IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/caa/jnlvet/v66y2021i2id39-2020-vetmed.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • E Cermakova

    (Avian and Exotic Animal Clinic, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Veterinary and Pharmaceutical Sciences Brno, Brno, Czech Republic)

  • A Piskovska

    (Private Veterinarian, Nové Veselí, Czech Republic)

  • V Trhonova

    (Avian and Exotic Animal Clinic, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Veterinary and Pharmaceutical Sciences Brno, Brno, Czech Republic)

  • L Schilliger

    (Clinique Vétérinaire du Village d'Auteuil, Paris, France)

  • Z Knotek

    (Avian and Exotic Animal Clinic, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Veterinary and Pharmaceutical Sciences Brno, Brno, Czech Republic)

Abstract

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 < 0.05) in the QRS duration was observed between the CardioStore and AliveCor Veterinary Heart Monitor. Significant differences (P < 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 VVeeterinary 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.

Suggested Citation

  • E Cermakova & A Piskovska & V Trhonova & L Schilliger & Z Knotek, 2021. "Comparison of three ECG machines for electrocardiography in green iguanas (Iguana iguana)," Veterinární medicína, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 66(2), pages 66-71.
    • Handle: RePEc:caa:jnlvet:v:66:y:2021:i:2:id:39-2020-vetmed
    DOI: 10.17221/39/2020-VETMED
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://vetmed.agriculturejournals.cz/doi/10.17221/39/2020-VETMED.html
    Download Restriction: free of charge
    File URL: http://vetmed.agriculturejournals.cz/doi/10.17221/39/2020-VETMED.pdf
    Download Restriction: free of charge
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.17221/39/2020-VETMED?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:caa:jnlvet:v:66:y:2021:i:2:id:39-2020-vetmed. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Ivo Andrle (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cazv.cz/en/home/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.