Internet Archive Scholar

QT interval monitoring with handheld heart rhythm ECG device in COVID-19 patients [post]

Carlos Minguito-Carazo, Julio Echarte-Morales, Tomás Benito-González, Samuel Del Castillo-García, Miguel Rodríguez-Santamarta, Enrique Sánchez-Muñoz, Clea González-Maniega, Ruben Bergel-García, Paula Menéndez-Suárez, Silvia Prieto-González, Carmen Palacios-Echavarren, Javier Borrego-Rodríguez (+3 others)
2020 unpublished

Preserved Fulltext

fulltext thumbnail
Web Archive Capture PDF (2.1 MB)
https://web.archive.org/web/20200722025423/https://assets.researchsquare.com/files/rs-38108/v1/b839eb10-2a08-42da-ba42-c4c5ae93e7a9.pdf

A copy of this work was available on the public web and has been preserved in the Wayback Machine. The capture dates from 2020; you can also visit the original URL. The file type is application/pdf.

Objectives: To evaluate the feasibility of QTc monitoring with a smart device in COVID-19 patients receiving QTc-interfering therapies.Background: QTc prolongation is an adverse effect of COVID-19 therapies. The use of a handheld device in this scenario has not been addressed.Methods: Prospective study of consecutive COVID-19 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine ± azithromycin ± lopinavir-ritonavir. ECG monitoring was performed with 12-lead ECG or with KardiaMobile-6L. Both registries were
more » ... lso sequentially obtained in a cohort of healthy patients. We evaluated differences in QTc in COVID-19 patients between 3 different monitoring strategies: 12-lead ECG at baseline and follow-up (A), 12-lead ECG at baseline and follow-up with the smart device (B), and fully monitored with handheld 6-lead ECG (group C). Time needed to obtain an ECG registry was also documented.Results: 182 COVID-19 patients were included (A: 119(65.4%); B: 50(27.5%); C: 13(7.1%). QTc peak during hospitalization did significantly increase in all groups. No differences were observed between the 3 monitoring strategies in QTc prolongation (p=0.864). In the control group, all but one ECG registry with the smart device allowed QTc measurement and mean QTc did not differ between both techniques (p=0.612), displaying a moderate reliability (ICC 0.56 [0.19-0.76]). Time of ECG registry was significantly longer for the 12-lead ECG than for handheld device in both cohorts (p<0.001).Conclusion: QTc monitoring with KardiaMobile-6L in COVID-19 patients was feasible. Time of ECG registration was significantly lower with the smart device, which may offer an important advantage for prevention of virus dissemination among healthcare providers.
doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-38108/v1 fatcat:q66jyly3zzevneuaukpnn7wtsa
Open Access
Citation

Carlos Minguito-Carazo, Julio Echarte-Morales, Tomás Benito-González, Samuel Del Castillo-García, Miguel Rodríguez-Santamarta, Enrique Sánchez-Muñoz, Clea González-Maniega, Ruben Bergel-García, Paula Menéndez-Suárez, Silvia Prieto-González, Carmen Palacios-Echavarren, Javier Borrego-Rodríguez, Guisela Flores-Vergara, Ignacio Iglesias-Garriz, Felipe Fernández-Vázquez. "QT interval monitoring with handheld heart rhythm ECG device in COVID-19 patients." (2020)