These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: [A multicentre trial of the diagnostic value and cost of electrocardiography in symptoms suggesting arrhythmia with a new event recorder with transtelephonic transmission].
    Author: Lévy S, Boccara G, Dotto P, Brembillat-Perrot B, Leenhardt A, Avierinos JF, Somody E, Dubieff D, Fatemi M.
    Journal: Arch Mal Coeur Vaiss; 2004 Feb; 97(2):108-12. PubMed ID: 15032409.
    Abstract:
    Events recorders are used for electrocardiographic documentation of symptoms of arrhythmia too sporadic and short lasting to be recorded by 24 hour Holter monitoring. However, there are no French studies comparing the value and cost of event recorders with conventional diagnostic methods. Recently, a new telediagnostic device has become available in France leading to an assessment of the technique. The aim of this study was to determine the value of this event recorder and the cost of diagnostic ECG in the assessment of presumed arrhythmic symptoms such as palpitations or rare tachycardia (<3 episodes per week) of short duration, compared with conventional techniques. Fifty-eight patients with these criteria were randomised, 30 to Survcard (Group I) and 28 to conventional diagnostic methods (Group II). The patients were comparable with respect to age, sex distribution, type of symptoms and associated cardiac disease. The ECG diagnosis of the symptoms was established in 20 cases (66.6%) of patients in Group I in 17 +/- 16 days, and in 14 cases (50.0%) of Group II in 23 +/- 28 days. The difference between the two groups was not statistically significant. The cost of a positive diagnosis for Group I (Survcard) varied from 0 to 228.47 Euro with an average of 71.22 +/- 117.02 Euro. The cost of positive diagnosis in Group II varied from 76.80 to 2340.41 Euro with an average of 480.39 +/- 797.41 Euro. In conclusion, this study showed that the percentage of patients with a positive diagnosis was comparable in the two groups but that the cost was 6 times higher in the group investigated by conventional methods than in the Survcard group because of more costly medical intervention.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]