Over 50% Of
Arrhythmias
Are missed by
Holter Monitors

The long-term Zio monitor detects over 99% of arrhythmias in 14 days compared to only 47% captured by short-term Holter monitors in 2 days.1

The latest clinical study validates the Zio monitor’s superior data accuracy.

MEET THE “NEW GOLD STANDARD”

A new peer-reviewed study states that the Zio monitor is as accurate as an implanted pacemaker, the gold standard of monitoring, in detecting AF burden.
It also outperformed other external cardiac monitors (ECM) and an event monitor in AF burden detection.

“[This] is a true test of the accuracy of ECM devices.”2
—Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology, 2019

Figure_2_chart2
The Zio monitor recorded an R2 of 0.9999, the highest in the study, and an MSE of 0.2371, the lowest in the study.2
3_blurred_graphs_mobile

Don't Get Left Behind

Access the Full Clinical Study Now

PUTTING A HALT TO HOLTERS

Holter monitoring has a low diagnostic yield of 24%3,
but the deficiencies don’t stop there.

A Medicare analysis found that repeat Holter testing occurred in 23% of monitored patients and that a failed repeat Holter test costs more than $23,000 per patient.4

Inaccurate data and repeat testing result in:

  • Longer time to diagnosis
  • Increase in cost of healthcare
  • Delay to clinical intervention
Putting A Halt To Holters

Don’t Get Left Behind — Access the Full Clinical Study Now
LEARN MORE >>
4_part_infographic (2)
Performance impact of the Zio platform
on a leading healthcare system5,6

THE DOWNSTREAM
BENEFITS OF ACCURACY

Accuracy in diagnostic monitoring leads to improvement in efficiency and patient care.

All practices are unique. Let us show you the impact Zio by iRhythm could have on your practice. Give us a call at 888.693.2401 or contact us here.

1Turakhia, M., et al., Diagnostic Utility of a Novel Leadless Arrhythmia Monitoring Device, American Journal of Cardiology, 2013.
2Eysenck, W., et al. A randomized trial evaluating the accuracy of AF detection by four external ambulatory ECG monitors compared to permanent pacemaker AF detection. Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology, 2019.
3Tsang, J., et al. Benefits of monitoring patients with mobile cardiac telemetry (MCT) compared with the Event or Holter monitors. Medical Devices: Evidence and Research, 2014.
4Arnold, R., et al. Cost Analysis and Clinical Outcomes of Ambulatory Care Monitoring in Medicare Patients: Describing the Diagnostic Odyssey. Journal of Health Economics and Outcomes Research, 2015.
5Data on File. iRhythm Technologies, 2019.
6Diagnostic yields derived from Giada et al. (2007), Zio Service Data, Rothman et al. (2007); Tsang et al. (2014) & Reiffel et al. (2005).