Home monitoring of heart rate and heart rhythm with a smartphone-based ECG in dogs.

The feasibility of the home monitoring of heart rate (HR) and rhythm through ECG tracings recorded by owners with a smartphone ECG device was evaluated in dogs. Smartphone ECG tracings were recorded by owners at home using a single-lead ECG device and sent via email for interpretation. A questionnaire was prepared to assess the owner's opinion regarding this home monitoring service. Recordings were evaluated by two operators, and agreement was evaluated for HR and rhythm diagnosis. Thirty-three dogs were included. Thirty-one owners (94 per cent) felt that the recording technique was easy to learn and that the smartphone ECG device was easy to use. A total of 15 owners (45 per cent) required a second person to hold the dog during recording. Of the 150 smartphone ECG tracings that were received, 134 (89 per cent) were interpretable. The median difference between the two operators to assess the mean HR on the smartphone tracings was 10 bpm (-10, +25 bpm). Perfect agreement (κ=1) between operators was observed in the heart rhythm evaluation. Most owners sent adequate ECG tracings for interpretation via email from their smartphone. Home monitoring of HR and heart rhythm may represent an additional tool in the management of dogs with arrhythmias.

Comparison of smartphone-based and standard base-apex electrocardiography in healthy dairy cows.

BACKGROUND: There is good diagnostic accuracy of smartphone-based ECG in the evaluation of heart rate (HR), heart rhythm, and ECG values for humans, horses, dogs, and cats. OBJECTIVES: Assess feasibility and reliability of a smartphone ECG device to evaluate HR expressed as beats per minute and ECG values in cows. ANIMALS: Fifty-five healthy Holstein Friesian cows. METHODS: Prospective observational study. A standard base-apex ECG was acquired for 60 seconds in each cow. A smartphone ECG tracing was recorded simultaneously using a single-lead bipolar ECG recorder. All ECGs were reviewed by 1 blinded investigator. The following ECG variables were assessed: HR, P wave duration, PR interval, QRS complex and QT interval (milliseconds), P wave, and QRS complex polarity. Agreement between standard and smartphone ECG was evaluated by Cohen's k test and the Bland-Altman test. RESULTS: Smartphone ECG tracings were interpretable in 89% of the recordings. Minimal differences of no clinical relevance were found between standard and smartphone ECG tracings regarding HR and duration of ECG waves and interval. Good agreement found in the evaluation of QRS complex polarity (85%) but not for P wave polarity (k = 0.006). Artifacts were rare but of significantly higher frequency in smartphone ECG compared to standard ECG tracings (22% versus 0%; P = .005). CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE: Good quality single-lead ECG tracings can be recorded by smartphone device in healthy cows. Smartphone tracings are reliable for evaluation of HR and selective ECG variables. Smartphone ECG can represent an additional tool for ECG screening in cows.