Table 3.
Diagnostic performance and therapeutic implications of CS-ECG application.
| Statements regarding use of the CS-ECG system |
Completely disagree |
Rather disagree |
Partially agree |
Rather agree |
Predominantly agree | Completely agree |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CS advantageous for patient | 0% | 3 (6%) | 4 (8%) | 9 (17%) | 19 (36%) | 18 (34%) |
| Team was not overstrained by CS | 0% | 0% | 1 (2%) | 3 (6%) | 15 (28%) | 33 (62%) |
| Team considers CS to be a meaningful amendment to SOC | 1 (2%) | 1 (2%) | 5 (9%) | 12 (23%) | 17 (32%) | 17 (32%) |
| CS represents significant improvement in comparison with cECG | 0% | 1 (2%) | 3 (6%) | 12 (23%) | 19 (36%) | 18 (34%) |
| Time to diagnosis is reduced | 0% | 7 (13%) | 4 (8%) | 17 (32%) | 14 (26%) | 11 (21%) |
| Current CS system offers room for improvement | 1 (2%) | 7 (13%) | 11 (21%) | 11 (21%) | 15 (28%) | 6 (11%) |
| Team would prefer use of CS as compared with cECG | 2 (4%) | 3 (6%) | 7 (13%) | 15 (28%) | 10 (19%) | 16 (30%) |
Statements regarding physician- and patient-centered issues such as estimations of diagnostic performance and potential therapeutic implications were rated by degree of approval (ranging from “completely disagree” to “completely agree”). Tabular view of the results of the questionnaire with absolute numbers representing the count of answers by EPs in this category followed by the respective fraction (in %) in brackets.