Early versus delayed implantation of a loop recorder in patients with unexplained syncope — Effects on care pathway and diagnostic yield

Bradycardia risk stratification with implantable loop recorder after unexplained syncope

BACKGROUND

An implantable loop recorder is an effective tool for diagnosing unexplained syncope. However, after a first episode in non-high-risk patients, the usefulness of implantable loop recorder implantation remains unclear.

AIMS

To analyse relevant risk factors for significant bradycardia in order to identify patients who do or do not benefit from implantable loop recorder implantation. Also, to study whether implantable loop recorder implantation with remote monitoring is associated with less recurrence of traumatic syncope.

METHODS

This was a retrospective monocentric study including patients with implantable loop recorder implantation after unexplained syncope, using remote monitoring and iterative consultations.

RESULTS

Two hundred and thirty-seven patients were implanted for unexplained syncope. Significant bradycardia occurred in 53 patients (22.4%): 23 (43.4%) caused by paroxysmal atrioventricular block and 30 (56.6%) caused by sinus node dysfunction, leading to permanent pacemaker implantation in 48 patients. Compared with younger patients, there was a 3.46-fold increase (95% confidence interval 1.92-6.23; P<0.0001) in the risk of significant bradycardia in patients aged≥60 years. Based on multivariable analysis, only "typical syncope" was associated with significant bradycardia occurrence (hazard ratio 3.14, 95% confidence interval 1.75-5.65; P=0.0001). There was no recurrence of significant bradycardia with traumatic complications among patients implanted for traumatic syncope.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that: (1) implantable loop recorders identify more significant bradycardia in patients aged≥60 presenting with a first non-high-risk typical syncope, suggesting that an implantable loop recorder should be implanted after a first episode of unexplained syncope in such conditions; and (2) after traumatic syncope, implantable loop recorder implantation is safe, and is associated with little or no recurrence of traumatic syncope.

Safety and outcome of nurse-led syncope clinics and implantable loop recorder implants

BACKGROUND

Implantable loop recorders (ILRs) are effective in achieving symptom-rhythm correlation. Data on the diagnostic yield of ILRs, on nurse-led syncope clinics, and on nurse-led ILR implants are limited.

OBJECTIVE

We evaluated the safety and efficacy of our nurse-led syncope clinic and nurse-led ILR implants.

METHODS

A retrospective study of all consecutive patients undergoing nurse-led ILR implantations was performed between April 2016 and April 2018. Patients were referred from both nurse-led and physician-led clinics. Data were collected on baseline demographic characteristics, referral source, symptom-rhythm correlation, ILR findings, and subsequent changes to management. All ILRs were enrolled into remote monitoring with automatic arrhythmia detection, and all immediate (≤24 hours) ILR implant complications were recorded. Comparisons were made between nurse-led and physician-led clinics and subsequent outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 432 patients with an ILR were identified: 164 (38%) from nurse-led and 268 (62%) from physician-led clinics; 200 (46%) were women (mean age 66.5 ± 18.2 years; mean follow-up duration 28.9 ± 9.5 months). Primary ILR indications were syncope (n = 251 [58%]), presyncope (n = 33 [7%]), palpitation (n = 39 [9%]), cryptogenic stroke (n = 78 [18%]), and other reasons (n = 31 [7%]). No immediate ILR implant complications occurred. Overall, 156 patients (36%) had a change in management as a direct result of ILR findings, with no overall differences between nurse-led and physician-led clinics (35% vs 36%; P = .7). More patients had newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation in physician-led clinics (15% vs 7%; P = .01), and more patients had pacemaker implants for bradycardia in nurse-led clinics (23% vs 13%; P < .01).

CONCLUSION

Nurse-led ILR implantation was safe and effective. Nurse-led syncope clinics achieved good symptom-rhythm correlation with resultant significant changes to management in comparison to physician-led clinics. Larger prospective studies are needed to evaluate their longer-term impact.

Ambulatory ECG monitoring for syncope and collapse in United States, Europe, and Japan: The patients' viewpoint

BACKGROUND

Practice guidelines provide clinicians direction for the selection of ambulatory ECG (AECG) monitors in the evaluation of syncope/collapse. However, whether patients' understand differences among AECG systems is unknown.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A survey was conducted of USA (n = 99), United Kingdom (UK)/Germany (D) (n = 75) and Japan (n = 40) syncope/collapse patients who underwent diagnostic AECG monitoring. Responses were quantitated using a Likert-like 7-point scale (mean ± SD) or percent of patients indicating a Top 2 box (T2B) for a particular AECG attribute. Patient ages and diagnosed etiologies of syncope/collapse were similar across geographies. Patients were queried on AECG attributes including the ability to detect arrhythmic/cardiac causes of collapse, instructions received, ease of use, and cost. Patient perception of the diagnostic capabilities and ease of use did not differ significantly among the AECG technologies; however, USA patients had a more favorable overall view of ICM/ILRs (T2B: 42.4%) than did UK/D (T2B: 28%) or Japan (T2B: 17.5%) patients. Similarly, US patient rankings for education received regarding device choice and operation tended to be higher than UK/D or Japan patients; nevertheless, at their best, the Likert scores were low (approximately 4.7-6.0) suggesting need for education improvement. Finally, both US and UK/D patients were similarly concerned with ICM costs (T2B, 31% vs 20% for Japan).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients across several geographies have a similar but imperfect understanding of AECG technologies. Given more detailed education the patient is likely to be a more effective partner with the clinician in establishing a potential symptom-arrhythmia correlation.

When Is Syncope Arrhythmic?

Cardiac arrhythmia is a common cause of syncope. The prompt identification of arrhythmic syncope has diagnostic and prognostic implications. In this article, an approach to identifying and managing arrhythmic syncope is discussed, including key findings from the history, physical examination, electrocardiogram, role of risk stratification, use of supplemental investigations, and treatment.

Role of baseline 12‑lead ECG in predicting syncope caused by arrhythmia in patients investigated using an implantable loop recorder

AIM

To evaluate the role of baseline 12‑lead ECG in predicting the syncope mechanism during continuous monitoring using an implantable loop recorder (ILR).

METHODS

Consecutive patients with syncope implanted with an ILR were enrolled. Baseline 12‑lead ECG were related to ECG diagnosis derived from ILR tracings recorded at the time of syncope recurrence.

RESULTS

In total 300 patients with a mean age of 66 ± 16 years were included, 49% (146/300) received an ILR-guided diagnosis during follow-up. Patients with abnormal baseline ECG more frequently received an ILR-guided diagnosis compared to those with normal baseline ECG 59% vs. 44%, p = 0.018. For a diagnosis of arrhythmic syncope, the corresponding frequencies were 45% vs. 26%, p = 0.001.Patients with bifascicular block significantly more common received an ILR-guided diagnosis 76% (25/33) compared to those with normal baseline ECG 44% (90/205), p ≪ 0.001. In this subgroup, 96% (24/25) were diagnosed with arrhythmic syncope, 23 of which were due to bradyarrhythmia. Bifascicular block occurred almost exclusively among those ≥60 years (31/33). After logistic regression the adjusted OR for arrhythmic syncope was significant for bifascicular block 5.5 (95%CI 2.3-13.2), p ≪ 0.001. PPV for bifascicular block in predicting arrhythmic syncope was 73% and NPV 73%.

CONCLUSION

A baseline 12‑lead ECG with bifascicular block was a strong predictor for syncope during follow-up, most often due to bradyarrhythmia caused by intermittent complete heart block. No other ECG findings were associated with the ILR outcome. We find it reasonable to consider permanent pacing instead of an ILR for patients with bifascicular block and unexplained syncope.

Insertable cardiac monitors: current indications and devices

INTRODUCTION

Recurrent unexplained syncope is a well-established indication for an insertable cardiac monitor (ICM). Recently, the indications for an ICM have been expanded.

AREAS COVERED

This review article discusses the current indications for ICMs and gives an overview of the latest generation of commercially available ICMs.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

The 2018 ESC Syncope guidelines have expanded the indications for an ICM to patients with inherited cardiomyopathy, inherited channelopathy, suspected unproven epilepsy, and unexplained falls. ICMs are also increasingly used for the detection of subclinical atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients with cryptogenic stroke. Whether treatment of subclinical AF (SCAF) with oral anticoagulation prevents recurrent stroke is yet unknown. The current generation of ICMs are smaller, easier to implant, have better diagnostics, and are capable of remote monitoring. The Reveal LINQ (Medtronic) is the smallest ICM and has the most extensive performance and clinical data. The BioMonitor 2 (Biotronik) is the largest ICM but has excellent R-wave amplitudes, longest longevity, and reliable remote monitoring. The Confirm Rx (Abbott) is capable to provide mobile data transmission enabled by a smartphone app. Future generation of ICMs will incorporate heart failures indices to facilitate remote monitoring of heart failure patients.

Ambulatory diagnostic ECG monitoring for syncope and collapse: An assessment of clinical practice in the United States

INTRODUCTION

Diagnostic ambulatory electrocardiogram (AECG) monitoring is widely used for evaluating syncope and collapse, and practice guidelines provide recommendations regarding optimal AECG device selection. However, whether physicians utilize AECGs in accordance with the pertinent guidelines is unclear. This study assessed utilization of AECG monitoring systems for syncope and collapse diagnosis by physicians in the United States.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A quantitative survey was undertaken of physicians comprising multiple specialties (emergency department, n = 35; primary care, n = 35; hospitalists, n = 30; neurologists, n = 30; nonimplanting, n = 34, and implanting-cardiologists, n = 35). Depending on specialty, respondents reported that neural-reflex and orthostatic causes accounted for 17-23%, cardiac causes for 12-20%, and "neurological causes" (specifically psychogenic pseudo-syncope/pseudo-seizures and acute cerebrovascular conditions) for 7-12% of their syncope/collapse cases. The choice of AECG technology varied by specialty. Thus, despite patients having daily symptoms, 25% of respondents chose an AECG technology other than a Holter-type monitor. Conversely, when monitoring for infrequent events (e.g., less than monthly), 12-18% indicated that they would choose a 24- to 48-hour Holter, 20-34% would choose either a conventional event recorder or a mobile cardiac telemetry system, and only 53-65% would select an insertable cardiac monitor.

CONCLUSIONS

In evaluation of syncope/collapse, most U.S. clinicians across specialties use AECGs appropriately, but in a substantial minority there remains discordance between choice of AECG technology and guideline-based recommendations.

Ambulatory electrocardiogram monitoring devices for evaluating transient loss of consciousness or other related symptoms

Capturing electrocardiograms (ECGs) during spontaneous events is the most powerful available tool to identify or exclude an arrhythmic cause of symptoms, and often can elucidate the definite diagnosis for different conditions, such as transient loss of consciousness (T-LOC), lightheadedness, or palpitations. Current ambulatory ECG monitoring technologies include 24-hour Holter, wearable event recorder, external loop recorder (ELR), and insertable cardiac monitoring (ICM). Of them, Holter ECG is most frequently used in daily practice in Japan, while ELR and ICM are less frequently used. However, the appropriate monitor choice should be based on the expected frequency of symptoms. Frequent events may be adequately detected by Holter ECG, but less frequent symptoms are more effectively assessed by longer-term monitoring (i.e., ELR or ICM). In this report, based on our clinical experience, we review the usefulness of ambulatory ECG monitoring devices, especially of ELR, for evaluating T-LOC and other potentially arrhythmia-related symptoms. Specifically, we focus on the use of ELR and ICM for evaluating Japanese patients with T-LOC.

Costs of unstructured investigation of unexplained syncope: insights from a micro-costing analysis of the observational PICTURE registry

AIMS

The observational PICTURE (Place of Reveal In the Care pathway and Treatment of patients with Unexplained Recurrent Syncope) registry enrolled 570 patients with unexplained syncope, documented their care pathway and the various tests they underwent before the insertion of an implantable loop recorder (ILR). The aims were to describe the extent and cost of diagnostic tests performed before the implant.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Actual costs of 17 predefined diagnostic tests were characterized based on a combination of data from PICTURE and a micro-costing study performed at a medium-sized UK university hospital in the UK. The median cost of diagnostic tests per patient was £1114 (95% CI £995-£1233). As many patients received more than the median number of tests, the mean expenditure per patient was higher with £1613 (95% CI £1494-£1732), and for 10% of the patients the cost exceeded £3539. Tests were frequently repeated, and early use of specific and expensive tests was common. In the 12% of patients with types of tests entirely within the recommendations for an initial evaluation before ILR implant, the mean cost was £710.

CONCLUSION

Important opportunities to reduce test-related costs before an ILR implant were identified, e.g. by more appropriate use of tests recommended in the initial evaluation, by decreasing repetition of tests, and by avoiding early use of specialized and expensive tests. A structured multidisciplinary approach would be the best model to achieve an optimal outcome.