Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology · 2017
Diagnostic yield of asymptomatic arrhythmias detected by mobile cardiac outpatient telemetry and autotrigger looping event cardiac monitors.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Derkac Wayne M, Finkelmeier Jeffrey R, Horgan Daniel J, Hutchinson Mathew D
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Asymptomatic arrhythmias can have important therapeutic implications in certain patient populations, for example, atrial fibrillation in patients with prior ischemic stroke. We sought to compare the diagnostic yield of two commercially available monitoring systems with automated arrhythmia detection algorithms.
METHODS: We queried a large, proprietary database containing rhythm data for patients receiving ambulatory EKG monitoring (BioTelemetry, Malvern, PA, USA). We compared all patients prescribed mobile cardiac outpatient telemetry (MCOT™, Braemar Manufacturing, LLC, Eagan, MN, USA) versus autotrigger looping event recorder (AT-LER) devices over a consecutive 8-month period. Data from both device types were analyzed for diagnostic yields in detecting asymptomatic (device-triggered) arrhythmias consisting of atrial fibrillation (of any detected duration), bradycardia (ventricular rate ≤ 40 bpm), ventricular pause (≥ 3 seconds), supraventricular tachycardia (≥ 6 consecutive supraventricular beats), and ventricular tachycardia (≥ 4 consecutive premature ventricular contractions). The mean time to first diagnosis of each arrhythmia for each device was determined. Physician-designated diagnostic codes for patients prescribed each device were also determined from the database.
RESULTS: The MCOT™ device had significantly higher diagnostic yields of all evaluated asymptomatic arrhythmias than the AT-LER. The MCOT™ device also produced an earlier mean time to diagnosis for all evaluated asymptomatic arrhythmias. These findings were noted despite a shorter average prescription length for MCOT™ monitored patients.
CONCLUSIONS: In patients with conventional diagnostic monitoring indications, MCOT™ had significantly higher diagnostic yields for five asymptomatic arrhythmias compared to the AT-LER.
METHODS: We queried a large, proprietary database containing rhythm data for patients receiving ambulatory EKG monitoring (BioTelemetry, Malvern, PA, USA). We compared all patients prescribed mobile cardiac outpatient telemetry (MCOT™, Braemar Manufacturing, LLC, Eagan, MN, USA) versus autotrigger looping event recorder (AT-LER) devices over a consecutive 8-month period. Data from both device types were analyzed for diagnostic yields in detecting asymptomatic (device-triggered) arrhythmias consisting of atrial fibrillation (of any detected duration), bradycardia (ventricular rate ≤ 40 bpm), ventricular pause (≥ 3 seconds), supraventricular tachycardia (≥ 6 consecutive supraventricular beats), and ventricular tachycardia (≥ 4 consecutive premature ventricular contractions). The mean time to first diagnosis of each arrhythmia for each device was determined. Physician-designated diagnostic codes for patients prescribed each device were also determined from the database.
RESULTS: The MCOT™ device had significantly higher diagnostic yields of all evaluated asymptomatic arrhythmias than the AT-LER. The MCOT™ device also produced an earlier mean time to diagnosis for all evaluated asymptomatic arrhythmias. These findings were noted despite a shorter average prescription length for MCOT™ monitored patients.
CONCLUSIONS: In patients with conventional diagnostic monitoring indications, MCOT™ had significantly higher diagnostic yields for five asymptomatic arrhythmias compared to the AT-LER.