On average a patient will have 115,000 heart beats in a day or 1.6M heartbeats in 14 days.¹ Recently, the standard technology for remote cardiac monitoring of patients measured the heart’s rate and rhythm while the patient went about a daily routine for a period between two days and 30 days. Technologists looked only at the data identified as an ‘event’ and discarded 99.9 percent of the full data collected.  The technology presented a limited number of ‘snapshots of cardiac activity’ over a period of time, but only a fraction of the data was reviewed. Cardiologists could miss critical data in periods that are not reviewed or included on the final report. Without access to full disclosure beat-to-beat cardiologists are settling for an incomplete picture.² “To cardiologists, each beat is critical, and they should not settle for minimal reporting by solutions that do not include sections of beats” notes Stuart Long, CEO of digital health technology company InfoBionic.  

Also called ambulatory electrocardiography, patients who wear remote cardiac monitors have a twice greater probability of survival of cardiac events than those without.³ Remote heart monitoring by battery-operated portable devices are worn by a patient for a period of time during which the heart’s activity is recorded for diagnostic use.

Full disclosure refers to recording every part of the heart beat from onset to outset and making 100 percent of that data available to the interpreting physician. To accurately detect, diagnose and report a cardiac arrythmia, the monitor must record 100 percent of the heart beats 100 percent of the time and make information available to the cardiologist at any time. A snapshot could miss important clinical information either before or after an arrythmia and not provide the full picture when making a diagnosis. New technology uses algorithms that note key cardiac events and allow doctors to sort through large amounts of data.

“The exact and surrounding points of the arrythmia is evident to the cardiologist,” Long points out, viewing through the physician’s perspective. “He or she can then have confidence that they aren’t missing anything in the technology on behalf of the patient.”

Stoneham, MA Electrophysiologist and Cardiologist, Michael Mazzini, put a MoMe Kardia monitor on a patient on a Friday. It picked up ten 14-second asystolic events the following morning. “I was able to get a pacemaker in him that morning. No hospital telemetry stay. No emergency visit, no unnecessary workups, no delay in diagnosis due to third party handling, plus full disclosure data otherwise not available to clinicians with traditional IDTF (Independent Diagnostic Testing Facility) type MCT (mobile cardiac telemetry).” Dr. Mazzini further points out its benefit. “That’s tremendous value to patients, clinicians, hospitals, and payers.” ⁴

InfoBionic infuses all the forward-reaching technology possible to redefine the standard of care for patients by providing physicians its full disclosure remote cardiac arrythmia monitoring platform. “Cardiologists should not have to work with incomplete data when the lives of patients are at risk,” Long says. 

 

Sources

1. Staff writer. “How Many Times Does the Heart Beat in a Year?” Sharecare. Web.
2. Fornell, Dave. “Real-Time vs. Post-Monitoring Review Approaches to Holter, Event Recording.” 06 June 2018. DiCardiology.com. Web.
3. CIS Staff. “Exploring the Benefits of Remote Cardiac Monitoring.” Cardiovascular Institute of the South. 30 July 2018. Web.
4. Elrod, Jodie. “New Options in Wireless Remote Patient Monitoring: Interview with Michael Mazzini, MD.” EP Lab Digest. May 2017. Web.