Ignite Creation Date:
2025-12-24 @ 3:51 PM
Ignite Modification Date:
2026-01-02 @ 10:39 AM
Study NCT ID:
NCT04241692
Status:
UNKNOWN
Last Update Posted:
2022-07-28
First Post:
2020-01-22
Is NOT Gene Therapy:
True
Has Adverse Events:
False
Brief Title:
Comparative Study of the Sternal Patch System With a Conventional Holter Recorder
Sponsor:
Children's National Research Institute
Organization:
Study Overview
Official Title:
Comparative Study of the CarnationTM Ambulatory Monitoring Sternal ECG Patch System With a Conventional 24-Hour 7 Lead Holter Monitor Recorder
Status:
UNKNOWN
Status Verified Date:
2022-07
Last Known Status:
ENROLLING_BY_INVITATION
Delayed Posting:
No
If Stopped, Why?:
Not Stopped
Has Expanded Access:
False
If Expanded Access, NCT#:
N/A
Has Expanded Access, NCT# Status:
N/A
Acronym:
None
Brief Summary:
This study will be a comparison of two externally worn recording systems for documentation of cardiac arrhythmias in symptomatic patients or patients at risk for arrhythmia. Non-invasive documentation of cardiac arrhythmias can be done using the standard electrocardiogram (ECG). This has limitations given it is performed for only a 10 sec period. Alternative methods for making longer term recording have been developed. The standard device is the 24 hour 7-lead Holter monitor. Newer technology has simplified the hardware needed to make these longer term recordings, and incorporate a self-contained recording system in a patch that is applied over the patient's chest. Little is known comparing the sensitivity, specificity and recording noise / signal artifact between the older technology (standard 24-Hour Holter monitor) and the Patch electrode.
Detailed Description:
Objective: Comparison of two externally worn recording systems for documentation of cardiac arrhythmias in symptomatic patients or patients at risk for arrhythmia. Non-invasive documentation of cardiac arrhythmias can be done by attempting to take a snapshot view of a patient's cardiac rhythm using the standard electrocardiogram (ECG). This has limitations given it is performed for only a 10 sec period, and requires the patient to be symptomatic at the time of the recording. Therefore, the sensitivity of this technique is very low. Alternative methods for making longer term recording have been developed and used for decades. The standard device is the 24 hour 7-lead Holter monitor. These devises are large, restrict patient mobility and require cables to be connected between the applied skin ECG electrodes placed on the patient's chest and the recording device. Newer technology has simplified the hardware needed to make these longer term recordings, and incorporate a self-contained recording system in a patch that is applied over the patient's chest. These units allow for unlimited mobility, are significantly smaller, easier to wear and have eliminated the requirement for cables to connect the electrodes with the recording device. However, little is known comparing the sensitivity, specificity and recording noise / signal artifact between the older technology (standard 24-Hour Holter monitor) and the Patch electrode.
Specific Aims:
Aim 1: Comparison of Cardiac Arrhythmia Documentation between Standard 24-Hour Holter Monitor vs. Patch Monitor To evaluate the diagnostic yield for cardiac arrhythmias between the two recording systems.
The presence and frequency (qualitative and quantitative) of cardiac arrhythmias documented by each recording system with be compared. To allow for this type of comparison, each enrolled research subject with wear both systems simultaneously.
Aim 2: Comparison of Recording Quality between Standard 24-Hour Holter Monitor vs. Patch Monitor To evaluate percentage of time ECG signal quality is poor and uninterpretable.
Aim 3: Comparison of Comfortability Between Standard 24-HourHolter Monitor vs. Patch Monitor Recording Quality To evaluate level of patient's discomfort during the application of each recording system. Since both systems will be applied at the same time it may be hard for the research subject to rank the comfortability of the two systems. We will focus in this aim at more objective measures such as skin irritation under the recording electrodes, and frequency of time during which the skin electrodes come off the patient and require re-application.
Hypotheses:
Aim 1: Comparison of Cardiac Arrhythmia Documentation between Standard 24-Hour Holter Monitor vs. Patch Monitor We hypothesize that there will be no qualitative or quantitative difference in arrhythmia frequency between the two recording techniques, i.e. that both devices will detect all spontaneous arrhythmias with similar quantitative counts of ectopic beats (+/- 5%).
Aim 2: Comparison of Recording Quality between Standard 24-Hour Holter Monitor vs. Patch Monitor We hypothesize that recording quality will be better with the Patch Monitor since there are not 7 separately applied skin electrodes and cables connecting the electrodes with the recorder, resulting in a lower percent of poor ECG signal quality.
Aim 3: Comparison of Comfortability Between Standard 24-hour Holter Monitor vs. Patch Monitor Recording Quality We hypothesize that the degree of skin irritation and level of discomfort in the region of application will be less with the Patch Monitor. We hypothesize that the ECG leads will fall off from its site of application will be less with the Patch Monitor.
Specific Aims:
Aim 1: Comparison of Cardiac Arrhythmia Documentation between Standard 24-Hour Holter Monitor vs. Patch Monitor To evaluate the diagnostic yield for cardiac arrhythmias between the two recording systems.
The presence and frequency (qualitative and quantitative) of cardiac arrhythmias documented by each recording system with be compared. To allow for this type of comparison, each enrolled research subject with wear both systems simultaneously.
Aim 2: Comparison of Recording Quality between Standard 24-Hour Holter Monitor vs. Patch Monitor To evaluate percentage of time ECG signal quality is poor and uninterpretable.
Aim 3: Comparison of Comfortability Between Standard 24-HourHolter Monitor vs. Patch Monitor Recording Quality To evaluate level of patient's discomfort during the application of each recording system. Since both systems will be applied at the same time it may be hard for the research subject to rank the comfortability of the two systems. We will focus in this aim at more objective measures such as skin irritation under the recording electrodes, and frequency of time during which the skin electrodes come off the patient and require re-application.
Hypotheses:
Aim 1: Comparison of Cardiac Arrhythmia Documentation between Standard 24-Hour Holter Monitor vs. Patch Monitor We hypothesize that there will be no qualitative or quantitative difference in arrhythmia frequency between the two recording techniques, i.e. that both devices will detect all spontaneous arrhythmias with similar quantitative counts of ectopic beats (+/- 5%).
Aim 2: Comparison of Recording Quality between Standard 24-Hour Holter Monitor vs. Patch Monitor We hypothesize that recording quality will be better with the Patch Monitor since there are not 7 separately applied skin electrodes and cables connecting the electrodes with the recorder, resulting in a lower percent of poor ECG signal quality.
Aim 3: Comparison of Comfortability Between Standard 24-hour Holter Monitor vs. Patch Monitor Recording Quality We hypothesize that the degree of skin irritation and level of discomfort in the region of application will be less with the Patch Monitor. We hypothesize that the ECG leads will fall off from its site of application will be less with the Patch Monitor.
Study Oversight
Has Oversight DMC:
None
Is a FDA Regulated Drug?:
False
Is a FDA Regulated Device?:
True
Is an Unapproved Device?:
None
Is a PPSD?:
None
Is a US Export?:
True
Is an FDA AA801 Violation?: