Smartphone ECG for evaluation of STEMI: Results of the ST LEUIS Pilot Study

© 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.Background 12-lead ECG is a critical component of initial evaluation of cardiac ischemia, but has traditionally been limited to large, dedicated equipment in medical care environments. Smartphones provide a potential alternative platform for the extension of ECG to new care settings and to improve timeliness of care. Objective To gain experience with smartphone electrocardiography prior to designing a larger multicenter study evaluating standard 12-lead ECG compared to smartphone ECG. Methods 6 patients for whom the hospital STEMI protocol was activated were evaluated with traditional 12-lead ECG followed immediately by a smartphone ECG using right (VnR) and left (VnL) limb leads for precordial grounding. The AliveCor™ Heart Monitor was utilized for this study. All tracings were taken prior to catheterization or immediately after revascularization while still in the catheterization laboratory. Results The smartphone ECG had excellent correlation with the gold standard 12-lead ECG in all patients. Four out of six tracings were judged to meet STEMI criteria on both modalities as determined by three experienced cardiologists, and in the remaining two, consensus indicated a non-STEMI ECG diagnosis. No significant difference was noted between VnR and VnL. Conclusions Smartphone based electrocardiography is a promising, developing technology intended to increase availability and speed of electrocardiographic evaluation. This study confirmed the potential of a smartphone ECG for evaluation of acute ischemia and the feasibility of studying this technology further to define the diagnostic accuracy, limitations and appropriate use of this new technology.

Is screening for Factor V Leiden and Prothrombin G20210A Mutations in Renal Transplantation worthwhile? Results of a large single-center U.K. study

This single center study is the largest series of renal transplant recipients and donors screened for the commonest prothrombotic genotypes. A total of 562 transplant recipients and 457 kidney donors were genotyped for the factor V Leiden and prothrombin G20210A mutations. The prevalence of heterozygous factor V Leiden was 3.4% and 2.6% and prothrombin G20210A was 2.0% and 1.1% in recipients and donors, respectively, similar frequencies to that of the general U.K. population. The 30-day and 1-year graft survival rates in recipients with thrombophilic mutations were 93% and 93%, compared with 88% and 82% in patients without these mutations (log-rank P =0.34). Thrombophilia in recipients (odds ratio 0.55; confidence interval 0.06-2.29; P =0.56) or in donors (odds ratio 1.53; confidence interval 0.27-5.74; P =0.46) did not correlate with graft loss at 30 days after transplantation. In contrast to recent reports, this study did not demonstrate an association between thrombophilia and renal allograft loss, and routine screening is not recommended.