Peer-reviewed veterinary case report
Comparing small ECG patch and Holter monitor for 24-hour dog heart
By Schreiber, N et al.·Published in Journal of veterinary cardiology : the official journal of the European Society of Veterinary Cardiology·2023·Clinic for Small Animal Internal Medicine·View original on PubMed →
PetCaseFinder translated the abstract of this peer-reviewed paper into plain English so pet owners can read it. We do not publish original research — every detail traces back to the citation above. How we work →
Original publication title: Comparison of the diagnostic value of a small, single channel, electrocardiogram monitoring patch with a standard 3-lead Holter system over 24 hours in dogs.
- Species:
- dog
Plain-English summary
Nineteen adult dogs were monitored for heart activity using a new small device called the Carnation Ambulatory Monitor (CAM) and a standard Holter monitor over 24 hours. While the CAM was able to record heart rhythms, it had some issues, such as a higher number of errors in the readings and missing important heart events like complex arrhythmias. The standard Holter monitor provided more accurate and reliable data, making it a better choice for detailed heart analysis in dogs. Overall, the CAM can be useful for basic monitoring but isn't recommended for thorough heart evaluations due to its limitations.
People also search for: dog heart monitor comparison · arrhythmia detection in dogs · Carnation Ambulatory Monitor for dogs
Abstract
INTRODUCTION/OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare a novel small event recorder device, the Carnation Ambulatory Monitor (CAM), with a standard Holter. ANIMALS: Nineteen adult dogs. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Comparative and explorative study. The two devices were simultaneously applied for approximately 24 h. RESULTS: Analysis time (P=0.013) and percentage of artefacts (P<0.001) were greater for the CAM (110 min [40-264]; and 9% [0-34], respectively) compared to a standard Holter (30 min [18-270]; and 0.3% [0-9], respectively). The total number of beats (P=0.017) and maximum (P=0.02) and mean (P=0.037) heart rates were lower for the CAM (113,806 ± 23,619 beats; 227 ± 35 bpm; and 88 ± 22 bpm, respectively) compared to the standard Holter (131,640 ± 40,037 beats; 260 ± 64 bpm; and 92 ± 26 bpm, respectively). The minimal heart rate (P=0.725), number of pauses (P=0.078), duration of the longest pause (P=0.087), number of ventricular ectopic complexes (P=0.55), ventricular couplets (P=0.186), ventricular triplets (P=0.203), ventricular tachycardia (P=0.05), Lown grade (P=0.233), presence or absence of ventricular bigeminy, trigeminy, supraventricular tachycardia, and atrial fibrillation (P=0.98) did not differ. The CAM missed some relevant events, like complex ventricular arrhythmias, and the Lown grade did not match in 5/19 dogs when comparing the devices. CONCLUSIONS: Cardiac Ambulatory Monitor can be used to record ECG traces in dogs over a prolonged period, allowing to detect arrhythmias. Due to some clinically relevant limitations, including a higher percentage of artefacts, a longer reading time (which precludes quantitative counts of >300ventricular premature complexes), and underestimation of complex ventricular arrhythmias, the CAM appears not suitable for quantitative arrhythmia analysis in dogs.
Find similar cases for your pet
PetCaseFinder finds other peer-reviewed reports of pets with the same symptoms, plus a plain-English summary of what was tried across them.
Search related cases →Original publication on PubMed: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37196397/