initial and indicative value of atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter detection in KM is comparable to results achieved in standard ECG KM was superior in detection of sinus rhythm than eye ball evaluation of 12 lead ECG Though the PQ and QT intervals were shorter in KM as compared to 12 lead ECG Clinical value needs to be verified in large studies though