THE STANDARD OF CARE IS CHANGING

Keep pace with a monitoring solution designed to maximize patient compliance, so you get the answers you need.


600x600_AT_vs_MCOT-photo_table_NEW (2)

 

See For Yourself

Download a Zio AT
Sample Patient Report

600x600_AT_vs_MCT_matrix_NEW (1)

PATIENT-FRIENDLY DESIGN MINIMIZES DISRUPTION AND MAXIMIZES COMPLIANCE


Our comfortable, effortless monitoring experience drives 98% patient compliance.1 Unlike other MCT monitors, including MCOT™, the Zio AT monitor does not require battery charging, lead wire maintenance, or patch changes. Patients can shower, exercise, and sleep comfortably without disrupting their lives or their data.

600x600_days_to_detection_NEW (1)

HOW CAN FIVE DAYS AFFECT PATIENT CARE?


With the Zio AT advantage, time to first detection during wear can be up to 5 days sooner than other MCTs and up to 9 days sooner than Event monitors.2,1 Expedite the diagnostic journey and inform prompt clinical intervention — what could five days mean for your high-risk patients?

See for Yourself - Download A zio AT Patient Report

600x600_monitoring_time (1)

GET ANSWERS YOU NEED IN LESS TIME


With a diagnostic yield up to 250% higher than Event monitors and over 30% higher than other MCTs, Zio AT brings you critical insights in half the time.3, 1

600x600_black_tablet_AT_report (1)

GREATER TIME SAVINGS & EFFICIENCY DEMONSTRATED BY 99.9% PHYSICIAN AGREEMENT


Zio AT is designed to give you more comprehensive, quality data than a typical MCT monitor. Our FDA-cleared deep neural network (DNN) is proven to identify arrhythmias as accurately as expert electrophysiologists and cardiologists, and all data is curated by highly-trained ECG experts.4

The results are actionable transmission reports and a comprehensive final patient report, which provides reliable findings that match physician interpretation 99.9% of the time.1

1. Data on File. iRhythm Technologies, 201

2. Derkac, W. et al. Diagnostic yield of asymptomatic arrhythmias detected by mobile cardiac outpatient telemetry and autotrigger looping event cardiac monitors. Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology, 2017.

3. Tsang, J.P. et al. Benefits of monitoring patients with mobile cardiac telemetry (MCT) compared with the Event or Holter monitors. Medical Devices: Evidence and Research, 2014.

4. Hannun, A.Y., et al. Cardiologist-level arrhythmia detection and classification in ambulatory electrocardiograms using a deep neural network. Nature Medicine, 2019.

5. Traditional Wired MCT: CardioNet MCOTos Patient Education Guide, MCT 3 Lead Patient Guide; Competitor A Patch: MCOT Patch Patient Education Guide; Competitor B Patch: BodyGuardian Heart Patient Instruction Manual, BodyGuardian Control Unit User Manual, ST Microelectronics S.R.L.; BioTelemetry Inc. Annual Report fillings (SEC 10-K) 2011, 2012; BioTelemetry Inc, Q4 2017 Earnings Call Transcript

*Patient compliance is calculated as median wear time/prescribed duration (%) for each device.

**Data based on auto-triggered transmissions during wear period; patient-triggered transmissions were not included. Sample sizes: Zio AT: 2,596; MCT: 69,977; Event: 8,513

CONTACT US FOR MORE INFORMATION