ClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT03309956Updated Jun 18, 2024Results posted

Holter Versus Zio Patch Electrocardiographic Monitoring in Children

An interventional study of Holter Monitor and Zio Patch in Arrhythmias, Cardiac and Heart Block, sponsored by Columbia University. Completed at 1 site in United States. Open to participants aged Up to 21 Years. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2024-06-18.

Primary conditionHeart BlockRegistry: Arrhythmias, CardiacReclassifiedWhy we changed it
Registry
Arrhythmias, Cardiac — the first condition term the registry derived for this study.
ClinicalTrials.gg
Heart Block
Why
  1. The study's listed conditions name Heart Block, a narrower term within Arrhythmias, Cardiac.
Confidence
High: the new condition is named in the study's own listed conditions. Of 351 hand-checked studies reclassified this way, 68% were exactly right and 84% in the right disease family; the registry's first term was right for 5% (measured 2026-10-21). How we classify →
Wrong?
Tell us the study's main condition →

Sponsored by Columbia University · Not applicable, Interventional, and Diagnostic

Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
247
Allocation
Not applicable
Ages
Up to 21 Years
Sex
All
01

Study summary

This prospective study aims to compare the diagnostic yield, or ability to detect an arrhythmia, of the traditional Holter monitor versus the novel Zio patch monitor in pediatric patients referred for ambulatory electrocardiographic (ECG) monitoring. Children will wear both devices simultaneously for 48 hours and the incidence of clinically significant arrhythmias will be compared.

Read the detailed description

Patients under age 22 years at Children's Hospital of New York (CHONY) who are referred for ambulatory ECG monitoring will be consented and enrolled prospectively to have the Holter monitor and the Zio patch placed simultaneously in the pediatric cardiology clinic. Patients will be instructed to wear both devices for 48 hours. Demographic data will be collected, including date of birth, age, gender, weight, height, chest circumference, body surface area, indication for ambulatory ECG monitoring, prior congenital heart disease, prior cardiac surgery, and prior Holter or Zio patch use. A patient satisfaction survey will be given to the patient and parent/guardian after completion of the study to compare the comfort, interference with daily activities, adverse events (such as skin irritation or if either device fell off), and preference for each device. Holter monitors will be returned to the clinic along with the patient satisfaction survey, and the Zio patch will be mailed back to manufacturer headquarters and the report will be returned to the investigators.

02

Conditions studied

  • Arrhythmias, Cardiac
  • Heart Block

Browse trials for

Keywords

  • Ambulatory Electrocardiography
  • Holter Monitor
  • Zio Patch Monitor
  • Pediatrics
03

In context

Heart Block Reclassified

39 studies on the registry are indexed under Heart Block; 12 are open to participants now.

This study's enrollment of 247 is above the median of 104 across 24 interventional studies indexed under Heart Block.

Browse Heart Block studies →

Lead sponsor

Columbia University is the lead sponsor of 1,136 studies on the registry; 195 are open to participants now.

Of its 180 completed or terminated interventional studies of FDA-regulated products, 148 (82%) have results posted.

Compared within Heart Block, this study's primary condition as ClinicalTrials.gg classifies it; the registry's first condition term is Arrhythmias, Cardiac. The counts are of registry records indexed under each term, refreshed daily. How we classify →

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
Up to 21 Years
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No

Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.

Inclusion criteria

  • Any patient under age 22 years who has been referred for ambulatory monitoring at Children's Hospital of New York.

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Any known skin allergy or sensitivity to adhesive material.
Terms in these criteria, in plain language(1)

Underlined terms in the criteria open these too. Explained by clinicaltrials.gg, not part of the registry record. The study team decides who can take part.

ECG (electrocardiogram)

A recording of the heart’s electrical activity, taken with stickers on the chest, arms and legs. It takes a few minutes and does not hurt.

05

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Diagnostic
Allocation
Not applicable
Intervention model
Single group
Masking
None (open label)
Enrollment
247 participants (actual)

Study arms

  • Other
    Holter Monitor and Zio Patch

    All subjects will wear the Holter monitor and Zio patch for a total of 48 hours.

    Device: Holter Monitor · Device: Zio Patch

Interventions

  • DeviceHolter Monitor

    A Holter monitor is a battery-operated portable device that measures and records your heart's electrical activity (ECG) continuously. Patients in this study will wear the monitor for 48 hours.

  • DeviceZio Patch

    The Zio Patch is a small, adhesive, water-resistant single lead electrocardiographic monitoring device. Patients in this study will wear the patch for 48 hours.

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Number of Participants With Difference in Detection of Clinically Significant Arrhythmias for the Zio Versus the Holter

    The diagnostic yield, or the ability to detect an arrhythmia, will be measured for the Holter monitor and the Zio patch monitor for each patient. The diagnostic yield for each arrhythmia subtype will be determined for each device across all patients and compared in paired statistical analysis (McNemar's test).

    Time frame: 48 hours

Secondary outcomes

  1. Prevalence of Artifact Detected

    The aggregate percent analyzable data of the Holter monitor compared to the Zio Patch across all patients will be calculated using descriptive statistics.

    Time frame: 48 hours

Other outcomes

  1. Percentage of Patients Who Preferred the Zio Over the Holter

    Descriptive statistics will be used to analyze survey results. A one page patient satisfaction survey will be filled out at the end of the 48 hours to compare patient/parental preference and possible adverse reactions for each device.

    Time frame: 48 hours

07

Results

Posted Jun 18, 2024

Participant flow

Participant flow — Overall Study
MilestoneHolter Monitor and Zio Patch
Started247
Completed200
Not completed47
Withdrew: Devices worn for <24 hrs or >72 hrs, device failing to record, or devices were lost47

Outcome measures

PrimaryNumber of Participants With Difference in Detection of Clinically Significant Arrhythmias for the Zio Versus the Holter

The diagnostic yield, or the ability to detect an arrhythmia, will be measured for the Holter monitor and the Zio patch monitor for each patient. The diagnostic yield for each arrhythmia subtype will be determined for each device across all patients and compared in paired statistical analysis (McNemar's test).

Time frame:
48 hours
Reported as:
Number · participants
Number of Participants With Difference in Detection of Clinically Significant Arrhythmias for the Zio Versus the Holter
participantsHolter Monitor and Zio Patch
Number of Participants With Difference in Detection of Clinically Significant Arrhythmias for the Zio Versus the Holter0
Statistical analysis
  • Holter Monitor and Zio Patch · McNemar · p = 0.23
SecondaryPrevalence of Artifact Detected

The aggregate percent analyzable data of the Holter monitor compared to the Zio Patch across all patients will be calculated using descriptive statistics.

Time frame:
48 hours
Reported as:
Median · percentage of artifact detected
Prevalence of Artifact Detected
percentage of artifact detectedHolter MonitorZio Patch
Prevalence of Artifact Detected5.6 (2.4 to 15.7)2.8 (1.1 to 8.6)
Other pre-specifiedPercentage of Patients Who Preferred the Zio Over the Holter

Descriptive statistics will be used to analyze survey results. A one page patient satisfaction survey will be filled out at the end of the 48 hours to compare patient/parental preference and possible adverse reactions for each device.

Time frame:
48 hours
Reported as:
Count of participants · Participants
Percentage of Patients Who Preferred the Zio Over the Holter
ParticipantsHolter Monitor and Zio Patch
Percentage of Patients Who Preferred the Zio Over the Holter150

Adverse events

Collected over Up to 48 hours. Non-serious events are listed at a 5% frequency threshold.

Adverse event summary by group
GroupDeathsSeriousOther
Holter Monitor and Zio Patch0/200 (0%)0/200 (0%)0/200 (0%)

Baseline characteristics

247 subjects were enrolled. 47 patients were excluded from the arrhythmia analysis due to one or both devices being worn for \<24 hours (n = 18) or \>72 hours (n = 4), either device failing to record (n = 11), or one or both devices being lost (n = 14). A total of 200 patients completed the study and were included for the arrhythmia analysis after attrition. The Baseline Population characteristics are reported for the final 200 participants.

Age, Customized
Age, Customized(Participants)Holter Monitor and Zio Patch
0-7 years old40
8-17 years old160
18-65 years old0
>65 years old0
Sex: Female, Male
Sex: Female, Male(Participants)Holter Monitor and Zio Patch
Female87
Male113
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)(Participants)Holter Monitor and Zio Patch
Hispanic or Latino0
Not Hispanic or Latino0
Unknown or Not Reported200
Race (NIH/OMB)
Race (NIH/OMB)(Participants)Holter Monitor and Zio Patch
American Indian or Alaska Native0
Asian0
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander0
Black or African American0
White0
More than one race0
Unknown or Not Reported200
Region of Enrollment
Region of Enrollment(participants)Holter Monitor and Zio Patch
United States200
08

Study locations

1 site
  • Columbia University Medical Center
    New York, New York 10032, United States
09

References and documents

Publications

  • Barrett PM, Komatireddy R, Haaser S, Topol S, Sheard J, Encinas J, Fought AJ, Topol EJ. Comparison of 24-hour Holter monitoring with 14-day novel adhesive patch electrocardiographic monitoring. Am J Med. 2014 Jan;127(1):95.e11-7. doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2013.10.003. Epub 2013 Oct 15. PubMed 24384108 ↗
  • Bolourchi M, Batra AS. Diagnostic yield of patch ambulatory electrocardiogram monitoring in children (from a national registry). Am J Cardiol. 2015 Mar 1;115(5):630-4. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2014.12.014. Epub 2014 Dec 18. PubMed 25591894 ↗
  • Cheung CC, Kerr CR, Krahn AD. Comparing 14-day adhesive patch with 24-h Holter monitoring. Future Cardiol. 2014 May;10(3):319-22. doi: 10.2217/fca.14.24. PubMed 24976467 ↗
  • Lobodzinski SS. ECG patch monitors for assessment of cardiac rhythm abnormalities. Prog Cardiovasc Dis. 2013 Sep-Oct;56(2):224-9. doi: 10.1016/j.pcad.2013.08.006. PubMed 24215754 ↗
  • Rosenberg MA, Samuel M, Thosani A, Zimetbaum PJ. Use of a noninvasive continuous monitoring device in the management of atrial fibrillation: a pilot study. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2013 Mar;36(3):328-33. doi: 10.1111/pace.12053. Epub 2012 Dec 13. PubMed 23240827 ↗
  • Schreiber D, Sattar A, Drigalla D, Higgins S. Ambulatory cardiac monitoring for discharged emergency department patients with possible cardiac arrhythmias. West J Emerg Med. 2014 Mar;15(2):194-8. doi: 10.5811/westjem.2013.11.18973. PubMed 24672611 ↗
  • Tung CE, Su D, Turakhia MP, Lansberg MG. Diagnostic Yield of Extended Cardiac Patch Monitoring in Patients with Stroke or TIA. Front Neurol. 2015 Jan 12;5:266. doi: 10.3389/fneur.2014.00266. eCollection 2014. PubMed 25628595 ↗
  • Turakhia MP, Hoang DD, Zimetbaum P, Miller JD, Froelicher VF, Kumar UN, Xu X, Yang F, Heidenreich PA. Diagnostic utility of a novel leadless arrhythmia monitoring device. Am J Cardiol. 2013 Aug 15;112(4):520-4. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2013.04.017. Epub 2013 May 11. PubMed 23672988 ↗

Study documents

PDFs hosted by the registry, ClinicalTrials.gov.

Individual participant data

Plan to share: No

10

Updates

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Jun 18, 2024, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
11

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT03309956
Responsible party
Sponsor
First posted
Oct 16, 2017
Start date
Oct 18, 2017
Primary completion
Oct 19, 2019
Completion
Oct 19, 2019
Results posted
Jun 18, 2024
Last update
Jun 18, 2024

Study contacts

Leonardo Liberman, MD
principal investigator · Columbia University

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
Yes
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, as verified in May 2024. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion