Abstract：Objective To discuss the clinical values of ambulatory electrocardiography(AECG) and routine electrocardiogram(ECG) in diagnosing arrhythmia in patients with coronary heart disease.Methods We selected 60 patients diagnosed with coronary heart disease in the department of cardiology in our hospital. They were examined first by routine ECG, and then AECG in order to monitor the changes of their heart rates for 24 hours. The examination results in the two diagnostic methods were comparatively analyzed by computer.Results There were 34 cases of arrhythmia detected by routine ECG, accounting for 56.67%, lower than the detection rate of 71.67%(43/60) by AECG, and the difference was statistically significant(P＜0.05). By AECG, the detection rates of atrial premature beats bigeminy/trigeminy, premature ventricular contraction bigeminy/trigeminy, pairing of atrial premature beats, pairing of premature ventricular contraction, and paroxysmal supraventricular tachycardia were higher than those by routine ECG, with statistically significant differences(P＜0.05). Conclusion AECG is superior to routine ECG because the former can detect coronary ischemia at any time point as well as the duration and frequency of arrhythmia, and is also capable of monitoring electrocardiosignals more accurately and more finely. AECG is worthy of being promoted clinically.
2014, Vol. 23 
