MCT vs. BodyKom: Choosing the Right Cardiac Monitoring Solution
In the expanding world of digital cardiac care, clinicians and patients now have access to a wide variety of wearable technologies designed to monitor heart health in real-time. Among the most advanced options are Mobile Cardiac Telemetry (MCT) and the BodyKom Mobile ECG System. While both serve the overarching goal of improving cardiovascular outcomes, they differ significantly in design, use cases, and application.
4/5/20251 min read
This blog will compare MCT and BodyKom, helping clinicians, healthcare providers, and patients understand which tool suits specific scenarios best.
What is Mobile Cardiac Telemetry (MCT)?
Mobile Cardiac Telemetry is a form of continuous ambulatory ECG monitoring, often used for short-term diagnostic evaluation. It works by continuously recording a patient’s heart rhythm and transmitting abnormal events in real-time to a 24/7 remote monitoring center. Cardiac technicians verify the abnormalities and notify the prescribing physician promptly.
Common use cases include:
Unexplained fainting or palpitations
Post-ablation arrhythmia surveillance
Cryptogenic stroke investigations
MCT is typically used for 14 to 30 days to capture intermittent arrhythmias that would otherwise be missed during a standard Holter monitoring window.
What is BodyKom?
BodyKom is a mobile ECG monitoring solution focused on providing clinician-led, real-time cardiac surveillance. Unlike MCT, which relies on technician review, BodyKom allows clinicians to set personalized thresholds based on the patient’s unique profile. It delivers immediate alerts for out-of-range parameters and allows for direct response via a cloud-based platform.
Common use cases include:
Post-myocardial infarction monitoring
Long-term management of atrial fibrillation
Cardiac rehabilitation and chronic disease follow-up
BodyKom supports prolonged and flexible monitoring, which makes it ideal for integration into preventive and outpatient care models.
Which One Should You Choose?
✔️ Choose MCT if your goal is:
To diagnose unexplained syncope or palpitations
To detect silent arrhythmias in a defined diagnostic window
To confirm or rule out AF or pauses after a stroke
✔️ Choose BodyKom if your goal is:
To monitor cardiac recovery in real-time
To manage chronic heart conditions remotely
To personalize care with threshold-based alerts and data dashboards
Conclusion
While both MCT and BodyKom offer significant benefits in the field of cardiac telemonitoring, they serve distinct purposes. MCT is best suited for diagnostic evaluation of transient conditions, whereas BodyKom is ideal for ongoing, personalized care that empowers clinicians to act in real time.
In the future, both solutions may coexist in hybrid care models—starting with MCT for diagnosis and transitioning to BodyKom for long-term management. Whichever path is chosen, embracing mobile ECG technology is a step forward in proactive, patient-centered cardiac care.