Data quality and monitoring completion rates are similar between clinic-applied and self-applied continuous ECG monitoring patches prior to and during COVID-19

ABSTRACT

Introduction: Prior to COVID-19, ECG patches (ECGp) were applied almost exclusively in-clinic (CA) by technicians which required an office visit and fee. Since the pandemic, direct-to-patient, self-applied patch use (SA) has substantially increased, though the metrics surrounding SA are unknown. This study compares monitoring completion rates and data quality between CA and SA ECGp prior to and during COVID-19. Hypothesis: CA and SA ECGp have similar data quality and monitoring completion metrics. Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort analysis of patients prescribed an iRhythm Zio XT patch at Northwestern Memorial Hospital during the “pre-COVID” (3/1/2019-3/1/2020) and “COVID” (4/1/2020-4/1/2021) timeframes. Differences in ECGp with data available, actual vs prescribed wear time, and analyzable data between groups were assessed. ECGp without data was defined as devices which were not returned or not activated. Results: The cohort included 29,118 ECGp prescriptions;13,180 pre-COVID (45%). The cohort was 56% female with mean age of 59.3 + 17.7 years. Palpitations (29%) and atrial fibrillation (19%) were the most common indications. In the pre-COVID cohort, there were no (0%) SA ECGp and data were available for 12,932 CA patches. In the COVID cohort, 34% of ECGp were SA;data were available for 10,231 CA ECGp and 4,902 SA ECGp. Average delay between prescription and SA ECGp activation was 8.1 ± 12.2 days. Comparisons between percent analyzable data, wear times, and ECGp with data available are shown in figure 1. Conclusions: COVID-19 resulted in a rapid adoption of SA ECGp use. Compared to CA, SA was associated with an inherent delay in ECGp application and a higher proportion of ECGp without data. However, there was no difference in actual vs prescribed wear time and a small but statistically significant decrease in percent analyzable data. These differences must be balanced with the additional cost and need for in-person visit for CA vs SA. (Figure Presented).