Trending Topic

15 mins

Trending Topic

Developed by Touch
Mark CompleteCompleted
BookmarkBookmarked

Cardiovascular diseases are the most common cause of mortality and morbidity in adults worldwide.1 Coronary angiography (CAG) is the gold standard method for evaluating atherosclerotic coronary artery disease (CAD).2 It is conventionally performed via the trans-femoral (TF) route. Recently, however, the trans-radial (TR) route has become the preferred way.3 The TR route offers better procedure comfort, shorter hospitalization […]

11/Detection performance of three insertable cardiac monitors in a single centre

R Macdonald (Presenting Author) - Worcestershire Acute NHS Trust, Worcester, UK
Share
Facebook
X (formerly Twitter)
LinkedIn
Via Email
Mark CompleteCompleted
BookmarkBookmarked
Copy LinkLink Copied
Published Online: Oct 8th 2020 European Journal of Arrhythmia & Electrophysiology. 2023;9(Suppl. 1):abstr11
Select a Section…
1

Article

BackgroundSeveral  (ICMs) are available to enable the diagnosis and monitoring of arrhythmias. Clinicians are faced with different ICM options and must balance the workload associated with episode review alongside device performance and ensuring receipt of clinically actionable data.

Objective: To compare in-time physician-adjudicated performance and clinical actionability of ICMs from different manufacturers that are currently in use at a single-centre.

Methods: This is a retrospective analysis assessing the percentage of appropriate and inappropriate device-triggered episodes from three different ICMs (LUX-Dx, Boston Scientific; Confirm-Rx, Abbott; LINQ, Medtronic). Patients with an ICM were randomly selected from a 6-month period at a single centre (Worcestershire Acute NHS Trust, UK) and were matched using the reasons for monitoring of palpitations or syncope. Episodes were adjudicated at the time of alert by the reviewing physician. Remote reprogramming rates and clinical actions taken in response to the data are also described.

Results: Data from 30 patients were included and equally distributed among the 3 devices (n=10 LUX-Dx; n=10 Confirm-Rx; n=10 LINQ). Within each group, 2 individuals were followed for palpitations and the other 8 were followed for syncope. Over the 6-month timeframe, 65 episodes were assessed for LUX-Dx, 64 (98%) of these were ‘appropriate’ and only 1 was ‘inappropriate.’ These data supported clinical actions for 50% of the patients which included an EP study, SVT ablation, PPM referral (n=2), and CRT-P implant. Twenty-seven episodes from Confirm-Rx were assessed, 3 (11%) were ‘appropriate,’ 24 were ‘inappropriate,’ and one patient was referred for PPM. Eighteen episodes from LINQ were assessed, 12(67%) were ‘appropriate,’ 6 were ‘inappropriate’ and one patient received a PPM.

Conclusions: Although the LUX-Dx ICM had the highest number of episodes to review, it also had the highest percentage of appropriate episodes and the most clinically actionable data. 

Figure 1: Number of inappropriate episodes

2

Further Resources

Share
Facebook
X (formerly Twitter)
LinkedIn
Via Email
Mark CompleteCompleted
BookmarkBookmarked
Copy LinkLink Copied
Close Popup