Evaluation and acceptance of mobile‐electrocardiogram use in implantable cardioverter defibrillator patients – Can I see my ECG?

• Published in: Pacing and clinical electrophysiology Vol. 43; no. 2; pp. 254 - 257
• Main Authors: Sears, Samuel F., Kropp, Caley M., Tripp, Connor, Sager, David, Nekkanti, Rajasekhar, Hammerle, Joseph Carl, Wuensch, Karl L., Burch, Ashley
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Wiley Subscription Services, Inc 01.02.2020
• Subjects: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Anxiety; Anxiety - psychology; Defibrillators; Defibrillators, Implantable - psychology; ECG; EKG; Electrocardiography; Electrocardiography, Ambulatory; Female; Heart; Humans; ICD; Male; Middle Aged; mobile health tracking; Patient Acceptance of Health Care; patient engagement; Quality of Life - psychology; shock anxiety; technology satisfaction; wearables; mobile health tracking; ECG; wearables; ICD; shock anxiety; patient engagement; technology satisfaction
• ISSN: 0147-8389; 1540-8159
• DOI: 10.1111/pace.13875

Background Medical technologies for consumers aim to help prevent, manage, and even forecast cardiovascular events, but their emotional impact is not fully known. The value of mobile‐electrocardiogram (mECG) technology to an existing group of cardiac patients is unknown. The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of readily available mECG capability for a sample of implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) patients. Methods Patients with ICDs (N = 51) were recruited and consented in a large academic cardiology clinic. Participants were given a mECG device and asked to take a 30‐ss reading at least once per day for 30 days. Technology satisfaction, cardiac anxiety, shock anxiety, and ICD device acceptance were measured pre‐ and post‐mECG usage. Results mECG technology was regularly used (M = 36.6 readings completed per month) and positively appraised by ICD patients (mean of 4.4 out of possible 5). Self‐reported symptoms of general cardiac anxiety were not significantly affected by the utilization of mECG technology. ICD specific measures were mixed with increased overall ICD device acceptance but also increased shock anxiety. Conclusions ICD patients positively viewed and used mECG technology regularly as prescribed. However, the overall psychological impact of mECG was mixed and suggests that ICD patients may have idiosyncratic adjustments to the increased access of cardiac device data.