Premature Ventricular Complexes: Assessing Burden Density in a Large National Cohort to Better Define Optimal ECG Monitoring Duration

BACKGROUND

Premature ventricular contractions (PVCs) burden is a risk factor for heart failure and cardiovascular death in patients with structural heart disease. Long-term ECG monitoring can have a significant impact on PVC burden evaluation by further defining PVC distribution patterns.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to ascertain the optimal duration of ECG monitoring to characterize PVC burden and understand clinical characteristics associated with frequent PVCs and NSVT in a large US cohort.

METHODS

Commercial data (iRhythm's Zio patch) from June 2011 to April 2022 were analyzed. Inclusion criteria were age >18 years, PVC burden ≥5%, and wear period ≥13 days. PVC burden cutoffs were determined based on AHA/ACC/HRS guidelines for very frequent PVCs (10,000-20,000 over 24 hours). Patients were categorized by PVC densities : Low (<10%), Moderate (10% to <20%) and High (≥20%). Mean measured error was assessed at baseline and daily until wear period's end for overall PVC Burden and different PVC densities.

RESULTS

Analysis of 106,705 patch monitors revealed a study population with mean age of 70.6±14.6 years; 33.6% female. PVC burden was higher in males and those >65 years of age. PVC burden mean error decreased from 2.9% at 24 hours to 1.3% at 7 days, and 0.7% at 10 days. Number of VT episodes per patient increased with increasing PVC burden (p<0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Extending ambulatory monitoring beyond 24 hours to 7 days or more, improves accuracy of assessing PVC burden. VT frequency and duration vary based on initial PVC density, highlighting the need for prolonged cardiac monitoring.

A cost comparison of atrial fibrillation monitoring strategies after embolic stroke of undetermined source

Background

Detection of atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients with embolic stroke of undetermined source (ESUS) is challenging due to its paroxysmal nature. We sought to assess AF detection with an insertable cardiac monitor (ICM) and to perform cost analysis for various AF monitoring strategies post-ESUS We applied this cost analysis modeling to recently published Stroke AF and Per Diem trials.

Methods

Retrospective chart review was performed in consecutive hospitalized patients with ESUS who had ICM placed prior to discharge. Utilizing rate of ICM-detected AF and Medicare average payments, we modeled 30-day per-patient diagnostic costs of Immediate ICM insertion prior to discharge versus using a wearable monitor followed by ICM in patients with ESUS, from Medicare and patient out-of-pocket perspectives. Similar modeling strategy and cost analysis was applied to the Stroke AF and Per Diem trials.

Results

In 192 ESUS patients, AF detection increased with length of monitoring: 7.3 % at 14 days, 9.4 % at 30 days, and 17.2 % after a median ~ 6 months (189 days). Cost modeling predicted that immediate ICM leads to $3683-$4070 lower Medicare payments per-patient and $1425-$1503 lower patient out-of-pocket costs compared to Wearable-to-ICM strategies. Using similar modeling in the PER DIEM and STROKE AF trials, the additive costs of the 30-day ELR to ICM strategy ranged from $3786-$3946 from a payer perspective and $1472-$1503 from a patient out-of-pocket perspective.

Conclusions

Use of ICM immediately after ESUS is cost-saving compared to Wearable-to-ICM strategies, due to the cost and low diagnostic yield of short-term wearable cardiac monitoring.

2021 PACES Expert Consensus Statement on the Indications and Management of Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Devices in Pediatric Patients: Developed in collaboration with and endorsed by the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), the American College of Cardiology (ACC), the American Heart Association (AHA), and the Association for European Paediatric and Congenital Cardiology (AEPC) Endorsed by the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), the Indian Heart Rhythm Society (IHRS), and the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS)

In view of the increasing complexity of both cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) and patients in the current era, practice guidelines, by necessity, have become increasingly specific. This document is an expert consensus statement that has been developed to update and further delineate indications and management of CIEDs in pediatric patients, defined as ≤21 years of age, and is intended to focus primarily on the indications for CIEDs in the setting of specific disease categories. The document also highlights variations between previously published adult and pediatric CIED recommendations and provides rationale for underlying important differences. The document addresses some of the deterrents to CIED access in low- and middle-income countries and strategies to circumvent them. The document sections were divided up and drafted by the writing committee members according to their expertise. The recommendations represent the consensus opinion of the entire writing committee, graded by class of recommendation and level of evidence. Several questions addressed in this document either do not lend themselves to clinical trials or are rare disease entities, and in these instances recommendations are based on consensus expert opinion. Furthermore, specific recommendations, even when supported by substantial data, do not replace the need for clinical judgment and patient-specific decision-making. The recommendations were opened for public comment to Pediatric and Congenital Electrophysiology Society (PACES) members and underwent external review by the scientific and clinical document committee of the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), the science advisory and coordinating committee of the American Heart Association (AHA), the American College of Cardiology (ACC), and the Association for European Paediatric and Congenital Cardiology (AEPC). The document received endorsement by all the collaborators and the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), the Indian Heart Rhythm Society (IHRS), and the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS). This document is expected to provide support for clinicians and patients to allow for appropriate CIED use, appropriate CIED management, and appropriate CIED follow-up in pediatric patients.

2021 PACES Expert Consensus Statement on the Indications and Management of Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Devices in Pediatric Patients

In view of the increasing complexity of both cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) and patients in the current era, practice guidelines, by necessity, have become increasingly specific. This document is an expert consensus statement that has been developed to update and further delineate indications and management of CIEDs in pediatric patients, defined as ≤21 years of age, and is intended to focus primarily on the indications for CIEDs in the setting of specific disease categories. The document also highlights variations between previously published adult and pediatric CIED recommendations and provides rationale for underlying important differences. The document addresses some of the deterrents to CIED access in low- and middle-income countries and strategies to circumvent them. The document sections were divided up and drafted by the writing committee members according to their expertise. The recommendations represent the consensus opinion of the entire writing committee, graded by class of recommendation and level of evidence. Several questions addressed in this document either do not lend themselves to clinical trials or are rare disease entities, and in these instances recommendations are based on consenus expert opinion. Furthermore, specific recommendations, even when supported by substantial data, do not replace the need for clinical judgment and patient-specific decision-making. The recommendations were opened for public comment to Pediatric and Congenital Electrophysiology Society (PACES) members and underwent external review by the scientific and clinical document committee of the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), the science advisory and coordinating committee of the American Heart Association (AHA), the American College of Cardiology, (ACC) and the Association for European Paediatric and Congenital Cardiology (AEPC). The document received endorsement by all the collaborators and the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), the Indian Heart Rhythm Society (IHRS), and the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS). This document is expected to provide support for clinicians and patients to allow for appropriate CIED use, appropriate CIED management, and appropriate follow-up in pediatric patients.

2021 PACES Expert Consensus Statement on the Indications and Management of Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Devices in Pediatric Patients

In view of the increasing complexity of both cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) and patients in the current era, practice guidelines, by necessity, have become increasingly specific. This document is an expert consensus statement that has been developed to update and further delineate indications and management of CIEDs in pediatric patients, defined as ≤21 years of age, and is intended to focus primarily on the indications for CIEDs in the setting of specific disease categories. The document also highlights variations between previously published adult and pediatric CIED recommendations and provides rationale for underlying important differences. The document addresses some of the deterrents to CIED access in low- and middle-income countries and strategies to circumvent them. The document sections were divided up and drafted by the writing committee members according to their expertise. The recommendations represent the consensus opinion of the entire writing committee, graded by class of recommendation and level of evidence. Several questions addressed in this document either do not lend themselves to clinical trials or are rare disease entities, and in these instances recommendations are based on consensus expert opinion. Furthermore, specific recommendations, even when supported by substantial data, do not replace the need for clinical judgment and patient-specific decision-making. The recommendations were opened for public comment to Pediatric and Congenital Electrophysiology Society (PACES) members and underwent external review by the scientific and clinical document committee of the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), the science advisory and coordinating committee of the American Heart Association (AHA), the American College of Cardiology (ACC), and the Association for European Paediatric and Congenital Cardiology (AEPC). The document received endorsement by all the collaborators and the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), the Indian Heart Rhythm Society (IHRS), and the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS). This document is expected to provide support for clinicians and patients to allow for appropriate CIED use, appropriate CIED management, and appropriate CIED follow-up in pediatric patients.

2021 PACES Expert Consensus Statement on the Indications and Management of Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Devices in Pediatric Patients: Executive Summary

Guidelines for the implantation of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) have evolved since publication of the initial ACC/AHA pacemaker guidelines in 1984 [1]. CIEDs have evolved to include novel forms of cardiac pacing, the development of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) and the introduction of devices for long term monitoring of heart rhythm and other physiologic parameters. In view of the increasing complexity of both devices and patients, practice guidelines, by necessity, have become increasingly specific. In 2018, the ACC/AHA/HRS published Guidelines on the Evaluation and Management of Patients with Bradycardia and Cardiac Conduction Delay [2], which were specific recommendations for patients >18 years of age. This age-specific threshold was established in view of the differing indications for CIEDs in young patients as well as size-specific technology factors. Therefore, the following document was developed to update and further delineate indications for the use and management of CIEDs in pediatric patients, defined as ≤21 years of age, with recognition that there is often overlap in the care of patents between 18 and 21 years of age.

This document is an abbreviated expert consensus statement (ECS) intended to focus primarily on the indications for CIEDs in the setting of specific disease/diagnostic categories. This document will also provide guidance regarding the management of lead systems and follow-up evaluation for pediatric patients with CIEDs. The recommendations are presented in an abbreviated modular format, with each section including the complete table of recommendations along with a brief synopsis of supportive text and select references to provide some context for the recommendations. This document is not intended to provide an exhaustive discussion of the basis for each of the recommendations, which are further addressed in the comprehensive PACES-CIED document [3], with further data easily accessible in electronic searches or textbooks.

Device profile of the Coala Heart Monitor for remote monitoring of the heart rhythm: overview of its efficacy

Introduction: Several handheld thumb ECG devices for on-demand recording of heart rhythm have become available lately. These can be used both by health-care providers and purchased by laypersons for private use.Area covered: This profile describes the Coala Heart Monitor. This device differs from other handheld ECG monitors in three aspects: 1) it records both thumb and chest ECGs, 2) it uses both RR-dispersion and P-wave morphology for detecting atrial fibrillation, and 3) in synchronization with the chest ECG, it also records heart sounds presented as a phonocardiogram making measurement of systolic time intervals possible. The sensitivity and specificity for detecting atrial fibrillation are high. The use of systolic time interval in patients with heart failure has so far not been evaluated.Expert opinion: The increasing use of long-term prescribed and privately owned handheld ECG devices for on-demand recording of heart rhythm will most probably cause a paradigm shift in arrhythmia diagnostics. Coala Heart Monitor´s use of both chest and thumb recordings as well as analyzing both RR-dispersion and P-wave morphology may offer an advantage in diagnosing atrial fibrillation.

Ambulatory Arrhythmia Detection with ZIO® XT Patch in Pediatric Patients: A Comparison of Devices

Ambulatory electrocardiogram monitoring devices can be used for 24-72 h to detect arrhythmias. A new device, the ZIO® XT Patch has cardiac monitoring capabilities that can be utilized for up to 14 days. The purpose of this study is to describe duration of ZIO use by age, and to compare its time to arrhythmia detection with the Holter monitor in a pediatric population. A single-center, retrospective review of patients < 18 years of age who underwent clinical investigation with ZIO from October 2014 to February 2016 was performed. An age-matched cohort was utilized to compare ZIO to Holter monitor results. Demographic and diagnostic data, time to first arrhythmia, and arrhythmia burden were analyzed. A total of 406 ZIO were prescribed; median age 12.7 years and 50% male subjects. Median duration of ZIO monitoring significantly increased with age (p < 0.001). 499 Holter monitors were prescribed on a statistically different age group. Arrhythmia detection rates were similar between groups, 10% (n = 42) by ZIO and 9% (n = 45) by Holter (p = NS). The majority of arrhythmias (57%) detected by ZIO were after 24 h (p < 0.0001). All arrhythmias detected by Holter monitor occurred within 24 h (p < 0.0001), mean duration of wear was 24.1 h, range 0.5-48 h. The ZIO® XT Patch may be considered as an ambulatory ECG monitor to diagnose arrhythmia in pediatric patients of all ages. Increasing patient age resulted in increasing duration of ZIO monitoring. Majority of arrhythmias detected with ZIO were identified after 24 h, which would have been missed by other short-term monitors.

Clinical Approach to Patients with Palpitations

Palpitations are among the most common symptoms that prompt patients to consult a physician. In the diagnostic workup of patients with palpitations, the initial evaluation involves history, physical examination, and 12-lead electrocardiogram. These investigations yield a prognostic stratification of the patients, and a definitive suspected diagnosis of the cause of symptoms in a good proportion of cases. When the initial evaluation results are negative and the patient is suffering from heart disease, or if the palpitations are frequent or poorly tolerated and with a high probability of an arrhythmic origin, ambulatory electrocardiogram monitoring and/or electrophysiological study should be undertaken.

External prolonged electrocardiogram monitoring in unexplained syncope and palpitations: results of the SYNARR-Flash study

AIMS

SYNARR-Flash study (Monitoring of SYNcopes and/or sustained palpitations of suspected ARRhythmic origin) is an international, multicentre, observational, prospective trial designed to evaluate the role of external 4-week electrocardiogram (ECG) monitoring in clinical work-up of unexplained syncope and/or sustained palpitations of suspected arrhythmic origin.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Consecutive patients were enrolled within 1 month after unexplained syncope or palpitations (index event) after being discharged from emergency room or hospitalization without a conclusive diagnosis. A 4-week ECG monitoring was obtained by external high-capacity loop recorder (SpiderFlash-T(®), Sorin) storing patient-activated and auto-triggered tracings. Diagnostic monitorings included (i) conclusive events with reoccurrence of syncope or palpitation with concomitant ECG recording (with/without arrhythmias) and (ii) events with asymptomatic predefined significant arrhythmias (sustained supraventricular or ventricular tachycardia, advanced atrio-ventricular block, sinus bradycardia <30 b.p.m., pauses >6 s). SYNARR-Flash study enrolled 395 patients (57.7% females, 56.9 ± 18.7 years, 28.1% with syncope, and 71.9% with palpitations) from 10 European centres. For syncope, the 4-week diagnostic yield was 24.5%, and predictors of diagnostic events were early start of recording (0-15 vs. >15 days after index event) (OR 6.2, 95% CI 1.3-29.6, P = 0.021) and previous history of supraventricular arrhythmias (OR 3.6, 95% CI 1.4-9.7, P = 0.018). For palpitations, the 4-week diagnostic yield was 71.6% and predictors of diagnostic events were history of recurrent palpitations (P < 0.001) and early start of recording (P = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The 4-week external ECG monitoring can be considered as first-line tool in the diagnostic work-up of syncope and palpitation. Early recorder use, history of supraventricular arrhythmia, and frequent previous events increased the likelihood of diagnostic events during the 4-week external ECG monitoring.

Accurate, Automated Detection of Atrial Fibrillation in Ambulatory Recordings

A highly accurate, automated algorithm would facilitate cost-effective screening for asymptomatic atrial fibrillation. This study analyzed a new algorithm and compared it to existing techniques. The incremental benefit of each step in refinement of the algorithm was measured, and the algorithm was compared to other methods using the Physionet atrial fibrillation and normal sinus rhythm databases. When analyzing segments of 21 RR intervals or less, the algorithm had a significantly higher area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) than the other algorithms tested. At analysis segment sizes of up to 101 RR intervals, the algorithm continued to have a higher AUC than any of the other methods tested, although the difference from the second best other algorithm was no longer significant, with an AUC of 0.9992 with a 95% confidence interval (CI) of 0.9986-0.9998, vs. 0.9986 (CI 0.9978-0.9994). With identical per-subject sensitivity, per-subject specificity of the current algorithm was superior to the other tested algorithms even at 101 RR intervals, with no false positives (CI 0.0-0.8%) vs. 5.3% false positives for the second best algorithm (CI 3.4-7.9%). The described algorithm shows great promise for automated screening for atrial fibrillation by reducing false positives requiring manual review, while maintaining high sensitivity.

Role of extended external loop recorders for the diagnosis of unexplained syncope, pre-syncope, and sustained palpitations

AIMS

To assess the diagnostic yield of new external loop recorders (ELRs) in patients with history of syncope, pre-syncope, and sustained palpitations.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Since 2005, we have established a registry including patients who consecutively received ELR monitoring for unexplained syncope or pre-syncope/palpitations. The registry included 307 patients (61% females, age 58 ± 19 years, range 8-94 years) monitored by high-capacity memory ELR of two subsequent generations: SpiderFlash-A(®) (SFA(®), Sorin CRM), storing two-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) patient-activated recordings by loop-recording technique (191 patients, 54 patients with syncope, years 2005-09), and SpiderFlash-T(®) (SFT(®)), adding auto-trigger detection for pauses, bradycardia, and supraventricular/ventricular arrhythmias (116 patients, 38 patients with syncope, years 2009-12). All the patients previously underwent routine workup for syncope or palpitation, including one or more 24 h Holter, not conclusive for diagnosis. Mean monitoring duration was 24.1 ± 8.9 days. Among 215 patients with palpitations, a conclusive diagnosis was obtained in 184 patients (86% diagnostic yield for palpitation). Among 92 patients with syncope, a conclusive diagnosis was obtained in 16 patients (17% clinical diagnostic yield for syncope), with recording during syncope of significant arrhythmias in 9 patients, and sinus rhythm in 7 patients. Furthermore, asymptomatic arrhythmias were de novo detected in 12 patients (13%), mainly by auto-trigger detection, suggesting an arrhythmic origin of the syncope.

CONCLUSIONS

The diagnostic yield of ELR in patients with syncope, pre-syncope, or palpitation of unknown origin after routine workup was similar to implantable loop recorder (ILR) within the same timeframe, therefore, ELR could be considered for patients candidate for long-term ECG monitoring, stepwise before ILR.