ArticleJournal of chest surgery2024
Evaluation of the Diagnostic Performance and Efficacy of Wearable Electrocardiogram Monitoring for Arrhythmia Detection after Cardiac Surgery.
Article in Journal of chest surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative Performance of Patch-Type and Lead-Type Wearable Electrocardiogram Devices for Arrhythmia Detection in Routine Clinical Practice.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Wearable Devices for Arrhythmia Detection: Advancements and Clinical Implications.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Postoperative atrial fibrillation (A-fib) is a serious complication of cardiac surgery that is associated with increased mortality and morbidity. Traditional 24-hour Holter monitors have limitations, which have prompted the development of innovative wearable electrocardiogram (ECG) monitoring devices. This study assessed a patch-type wearable ECG device (MobiCARE-MC100) for monitoring A-fib in patients undergoing cardiac surgery and compared it with 24-hour Holter ECG monitoring. Methods: This was a single-center, prospective, investigator-initiated cohort study that included 39 patients who underwent cardiac surgery between July 2021 and June 2022. Patients underwent simultaneous monitoring with both conventional Holter and patchtype ECG devices for 24 hours. The Holter device was then removed, and patch-type monitoring continued for an additional 48 hours, to determine whether extended monitoring provided benefits in the detection of A-fib. Results: This 72-hour ECG monitoring study included 39 patients, with an average age of 62.2 years, comprising 29 men (74.4%) and 10 women (25.6%). In the initial 24 hours, both monitoring techniques identified the same number of paroxysmal A-fib in 7 out of 39 patients. After 24 hours of monitoring, during the additional 48-hour assessment using the patch-type ECG device, an increase in A-fib burden (9%→38%) was observed in 1 patient. Most patients reported no significant discomfort while using the MobiCARE device. Conclusion: In patients who underwent cardiac surgery, the mobiCARE device demonstrated diagnostic accuracy comparable to that of the conventional Holter monitoring system.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.