Are implantable cardiac monitors reliable tools for cardiac arrhythmias detection? An intra-patient comparison with permanent pacemakers.

INTRODUCTION

Implantable cardiac monitor (ICM) is an established tool for the management of unexplained syncope and atrial fibrillation (AF) even if its accuracy of arrhythmia detection may be suboptimal. The aim of this study was to perform an intra-patient comparison of the diagnostic capability of ICM with a dual-chamber PM as a gold standard.

METHODS

We included 19 patients with a previously implanted ICM (BioMonitor 2 Biotronik, Berlin, Germany), who received a dual-chamber PM for standard indications. ICM-detected arrhythmic events in a 6-month follow-up were compared with those detected by the PM and classified by visual inspection of intracardiac electrograms.

RESULTS

During follow up, ICMs generated 15 false asystole and 39 false bradycardia detections in 5 patients (26.3%) due to recurrent premature ventricular contractions. A total of 34 true high ventricular rate (HVR) episodes were detected by the PM. Of them, 30 (88%) events were also recorded by the ICM, which further detected 14 false HVR snapshots, leading to a sensitivity and positive predictive value of 88% and 68%, respectively. In addition, PM identified 234 true AF episodes. Of them, 225 (96%) events were also detected by the ICM, while 8 (42%) ICMs stored 50 AF episodes classified as false positives. The ICM sensitivity for AF was 96% with a positive predictive value of 82%.

CONCLUSION

Our intra-patient comparison with permanent PM confirmed that ICM is an effective tool for cardiac arrhythmias detection. ICM algorithms for AF and HVR detection were highly sensitive with an acceptable rate of false positive episodes.