Comparison of three ECG machines for electrocardiography in green iguanas (Iguana iguana).

Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F62157124%3A16170%2F21%3A43879328" target="_blank" >RIV/62157124:16170/21:43879328 - isvavai.cz</a>

Výsledek na webu

<a href="https://www.agriculturejournals.cz/web/vetmed.htm?type=article&id=39_2020-VETMED" target="_blank" >https://www.agriculturejournals.cz/web/vetmed.htm?type=article&id=39_2020-VETMED</a>

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.17221/39/2020-VETMED" target="_blank" >10.17221/39/2020-VETMED</a>

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

Comparison of three ECG machines for electrocardiography in green iguanas (Iguana iguana).

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

The aim of the study was to compare the heart rate, QRS interval, and R wave amplitude across three electrocardiogram models, and assess the ability of each of them to provide electrocardiograms (ECG) for clinical interpretation. The three electrocardiogram models included ECG Seiva Praktik Veterinary, CardioStore ECG and AliveCor Veterinary Heart Monitor. The data were collected from twelve healthy adult captive green iguanas (Iguana iguana) monitored under a manual restraint at a room temperature of 22.6-28.0 °C. The ECGs using the Seiva Praktik and CardioStore ECG veterinary electrocardiography were performed with standard 4 lead ECG recordings. The AliveCor Veterinary Heart Monitor was placed (with the use of gel) directly on the lateral body wall. The mean heart rate was 42 +/- 8 beats/min (CardioStore), 50 +/- 11 beats/min (Seiva Praktik Veterinary), and 51 +/- 9 beats/min (AliveCor Veterinary Heart Monitor). No significant difference in the heart rate was observed. A significant difference (P &lt; 0.05) in the QRS duration was observed between the CardioStore and AliveCor Veterinary Heart Monitor. Significant differences (P &lt; 0.01) in the R wave amplitude were detected between the CardioStore and AliveCor Veterinary Heart Monitor and between the Seiva Praktik Veterinary and AliveCor Veterinary Heart Monitor. The ECGs produced by the Seiva Praktik Veeterinary and CardioStore machines were interpretable at 100%, while those produced by the AliveCor Veterinary Heart Monitor were interpretable at 66%. Seiva Praktik Veterinary is most appropriately used as an anaesthesia monitoring tool. AliveCor Veterinary Heart Monitor could be used as an additional diagnostic tool, but the results should be ideally confirmed with a standard ECG machine. Seiva Praktik Veterinary is the most appropriate tool for monitoring the ECG within the anaesthesia, while CardioStore might be most appropriately used as an advanced diagnostic tool by virtue of its software assistance. The ECGs obtained with AliveCor Veterinary Heart Monitor should be confirmed using a standard ECG machine.

Název v anglickém jazyce

Comparison of three ECG machines for electrocardiography in green iguanas (Iguana iguana).

Popis výsledku anglicky

The aim of the study was to compare the heart rate, QRS interval, and R wave amplitude across three electrocardiogram models, and assess the ability of each of them to provide electrocardiograms (ECG) for clinical interpretation. The three electrocardiogram models included ECG Seiva Praktik Veterinary, CardioStore ECG and AliveCor Veterinary Heart Monitor. The data were collected from twelve healthy adult captive green iguanas (Iguana iguana) monitored under a manual restraint at a room temperature of 22.6-28.0 °C. The ECGs using the Seiva Praktik and CardioStore ECG veterinary electrocardiography were performed with standard 4 lead ECG recordings. The AliveCor Veterinary Heart Monitor was placed (with the use of gel) directly on the lateral body wall. The mean heart rate was 42 +/- 8 beats/min (CardioStore), 50 +/- 11 beats/min (Seiva Praktik Veterinary), and 51 +/- 9 beats/min (AliveCor Veterinary Heart Monitor). No significant difference in the heart rate was observed. A significant difference (P &lt; 0.05) in the QRS duration was observed between the CardioStore and AliveCor Veterinary Heart Monitor. Significant differences (P &lt; 0.01) in the R wave amplitude were detected between the CardioStore and AliveCor Veterinary Heart Monitor and between the Seiva Praktik Veterinary and AliveCor Veterinary Heart Monitor. The ECGs produced by the Seiva Praktik Veeterinary and CardioStore machines were interpretable at 100%, while those produced by the AliveCor Veterinary Heart Monitor were interpretable at 66%. Seiva Praktik Veterinary is most appropriately used as an anaesthesia monitoring tool. AliveCor Veterinary Heart Monitor could be used as an additional diagnostic tool, but the results should be ideally confirmed with a standard ECG machine. Seiva Praktik Veterinary is the most appropriate tool for monitoring the ECG within the anaesthesia, while CardioStore might be most appropriately used as an advanced diagnostic tool by virtue of its software assistance. The ECGs obtained with AliveCor Veterinary Heart Monitor should be confirmed using a standard ECG machine.

Druh

J_imp - Článek v periodiku v databázi Web of Science

CEP obor

—

OECD FORD obor

40301 - Veterinary science

Projekt

—

Návaznosti

I - Institucionalni podpora na dlouhodoby koncepcni rozvoj vyzkumne organizace

Rok uplatnění

2021

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Název periodika

Veterinární medicína

ISSN

0375-8427

e-ISSN

—

Svazek periodika

66

Číslo periodika v rámci svazku

2

Stát vydavatele periodika

CZ - Česká republika

Počet stran výsledku

6

Strana od-do

66-71

Kód UT WoS článku

000614480700003

EID výsledku v databázi Scopus

2-s2.0-85103129290