Guys, does anyone know the answer?
get long-term continuous ecg monitoring, continuous transfer of 6-lead ecg, holter, holter ecg, cardiac event, outpatient telemetry, extended holter, t-wave alternans, mct, telemetry, mobile cardiac telemetry, real-time outpatient cardiac telemetry, patch mon from EN Bilgi.
Mobile Cardiac Telemetry
Mobile Cardiac Telemetry
For real-time outpatient ECG monitoring.
Real-time Outpatient ECG Monitoring
Mobile Cardiac Telemetry (MCT) is a form of outpatient monitoring where patients’ heartbeat information is sent wirelessly to the diagnostic center. Bittium Faros provides tools for successful MCT by automatically detecting cardiac abnormalities and by transmitting the data to the web portal for analysis.
Bittium’s remote cardiac monitoring solution, Bittium HolterPlus™, consists of a Bittium Faros ECG device and a dedicated mobile application integrated into a secure smart device. The service enables up to 30 days continuous remote monitoring outside the hospital. Remote monitoring allows for a quick response to potential problem situations. During an ECG recording, the patient can also report symptoms, activity, and sleep via a digital diary in the mobile application. The specialist can make daily checks on the patient's condition with the help of remote analysis tools and decide on the duration of the required recording period based on the received information.
A compact and lightweight device suitable for mail service operation
A simple and intuitive user interface supporting patient-driven use
Open data format for customized business solutions
One device for four different use cases
A simple and intuitive user interface supporting patient-driven use
No need for in-hospital maintenance or support functions
Support for comprehensive analysis and data logistics solutions enable centralization of services
A cost-effective and scalable solution for different sizes of operation
Can be deployed without intensive training
A flexible and configurable device that allows measurements outside the golden standards
Well suited for research use
Bittium Faros™ ECG Devices
Cardiac arrhythmias are often episodic and difficult to detect in clinical environment. Bittium Faros™ is an ideal solution that provides full disclosure ambulatory ECG data/recording with intelligent arrhythmia detection. Whether executing daily chores, showering, or engaging in sports, the ultra-small and waterproof (IP67) Bittium Faros™ provides premium comfort during short or long-term cardiac monitoring.
Bittium HolterPlus™ - Remote Cardiac Monitoring Made Easy
Bittium HolterPlus™ bridges the gap between a Holter and implantable monitoring device by providing the possibility of extending the duration of a cardiac monitoring session. The daily data check and ECG analysis run, until a diagnosis can be provided. The ECG device is therefore worn as short as possible, but as long as necessary.
Bittium Cardiac Navigator™
Bittium Cardiac Navigator™ software is a flexible and versatile solution for performing clinical Holter ECG analysis. Its user-friendly and informative data presentation and intuitive analysis tools make the software efficient and easy to use when analyzing multiple days of ECG recordings.
Bittium Faros general brochure (pdf)
Bittium Faros technical brochure (pdf)
Bittium Cardiac Navigator (pdf)
Bittium HolterPlus (pdf)
Bittium Faros ECG device - Early detection of cardiac abnormalities
Bittium Faros ECG device - Getting Started
Bittium Faros™ Success Story ECG On-Demand (pdf)
Bittium Faros™ Success Story Easy and Comfortable Long-term ECG from Your Nearest Pharmacy (pdf)
Applications - Mobile Cardiac Telemetry (MCT) – Real-Time Outpatient ECG Monitoring. Applications - Mobile Cardiac Telemetry (MCT) – Real-Time Outpatient ECG Monitoring.
Mobile Cardiac Telemetry (MCT) – Real-Time Outpatient ECG Monitoring
A healthy person’s heart beats about 60 times per minute. And if the heart stops beating, it takes just 4 minutes before brain cells start to die from lack of oxygen. Clearly, cardiac medicine is one field in which every second counts. If a patient suffers from chest pain or heart arrhythmia, or is recovering from heart surgery, doctors need to know immediately if anything goes wrong. With CardioView mobile Cardiac Telemetry, they can.
Mobile Cardiac Telemetry (MCT) is a form of real-time ECG monitoring in which the patient wears a device that monitors their ECG (electrocardiogram) data on an outpatient basis—24 hours a day for up to 30 days. This state-of-the-art technology represents the most reliable & efficient method to monitor a cardiac patient during the day and during sleep.
With earlier forms of monitoring, the patient would wear a device that would record all their information, then return it to the doctor or send them the information for the doctor to review. This presents an obvious problem—the time lag between a problem appearing and the doctor seeing it. MCT monitoring is unique because the technology automatically detects and transmits ECG rhythm to a remote diagnostic monitoring laboratory without any patient involvement. The diagnostic laboratory that receives the abnormal ECG activity is comprised of certified and trained personnel under the general supervision of a physician.
The technicians in the diagnostic laboratory are trained in emergency medical response and have immediate, 24-hour access to a physician to review transmitted data and make clinical decisions. The ability to respond immediately when clinically important events occur is the major advantage of real-time continuous MCT monitoring compared to other forms of Ambulatory Cardiac Monitoring.
MCT monitoring technology is an advance in care. It’s superior to other forms of Ambulatory Cardiac Monitoring (Holter or Event Monitoring) because it transmits data to doctors automatically, without the need for the patient to do anything. The need for patients to take some action to send information to their doctor creates a hurdle to care and introduces the possibility of error—with our system, this variable is removed. And medical professionals can now interact with their patients in real time, optimizing patient care almost instantly.
It’s common sense that receiving health information in real time is better than getting it days or weeks later, but the data back it up. Several studies have been performed comparing Mobile Cardiac Telemetry (MCT) to traditional 30 Day Cardiac Event Monitors. The results prove MCT to be clinically superior in detecting significant cardiac arrhythmias, successfully confirming the diagnosis whether the patient felt the symptom or not. The future for this technology is bright as it progresses to expedite & improve the quality of clinical diagnosis.
Indications of Use for Mobile Cardiac Telemetry (MCT) Monitoring
The Indications of use for Mobile Cardiac Telemetry are almost exactly the same as those for traditional Cardiac Event Monitoring, varying only slightly due to the nature of the technology. That means that for almost any patient experiencing arrhythmias or other serious problems, real-time monitoring with our Mobile Cardiac Telemetry (MCT) system is the superior choice.
As with all tests, physicians should carefully examine the indications of use for Mobile Cardiac Telemetry (MCT) (see below) before ordering a study for their patients. Although Medicare and Private Insurance company cover the diagnostic test, proper workup and indications must be met in order for it to be covered.Indications of use for Mobile Cardiac Telemetry:
Palpitations or undiscovered arrhythmias.
Any symptoms that may connected with various cardiac abnormalities or arrhythmias: transient chest pain (angina), Shortness of Breath (dyspnea) signs of dizziness (syncope).
Evidence of Bradycardia Arrhythmias.
Bundle Branch Block or other transient non-life threatening conduction disorders.
Post Cardiovascular surgery and/or myocardial infarction.
Prescription drug monitoring to control Atrial Fibrillation.
Patients recovering from cardiac surgery who are indicated for outpatient arrhythmia monitoring.
Patients with diagnosed sleep disorders (obstructive sleep apnea) to evaluate arrhythmia behavior.
Patients requiring arrhythmia evaluation of etiology of stroke or transient cerebral ischemia and / or stroke from atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter.
Patients who require 24-hour monitoring for non-life threatening arrhythmias such as Supraventricular Tachycardia (Pre-mature Atrial Contractions, Atrial fibrillation, Atrial Flutter, Pre-mature Ventricular Contractions, Ventricular Tachycardia)
Mobile Cardiac Telemetry should NOT be used for patients with life-threatening arrhythmias which require in-patient monitoring or hospitalization. We recommend that you refer to the Local Coverage Determination for Medicare and refer to the guidelines for individual insurances for exact details.
Continuous ECG monitoring versus mobile telemetry: A comparison of arrhythmia diagnostics in human
Clinicians rarely scrutinize the full disclosure of a myriad of FDA-approved long-term rhythm monitors, and they rely on manufacturers to detect and report relevant rhythm abnormalities.The objective of this study is to compare the diagnostic ...
Heart Rhythm O2. 2021 Dec; 2(6Part A): 543–559.
Published online 2021 Oct 2. doi: 10.1016/j.hroo.2021.09.008
PMCID: PMC8703156 PMID: 34988499
Continuous ECG monitoring versus mobile telemetry: A comparison of arrhythmia diagnostics in human- versus algorithmic-dependent systems
Mark E. Willcox, MD,∗∗ Steven J. Compton, MD, FHRS,∗ and Gust H. Bardy, MD†‡
Author information Copyright and License information Disclaimer
This article has been cited by other articles in PMC.
Clinicians rarely scrutinize the full disclosure of a myriad of FDA-approved long-term rhythm monitors, and they rely on manufacturers to detect and report relevant rhythm abnormalities.
The objective of this study is to compare the diagnostic accuracy between mobile cardiac telemetry (MCT), which uses an algorithm-based detection strategy, and continuous long-term electrocardiography (LT-ECG) monitoring, which uses a human-based detection strategy.
In an outpatient arrhythmia clinic, we enrolled 50 sequential patients ordered to wear a 30-day MCT, to simultaneously wear a continuous LT-ECG monitor. Periods of concomitant wear of both devices were examined using the associated report, which was over-read by 2 electrophysiologists.
Forty-six of 50 patients wore both monitors simultaneously for an average of 10.3 ± 4.4 days (range: 1.2–14.8 days). During simultaneous recording, patients were more often diagnosed with arrhythmia by LT-ECG compared to MCT (23/46 vs 11/46), P = .018. Similarly, more arrhythmia episodes were detected during simultaneous recording with the LT-ECG compared to MCT (61 vs 19), P < .001. This trend remained consistent across arrhythmia subtypes, including ventricular tachycardia (13 patients by LT-ECG vs 7 by MCT), atrioventricular (AV) block (3 patients by LT-ECG vs 0 by MCT), and AV node reentrant tachycardia (2 patients by LT-ECG vs 0 by MCT). Atrial fibrillation (AF) was documented by both monitors in 2 patients; however, LT-ECG monitoring captured 4 additional AF episodes missed by MCT.
In a time-controlled, paired analysis of 2 disparate rhythm monitors worn simultaneously, human-dependent LT-ECG arrhythmia detection significantly outperformed algorithm-based MCT arrhythmia detection.Keywords: Algorithms, Cardiac arrhythmias, ECG monitoring, Holter monitoring, Machine learning, MCT, Mobile cardiac telemetry
In this trial, the real-world diagnostic accuracy of 2 extended-duration outpatient cardiac rhythm monitors were compared by asking patients to simultaneously wear both monitors.
A long-term continuous electrocardiogram (LT-ECG) Carnation Ambulatory Monitor (Bardy Diagnostics, Seattle, WA) was compared to the 30-day mobile cardiac telemetry (MCT) system by Preventice Solutions (Eagan, MN).
The LT-ECG picked up 3 times the number of clinically relevant arrhythmias (61 vs 19) as the MCT did in twice as many patients (23 vs 11), across a broad spectrum of arrhythmias including ventricular tachycardia, atrioventricular (AV) block, AV node reentrant tachycardia, atrial tachycardia, and atrial fibrillation over the same time period in the same patients.
Fundamental differences in monitor processing exist between LT-ECG and MCT systems, with LT-ECG systems using human-based detection while MCT systems use algorithmic-based detection.
Differences in the electrocardiogram quality, P-wave morphology, and clinical context provided in the reports may explain the improved specificity of the LT-ECG system.
These findings indicate that not all external monitors are equal, and we hope differences highlighted in this study prompt further comparative analyses and appropriate scrutiny of artificial intelligence–based detection.
After a half-century of ambulatory electrocardiogram (ECG) monitoring, physicians rarely have had insight into the large set of hidden variables that affect the quality of the ECG report upon which their medical decisions depend. Those variables extend from circuit board design to electrode design and placement, signal processing, embedded algorithms, analysis software and heuristics, data transmission methods, and, most critically, the presence or absence of human readers of the digitized data either in part or in entirety.
A “gold-standard” monitor should be both sensitive in its ability to capture relevant rhythms and specific enough that the tracings and the relevant context provided to the reader (onset, offset, and heart rate trends) allow for accurate rhythm diagnosis.
In the last 10 years there has been an explosion of both medical grade (ie, US Food and Drug Administration [FDA]-approved) and commercial grade ambulatory cardiac monitoring technologies (eg, watches, clothing, etc). Much of the industry’s focus has been on ease of use, duration of recording,1,2 and means of report delivery to the physician (ie, “real-time” vs not).3
Lost in the weeds is that a monitor that fails to capture and report significant arrhythmias may cause harmful clinical misdirection, and thus a comparative understanding of diagnostic accuracy and arrhythmia detection between monitors is of utmost importance. The presumption that “an ECG monitor is an ECG monitor” has been refuted in prior prospective case studies where patients served as their own control and where diagnostic accuracy can be a product of multiple engineering and technician considerations that affect ECG fidelity and rhythm diagnostics.4,5