Journal of electrocardiology · 2022
Insertable cardiac monitoring devices versus external cardiac monitoring for detecting atrial fibrillation and preventing the recurrence of stroke: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
МетаанализСистематический обзорСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Al Qurashi Abdullah A, Rasheed Faisal, Siddiqi Ahsun Rizwan, Abdullah Muhammad, Mumtaz Mishal, Khan Tehrim, Mallick Abbas Hayat, Jabeen Sidra, Ahmed Ifra Eeman, Ochani Rohan Kumar
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Atrial Fibrillation (AF) is a major risk factor for stroke, which is the second leading cause of death worldwide. It remains uncertain whether insertable cardiac monitors (ICMs) enhance the ability to recognize AF over external cardiac monitoring in patients who have experienced a stroke.
AIM: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine whether ICM devices are more effective than external cardiac monitoring for the detection of AF in stroke patients.
METHODS: We included studies that reported an AF detection rate in stroke patients with a follow-up of at least 12 months. We analyzed the data of 1233 patients from 3 randomized control trials (RCTs).
RESULTS: When compared to external cardiac monitoring, ICM devices (Medtronic Reveal LINQ and Reveal XT) showed a significantly higher detection rate of AF (RR = 5.04, 95% CI = 2.93-8.68; p < 0.05; ARR = 10.47%, NNT = 10). The ICM arm had significantly higher usage of oral anticoagulants (OAC) as compared to the control arm. (RR = 2.76, 95% CI = 1.89-4.02, p < 0.05). Additionally, ICM usage was associated with a higher incidence of mild to moderate adverse events (RR = 10.52, 95% CI =1.35-82.14; p = 0.02) and a higher number of severe adverse events as compared to the control arm (RR = 7.61, 95% CI = 1.36-42.51; p = 0.02).
CONCLUSION: ICM devices are associated with better detection rates of AF and higher usage of OAC as compared to external cardiac monitoring in post-stroke patients. However, ICM insertion is associated with a higher incidence of mild/moderate and severe adverse effects.
AIM: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine whether ICM devices are more effective than external cardiac monitoring for the detection of AF in stroke patients.
METHODS: We included studies that reported an AF detection rate in stroke patients with a follow-up of at least 12 months. We analyzed the data of 1233 patients from 3 randomized control trials (RCTs).
RESULTS: When compared to external cardiac monitoring, ICM devices (Medtronic Reveal LINQ and Reveal XT) showed a significantly higher detection rate of AF (RR = 5.04, 95% CI = 2.93-8.68; p < 0.05; ARR = 10.47%, NNT = 10). The ICM arm had significantly higher usage of oral anticoagulants (OAC) as compared to the control arm. (RR = 2.76, 95% CI = 1.89-4.02, p < 0.05). Additionally, ICM usage was associated with a higher incidence of mild to moderate adverse events (RR = 10.52, 95% CI =1.35-82.14; p = 0.02) and a higher number of severe adverse events as compared to the control arm (RR = 7.61, 95% CI = 1.36-42.51; p = 0.02).
CONCLUSION: ICM devices are associated with better detection rates of AF and higher usage of OAC as compared to external cardiac monitoring in post-stroke patients. However, ICM insertion is associated with a higher incidence of mild/moderate and severe adverse effects.