Cardiac Event Monitors
Number: 0073
Table Of Contents
PolicyApplicable CPT / HCPCS / ICD-10 Codes
Background
References
Policy
Scope of Policy
This Clinical Policy Bulletin addresses cardiac event monitors.
-
Medical Necessity
Aetna considers the following cardiac event monitors medically necessary when applicable criteria are met:
-
External Intermittent Cardiac Event Monitors
External intermittent cardiac event monitors (i.e., external loop recorders) and external intermittent cardiac event monitors with real-time data transmission and analysis (e.g., eCardio eVolution) for any of the following conditions:
- To document a suspected arrhythmia in persons with a non-diagnostic Holter monitor or 48 hour telemetry (e.g., suspected atrial fibrillation as cause of cryptogenic stroke), or in persons whose symptoms occur infrequently (less frequently than daily) such that the arrhythmia is unlikely to be diagnosed by Holter monitoring (see CPB 0019 - Holter Monitors); or
- To document ST segment depression for suspected ischemia; or
- To document the benefit after initiating drug therapy for an arrhythmia; or
- To document the recurrence of an arrhythmia after discontinuation of drug therapy; or
- To document the results after an ablation procedure for arrhythmia; or
- To evaluate syncope and lightheadedness in persons with a non-diagnostic Holter monitor or 48 hour telemetry, or in persons whose symptoms occur infrequently (less frequently than daily) such that the arrhythmia is unlikely to be diagnosed by Holter monitoring.
Aetna considers external loop recorders experimental, investigational, or unproven for all other indications because their effectiveness for indications other than the ones listed above has not been established.
-
Mobile Cardiovascular Telemetry
Mobile cardiovascular telemetry (MCT) (e.g., CardioNet Mobile Cardiac Outpatient Telemetry [MCOT] Service; Cardiac Telecom and Health Monitoring Services of America’s Telemetry @ Home Service; Heartbreak ECAT [External Cardiac Ambulatory Telemetry] [Med net Healthcare Technologies], HEARTLink™ II ECG Arrhythmia Detector and Alarm System by Cardiac Telecom Corporation, LifeStar ACT by LifeWatch®, Inc., a subsidiary of Card Guard Scientific, SAVI® [Mediacom], Telemetry™ [Scott Care Cardiovascular Solutions], Trove® [Biomedical Systems] and Zio AT [iRhythm Technologies]) when either criteria in 1 or 2 is met:
-
Evaluation of recurrent unexplained episodes of presyncope, syncope, palpitations or dizziness when both of the following (a and b) are met:
- A cardiac arrhythmia is suspected as the cause of the symptoms; and
- Members have a non-diagnostic Holter monitor or 48 hour telemetry, or symptoms occur infrequently (less frequently than daily) such that the arrhythmia is unlikely to be diagnosed by Holter monitoring; or
-
For evaluation of members with suspected atrial fibrillation as a cause of cryptogenic stroke who have had a nondiagnostic Holter monitor or 48 hour telemetry.
Aetna considers MCT experimental, investigational, or unproven for other indications because its effectiveness for indications other than the ones listed above has not been established.
-
-
Implantable Loop Recorder
Implantable loop recorder (e.g., Reveal Insertable Loop Recorder by Medtronic, Inc.) for the following indications:
- A cardiac arrhythmia is suspected as the cause of the symptoms; and
- Either of the following criteria is met:
- For persons with heart failure, prior myocardial infarction or significant electrocardiogram (ECG) abnormalities (see appendix), noninvasive ambulatory monitoring, consisting of 30-day pre-symptom external loop recordings or MCT, fails to establish a definitive diagnosis; or
- For persons without heart failure, prior myocardial infarction or significant ECG abnormalities (see appendix), symptoms occur so infrequently and unpredictably (less frequently than once per month) that noninvasive ambulatory monitoring (MCT or external loop recorders) are unlikely to capture a diagnostic ECG; or
-
For evaluation of recurrent unexplained episodes of pre-syncope, syncope, "seizures", palpitations, or dizziness when both of the following criteria are met:
- A cardiac arrhythmia is suspected as the cause of the symptoms; and
- Members have a non-diagnostic Holter monitor or 48 hour telemetry, or symptoms occur infrequently (less frequently than daily) such that the arrhythmia is unlikely to be diagnosed by Holter monitoring; or
- For evaluation of members with suspected atrial fibrillation as a cause of cryoptogenic stroke who have had a non-diagnostic Holter monitor or 48 hour telemetry plus a non-diagnostic 30-day external mobile cardiovascular telemetry with electrocardiographic recording (mobile cardiac telemetry, MCT);
- Removal of implantable loop recorder (ILR) when it has reached end-of-life is considered medically necessary and can be approved; however, reimplantation of another ILR must meet one of the aforementioned medically necessary indications to be approved.
Aetna considers implantable loop recorders experimental, investigational, or unproven for all other indications including monitoring for residual atrial fibrillation burden because their effectiveness for indications other than the ones listed above has not been established.
Note: Depending on clinical presentation, the individual may have had a negative or non-diagnostic electrophysiological study (EPS); however, EPS is no longer considered a prerequisite to insertion of an implantable loop recorder.
-
Long-term External ECG Monitoring
Use of long-term (greater than 48 hours) external ECG monitoring by continuous rhythm recording and storage (e.g., Zio Patch) for the following indications:
- To evaluate syncope and lightheadedness in persons with a non-diagnostic Holter monitor or 48 hour telemetry, or in persons whose symptoms occur infrequently (less frequently than daily) such that the arrhythmia is unlikely to be diagnosed by Holter monitoring (see CPB 0019 - Holter Monitors); or
- To document an arrhythmia in persons with a non-diagnostic Holter monitor or 48 hour telemetry, or in persons whose symptoms occur infrequently (less frequently than daily) such that the arrhythmia is unlikely to be diagnosed by Holter monitoring.
-
-
Experimental, Investigational, or Unproven
The following are considered experimental, investigational, or unproven because their clinical value has not been established (not an all-inclusive list):
- Biotronik BioMonitor
- CardioPatch
- Kardia Mobile (previously known as AliveCore Mobile ECG, AliveCor Heart Monitor (iPhoneECG))
- Mobile patient management systems (e.g., BodyGuardian Remote Monitoring System, and iHEART)
- Self-monitoring ECG technologies or the ViSi Mobile Monitoring System
- Zio Patch for documentation of responses following initiation of drug therapy for arrhythmia.
-
Policy Limitations and Exclusions
Requests for cardiac event monitoring that do not meet the medical necessity criteria and requests for repeat studies within 1 year of a previous study are subject to medical necessity review.
-
Related CMS Coverage Guidance
This Clinical Policy Bulletin (CPB) supplements but does not replace, modify, or supersede existing Medicare Regulations or applicable National Coverage Determinations (NCDs) or Local Coverage Determinations (LCDs). The supplemental medical necessity criteria in this CPB further define those indications for services that are proven safe and effective where those indications are not fully established in applicable NCDs and LCDs. These supplemental medical necessity criteria are based upon evidence-based guidelines and clinical studies in the peer-reviewed published medical literature. The background section of this CPB includes an explanation of the rationale that supports adoption of the medical necessity criteria and a summary of evidence that was considered during the development of the CPB; the reference section includes a list of the sources of such evidence. While there is a possible risk of reduced or delayed care with any coverage criteria, Aetna believes that the benefits of these criteria – ensuring patients receive services that are appropriate, safe, and effective – substantially outweigh any clinical harms.
This CPB is being used to supplement Medicare criteria (LCD L39492, Ambulatory Electrocardiograph (AECG) Monitoring; LCD L39490, Ambulatory Electrocardiograph (AECG) Monitoring; NCD 20.15, Electrocardiographic Services) for implantable loop recorders (ILR) by reserving ILR use in persons with suspected cardiac arrhythmias to situations where noninvasive ambulatory monitoring has failed to establish a diagnosis. Available evidence shows that noninvasive ambulatory monitoring has a similar diagnostic yield as ILR (see, e.g., Medic, et al., 2021; Norlock, et al., 2024; Dhruva, et al., 2024; Pezawas, et al., 2023). Noninvasive ambulatory monitoring avoids the potential risks and harms of loop recorder implantation surgery (see, e.g., Diederichsen, et al., 2017; Vilcant, et al., 2023). We believe the clinical benefits of avoiding unnecessary and potentially harmful care outweighs any potential risks in delayed or reduced access to care.Code of Federal Regulations (CFR):
42 CFR 417; 42 CFR 422; 42 CFR 423.
Internet-Only Manual (IOM) Citations:
CMS IOM Publication 100-02, Medicare Benefit Policy Manual; CMS IOM Publication 100-03 Medicare National Coverage Determination Manual.
Medicare Coverage Determinations:
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Medicare Coverage Database [Internet]. Baltimore, MD: CMS; updated periodically. Available at: Medicare Coverage Center. Accessed November 7, 2023.
-
Related Policies
Background
Cardiac event monitors are small portable devices worn by a patient during normal activity for up to 30 days. The device has a recording system capable of storing several minutes of the individual's electrocardiogram (EKG) record. The patient can initiate EKG recording during a symptomatic period of arrhythmia. Cardiac event monitors have primarily been used to diagnose and evaluate cardiac arrhythmias. These monitors are particularly useful in obtaining a record of arrhythmia that would not be discovered on a routine EKG or an arrhythmia that is so infrequent that it is not detected during a 24-hour period by a Holter monitor.
Two different types of cardiac event monitors are available. Pre-symptom (looping memory) event monitors are equipped with electrodes attached to the chest, and are able to capture EKG rhythms before the cardiac event monitor is triggered (pre-symptom recording) (Healthwise, 2003). This feature is especially useful for people who lose consciousness when arrhythmias occur.
Post-symptom event monitors do not have chest electrodes (Healthwise, 2003). One type of post-symptom event monitor is worn on the wrist. When symptoms occur, the patient presses a button to trigger an EKG recording. Another type of post-symptom event monitor is a device that the patient carries within easy reach. When symptoms occur, the patient presses the electrodes on the device against their chest and presses a button to trigger the EKG recording.
Cardiac event monitors have been developed with automatic trigger capabilities, which are designed to automatically trigger an EKG recording when certain arrhythmias occur. Automated trigger cardiac event monitors are thought to be more sensitive, but less specific, than manually-triggered cardiac event monitors for significant cardiac arrhythmias. The simplest automatic trigger cardiac event monitors detect a single type of arrhythmia (e.g., atrial fibrillation), whereas more sophisticated monitors are capable of detecting several types of arrhythmias (e.g., PDSHEART, 2001; Instromedix, 2002; LifeWatch, 2004; Medicomp, 2005; eCardio Diagnostics, 2004). Automatic trigger cardiac event monitors may be especially useful for persons with asymptomatic arrhythmias, persons with syncope, and other persons (children, persons with intellectual disabilities) who can not reliably trigger the monitor when symptoms occur.
Cardiac event monitors may come with 24-hour remote monitoring. Usually, EKG results are transmitted over standard phone lines at the end of each day to an attended monitoring center, where a technician screens EKG results and notifies the patient’s physician of any significant abnormal results, based on predetermined notification criteria. Newer cardiac event monitors allow EKG results to be transmitted via e-mail over the internet (CardioPhonics, 2006). Some cardiac event monitors allow the patient to transmit EKG over standard telephone lines to the attended monitoring center immediately after symptoms occur (e.g., Versweyveld, 2001; Transmedex, 2001); other cardiac event monitors have been adapted to also allow immediate transmission of EKG results by cellular telephone (Philips, 2003; Schiller, 2004; CRY, 2004; HealthFrontier, 2004). If test results suggest a life-threatening emergency, monitoring center personnel may instruct the patient to go to the hospital or call an ambulance (Daja et al, 2001). The development of mobile technology may extend the use of cardiac event monitors from primarily diagnostic purposes to use primarily as an alarm system, to allow rapid intervention for the elderly and others at increased risk of cardiac events (Cox, 2003; Lloyds, 1999).
Standard cardiac event monitors come with 5 to 10 mins of memory. Cardiac event monitors with expanded memory capabilities have been developed, extending memory from approximately 20 to 30 mins (Instromedix, 2002; LifeWatch, 2002; Philips Medical Systems, 2003; PDSHeart, 2006) to as much as several hours (CardioPhonics, 2001; CardioPhonics, 2006). Extended memory is especially useful for automatic trigger cardiac event monitors, because the automatic trigger may not reliably discriminate between clinically significant arrhythmias (true positives) and EKG artifacts (false positives), such that a more limited memory would be filled with false positives.
Mobile cardiovascular telemetry (MCT) refers to non-invasive ambulatory cardiac event monitors with extended memory capable of continuous measurement of heart rate and rhythm over several days, with transmission of results to a remote monitoring center. Mobile cardiovascular telemetry is similar to standard cardiac telemetry used in the hospital setting.
CardioNet (Philadelphia, PA) has developed an MCT device with extended memory, automatic electrocardiogram (ECG) arrhythmia detector and alarm that is incorporated into a service that CardioNet has termed "Mobile Cardiac Outpatient Telemetry (MCOT)." The CardioNet device couples an automatic arrhythmia detector and cellular telephone transmission so that abnormal EKG waveforms can automatically be transmitted immediately to the remote monitoring center. The CardioNet device also has an extended memory characteristic of digital Holter monitors; the CardioNet device is capable of storing up to 96 hours of EKG waveforms. These ECG results are transmitted over standard telephone lines to the remote monitoring center at the end of each day. The physician receives both urgent and daily reports.
The manufacturer states that an important advantage of MCOT is that it is capable of detecting asymptomatic events and transmitting them immediately, even when the patient is away from home, allowing timely intervention should a life-threatening arrhythmia may occur. The CardioNet device’s extended memory allows the physician to examine any portion of the ECG waveform over an entire day. This extended memory ensures that it does not fill with EKG artifact (false positives) where the CardioNet’s automated ECG trigger is unable to reliably discriminate between artifact and significant arrhythmias (true positives). Potential uses of MCOT include diagnosis of previously unrecognized arrhythmias, ascertainment of cause of symptoms, and initiation of anti-arrhythmic drug therapy.
The CardioNet ambulatory ECG arrhythmia detector and alarm is cleared for marketing by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) based on a 510(k) premarket notification due to the FDA’s determination that the CardioNet device was substantially equivalent to devices that were currently on the market. The CardioNet device is not intended for monitoring patients with life-threatening arrhythmias (FDA, 2002).
There is reliable evidence that MCT is superior to patient-activated external loop recorders for diagnosing cardiac arrhythmias. Rothman et al (2007) reported on a randomized controlled clinical study comparing the diagnostic yield of MCT (CardioNet MCOT) to patient-activated external looping event monitors for symptoms thought to be due to an arrhythmia. Subjects with symptoms of syncope, pre-syncope, or severe palpitations who had a non-diagnostic 24-hour Holter monitor were randomized to MCT or an external loop recorder for up to 30 days. The primary endpoint was the confirmation or exclusion of a probable arrhythmic cause of their symptoms. A total of 266 patients who completed the monitoring period were analyzed. A diagnosis was made in 88 % of MCT subjects compared to 75 % of subjects with standard loop recorders (p = 0.008). The authors noted that cardiac arrhythmias without associated symptoms, but nonetheless capable of causing the index symptoms, were the major determining factor accounting for the difference in diagnostic yield of MCT and patient-activated external loop recorders.
There is also evidence to suggest that MCT is superior to auto-triggered external loop recorders for diagnosing symptoms thought to be due to a cardiac arrhythmia. Loop recorders with auto-trigger algorithms have been used to improve the diagnostic yield of event monitors (Strickberger et al, 2006). Rothman et al (2007) explained that their study of MCT was not designed to evaluate auto-triggered loop recorders, as this type of recorder was not available at all study sites. However, 2 of the 17 study sites used looping event recorders with an auto-trigger algorithm in all of their randomized patients (Rothman et al, 2007). A total of 49 subjects, or 16 % of the randomized population were from these 2 sites. In a post-hoc analysis of this subgroup of patients, a diagnosis was made in 88 % of MCT subjects compared to 46 % of patients with auto-triggered external loop recorders. One possible factor accounting for the poor diagnostic yield of the auto-trigger loop recorders employed in this study is that they may have had limited memory which quickly filled with artifact. In addition, the CardioNet MCOT device used in this study uses dual EKG leads, whereas the auto-trigger loop recorders may have used single leads.
One limitation of the study by Rothman et al (2007) was the lack of blinding of the investigators or subjects. The investigators sought to overcome this bias by having all monitoring strips and diagnoses evaluated by another electrophysiologist that was blinded to assignment. Another limitation of this study is that it did not explore the potential for work-up bias; the study did not describe whether any of the study subjects had ever had previous work-ups for cardiac arrhythmias that included evaluation with an external loop recorder.
A number of retrospective uncontrolled studies have been published that have described the experience with MCT. Olson et al (2007) retrospectively examined the records of 122 consecutive patients evaluated using MCT for palpitations (n = 76), pre-syncope/syncope (n = 17), or to monitor the effectiveness of anti-arrhythmic therapy (n = 29). The investigators reported on the proportion of patients with syncope/pre-syncope and palpitations whose diagnosis was established by MCT, and the proportion of patients monitored for medication titration who had dosage adjustments. This study is of similar design to an earlier study by Joshi et al (2005), which reported on the first 100 consecutive patients monitored by MCT.
Vasamreddy et al (2006) reported on a small (n = 19) prospective exploratory study examining the feasibility and results of using MCT for monitoring patients with atrial fibrillation before and after catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation. The authors concluded that MCT has potential utility for this use. The authors noted, however, that poor patient compliance with the study's MCT monitoring protocol represented an important limitation; only 10 of 19 subjects that were enrolled in the study completed the protocol, which required subjects to wear the MCT monitor 5 days per month for 6 months following the ablation.
Cardiac Telecom Corporation (Greensburg, PA) and Health Monitoring Services of America (Boca Raton, FL) have developed an MCT service called "Telemetry @ Home" that shares many similarities to the CardioNet Service. The Telemetry @ Home Service utilizes Cardiac Telecom’s Heartlink II Monitor, which has automatic arrhythmia detection and extended memory. The Heartlink II Monitor is able to wirelessly transmit abnormal EKG waveforms from a base station in the home to a remote monitoring center. Unlike the CardioNet Service, the Heartlink II Monitor does not have a built-in cellular telephone, so that the monitor does not automatically transmit abnormal waveforms when the patient is away from home out of range of the base station. The Heartlink II Monitor was cleared by the FDA based upon a 510(k) premarket notification.
Biowatch Medical (Columbia, SC) offers an MCT service called "Vital Signs Transmitter (VST)" that shares many similarities to other MCT services. According to the manufacturer, VST provides continuous, real-time, wireless ambulatory patient monitoring of 2 ECG channels plus respiration and temperature (Biowatch Medical. 2008; Gottipaty et al, 2008). The VST is a wireless belt-like device with non-adhesive electrodes that is worn around the patient's chest. The VST has an integrated microprocessor and wireless modem to automatically detect and transmit abnormal ECG waveforms. The monitor transmits ECG data via an integrated cellular telephone, when activated by the patient or by the monitor’s real-time analysis software, to a central monitoring station, where the tracing is analyzed by technicians. The technicians can then notify the patient’s physician of any serious arrhythmias, transmit ECG tracings, and provide patient intervention if required. The monitoring center also provides daily reports that can be accessed by the patient's physician over the Internet. According to the manufacturer, a new VST device is being developed that will also provide data on the patient's oxygen saturation, blood pressure, and weight (Biowatch Medical, 2008). The VST was cleared by the FDA based on a 510(k) premarket notification.
Lifewatch Inc. (Rosemount, IL) has developed an MCT service called LifeStar Ambulatory Cardiac Telemetry (ACT). The LifeStar ACT is similar to the CardioNet MCOT in that it has built-in cellular transmission so that results can be transmitted away from home. The LifeStar ACT cardiac monitoring system utilizes an auto-trigger algorithm to detect atrial fibrillation, tachycardia, bradycardia, and pauses, and requires no patient intervention to capture or transmit an arrhythmia when it occurs. The device can also be manually triggered by the patient during symptoms. Upon arrhythmia detection or manual activation, the LifeStar ACT transmits data via the integrated cellular telephone to LifeWatch, where the ECG is analyzed. The LifeStar ACT has a longer continuous memory loop that can be retrieved as needed by the monitoring center. The LifeWatch ACT was cleared by the FDA based on a 510(k) premarket notification.
A systematic evidence review of remote cardiac monitoring prepared for the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality by the ECRI Evidence-based Practice Center (AHRQ, 2007) reached the following conclusions about the evidence for MCT: "This study [by Rothman et al, 2007] was a high-quality multicenter study with few limitations. Therefore, the evidence is sufficient to conclude that real-time continuous attended monitoring leads to change in disease management in significantly more patients than do certain ELRs [external loop recorders]. However, because this is a single multicenter study, the strength of evidence supporting this conclusion is weak. Also, the conclusion may not be applicable to ELRs with automatic event activation, as this model was underrepresented in the randomized controlled trial (RCT) [by Rothman et al, 2007] (only 16 % of patients used this model)."
Sposato, et al. (2015) conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the proportion of patients newly diagnosed with atrial fibrillation after four sequential phases of cardiac monitoring after a stroke or transient ischemic attack. The authors searched PubMed, Embase, and Scopus from 1980 to June 30, 2014. They included studies that provided the number of patients with ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack who were newly diagnosed with atrial fibrillation. The authors stratified cardiac monitoring methods into four sequential phases of screening: phase 1 (emergency room) consisted of admission electrocardiogram (ECG); phase 2 (in hospital) comprised serial ECG, continuous inpatient ECG monitoring, continuous inpatient cardiac telemetry, and in-hospital Holter monitoring; phase 3 (first ambulatory period) consisted of ambulatory Holter; and phase 4 (second ambulatory period) consisted of mobile cardiac outpatient telemetry, external loop recording, and implantable loop recording. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients newly diagnosed with atrial fibrillation for each method and each phase, and for the sequential combination of phases. For each method and each phase, we estimated the summary proportion of patients diagnosed with post-stroke atrial fibrillation using random-effects meta-analyses. The systematic review returned 28,290 studies, of which 50 studies (comprising 11,658 patients) met the criteria for inclusion in the meta-analyses. The summary proportion of patients diagnosed with post-stroke atrial fibrillation was 7·7% (95% CI 5·0-10·8) in phase 1, 5·1% (3·8-6·5) in phase 2, 10·7% (5·6-17·2) in phase 3, and 16·9% (13·0-21·2) in phase 4. The overall atrial fibrillation detection yield after all phases of sequential cardiac monitoring was 23·7% (95% CI 17·2-31·0). The authors found that, by sequentially combining cardiac monitoring methods, atrial fibrillation might be newly detected in nearly a quarter of patients with stroke or transient ischemic attack. The authors stated that the overall proportion of patients with stroke who are known to have atrial fibrillation seemed to be higher than previously estimated. Accordingly, more patients could be treated with oral anticoagulants and more stroke recurrences prevented.
Guidelines from the American Heart Association and the American Stroke Association (Kleindorfer et al, 2021) state that, "In patients with cryptogenic stroke who do not have a contraindication to anticoagulation, long-term rhythm monitoring with mobile cardiac outpatient telemetry, an implantable loop recorder or other approach is reasonable to detect intermittent AF." Guidelines from the European Society of Cardiology (Hindricks et al, 2020) state: "In selected stroke patients without previous known AF, additional monitoring using long-term non-invasive ECG monitors or insertable cardiac monitors should be considered to detect AF."
Medic, et al. (2021) compared costs and outcomes of mobile cardiac outpatient telemetry (MCOT) patch followed by implantable loop recorder (ILR) compared to ILR alone in cryptogenic stroke patients from the US health-care payors' perspective. A quantitative decision tree cost-minimization simulation model was developed. Eligible patients were 18 years of age or older and were diagnosed with having a cryptogenic stroke, without previously documented atrial fibrillation (AF). All patients were assigned first to one then to the alternative monitoring strategies. Following AF detection, patients were initiated on oral anticoagulants (OAC). The model assessed direct costs for one year attributed to MCOT patch followed by ILR or ILR alone using a monitoring duration of 30 days post-cryptogenic stroke. In the base case modeling, the MCOT patch arm detected 4.6 more patients with AFs compared to the ILR alone arm in a cohort of 1000 patients (209 vs 45 patients with detected AFs, respectively). Using MCOT patch followed by ILR in half of the patients initially undiagnosed with AF leads to significant cost savings of US$4,083,214 compared to ILR alone in a cohort of 1000 patients. Cost per patient with detected AF was significantly lower in the MCOT patch arm $29,598 vs $228,507 in the ILR only arm. The authors concluded that an initial strategy of 30-day electrocardiogram (ECG) monitoring with MCOT patch in diagnosis of AF in cryptogenic stroke patients realizes significant cost-savings compared to proceeding directly to ILR only. Almost 8 times lower costs were achieved with improved detection rates and reduction of secondary stroke risk due to new anticoagulant use in subjects with MCOT patch detected AF. These results strengthen emerging recommendations for prolonged ECG monitoring in secondary stroke prevention.
The Zio Patch (iRhythm Technologies, Inc., San Francisco, CA) is a recording device that provides continuous single-lead ECG data for up to 14 days (Mittal et al, 2011). The Zio Patch uses a patch that is placed on the left pectoral region. The patch does not require patient activation. However, a button on the patch can be pressed by the patient to mark a symptomatic episode. At the end of the recording period, the patient mails back the recorder in a prepaid envelope to a central monitoring station(Mittal et al, 2011). A report is provided to the ordering physician within a few days. The manufacturer states that it is indicated for use in patients who may be asymptomatic or who may suffer from transient symptoms (e.g., anxiety, dizziness, fatigue, light-headedness, palpitations, pre-syncope, shortness of breath, and syncope). The Zio ECG Utilization Service (ZEUS) system is a comprehensive system that processes and analyzes received ECG data captured by long-duration, single-lead, continuous recording diagnostic devices (e.g., the Zio Patch and Zio Event Card). However, the clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness of extended cardiac monitoring by means of the Zito Patch, the ZEUS system and similar devices have not been shown to be superior to other available approaches. Mittal et al (2011) noted that "clinical experience [with the Zio Patch] is currently lacking". The author stated that it is not known how well patients can tolerate the patch for 1 to 2 weeks, and whether the patch can yield a high-quality artifact-free ECG recording through the entire recording period. The authors stated, furthermore, that "the clinical implications of not having access to ECG information within the recording period need to be determined".
Rosenberg et al (2013) compared the Zio Patch, a single-use, non-invasive waterproof long-term continuous monitoring patch, with a 24-hour Holter monitor in 74 consecutive patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF) referred for Holter monitoring for detection of arrhythmias. The Zio Patch was well-tolerated, with a mean monitoring period of 10.8 +/- 2.8 days (range of 4 to 14 days). Over a 24-hour period, there was excellent agreement between the Zio Patch and Holter for identifying AF events and estimating AF burden. Although there was no difference in AF burden estimated by the Zio Patch and the Holter monitor, AF events were identified in 18 additional individuals, and the documented pattern of AF (persistent or paroxysmal) changed in 21 patients after Zio Patch monitoring. Other clinically relevant cardiac events recorded on the Zio Patch after the first 24 hours of monitoring, including symptomatic ventricular pauses, prompted referrals for pacemaker placement or changes in medications. As a result of the findings from the Zio Patch, 28.4 % of patients had a change in their clinical management. The authors concluded that the Zio Patch was well-tolerated, and allowed significantly longer continuous monitoring than a Holter, resulting in an improvement in clinical accuracy, the detection of potentially malignant arrhythmias, and a meaningful change in clinical management. Moreover, they stated that further studies are necessary to examine the long-term impact of the use of the Zio Patch in AF management.
Turakhia and colleagues (2013) noted that although extending the duration of ambulatory electrocardiographic monitoring beyond 24 to 48 hours can improve the detection of arrhythmias, lead-based (Holter) monitors might be limited by patient compliance and other factors. These researchers, therefore, evaluated compliance, analyzable signal time, interval to arrhythmia detection, and diagnostic yield of the Zio Patch, a novel leadless, electrocardiographic monitoring device in 26,751 consecutive patients. The mean wear time was 7.6 ± 3.6 days, and the median analyzable time was 99 % of the total wear time. Among the patients with detected arrhythmias (60.3 % of all patients), 29.9 % had their first arrhythmia and 51.1 % had their first symptom-triggered arrhythmia occur after the initial 48-hour period. Compared with the first 48 hours of monitoring, the overall diagnostic yield was greater when data from the entire Zio Patch wear duration were included for any arrhythmia (62.2 % versus 43.9 %, p < 0.0001) and for any symptomatic arrhythmia (9.7 % versus 4.4 %, p < 0.0001). For paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF), the mean interval to the first detection of AF was inversely proportional to the total AF burden, with an increasing proportion occurring after 48 hours (11.2 %, 10.5 %, 20.8 %, and 38.0 % for an AF burden of 51 % to 75 %, 26 % to 50 %, 1 % to 25 %, and less than 1 %, respectively). The authors concluded that extended monitoring with the Zio Patch for less than or equal to 14 days is feasible, with high patient compliance, a high analyzable signal time, and an incremental diagnostic yield beyond 48 hours for all arrhythmia types. These findings could have significant implications for device selection, monitoring duration, and care pathways for arrhythmia evaluation and AF surveillance.
Higgins (2013) stated that a number of substantial improvements to the 60-year old concept of the Holter monitor have recently been developed. One promising advance is the Zio Patch (iRhythm Technologies, Inc., CA), a small 2 × 5-inch patch, which can continuously record up to 14 days of a single ECG channel of cardiac rhythm without the need for removal during exercise, sleeping or bathing. Its ease-of-use, which enables optimal long-term monitoring, has been established in the ambulatory setting, although some insurance carriers have been reluctant to reimburse appropriately for this advance, an issue characteristic of other heart monitors, treated as 'loss-leaders'. In this article, in addition to discussing possible reasons for this reluctance, a novel model for direct-to-consumer marketing of heart monitoring, outside of the traditional health insurance reimbursement model, is also presented. Additional current and future advances in heart rhythm recording are also discussed. Such potentially revolutionary opportunities have only recently become possible as a result of technologic advances.
The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) (2004) has determined that an ambulatory cardiac monitoring device or service is eligible for Medicare coverage only if it can be placed into the following categories:
-
Patient/Event Activated Intermittent Recorders
-
Pre-symptom memory loop (insertable or non-insertable)
- Attended;
- Non-attended
-
Post-symptom (no memory loop)
-
Non-attended
-
-
-
Non-Activated Continuous Recorders
- Dynamic electrocardiography
- Non-attended.
The CMS has determined that an ambulatory cardiac monitoring device or service is not covered if it does not fit into these categories. The CMS noted that it may create new ambulatory electrocardiographic monitoring device categories "if published, peer-reviewed clinical studies demonstrate evidence of improved clinical utility, or equal utility with additional advantage to the patient, as indicated by improved patient management and/or improved health outcomes in the Medicare population (such as superior ability to detect serious or life-threatening arrhythmias) as compared to devices or services in the currently described categories".
Hanke et al (2009) noted that 24-hr Holter monitoring (24HM) is commonly used to assess cardiac rhythm after surgical therapy of atrial fibrillation (AF). However, this "snapshot" documentation leaves a considerable diagnostic window and only stores short-time cardiac rhythm episodes. To improve accuracy of rhythm surveillance after surgical ablation therapy and to compare continuous heart rhythm surveillance versus 24HM follow-up intra-individually, these investigators evaluated a novel implantable continuous cardiac rhythm monitoring (IMD) device (Reveal XT 9525, Medtronic Inc., Minneapolis, MN). A total of 45 cardiac surgical patients (male 37, mean age of 69.7+/-9.2 years) with a mean pre-operative AF duration of 38 +/- 45 m were treated with either left atrial epicardial high-intensity focus ultrasound ablation (n = 33) or endocardial cryo-thermy (n = 12) in case of concomitant mitral valve surgery. Rhythm control readings were derived simultaneously from 24HM and IMD at 3-month intervals with a total recording of 2,021 hours for 24HM and 220,766 hours for IMD. Mean follow-up was 8.30 +/- 3.97 m (range of 0 to 12 m). Mean post-operative AF burden (time period spent in AF) as indicated by IMD was 37 +/- 43 %. Sinus rhythm was documented in 53 readings of 24HM, but in only 34 of these instances by the IMD in the time period before 24HM readings (64 %, p < 0.0001), reflecting a 24HM sensitivity of 0.60 and a negative-predictive value (NPV) of 0.64 for detecting AF recurrence. The authors concluded that for "real-life" cardiac rhythm documentation, continuous heart rhythm surveillance instead of any conventional 24HM follow-up strategy is necessary. This is particularly important for further judgment of ablation techniques, devices as well as anti-coagulation and anti-arrhythmic therapy.
Hindricks et al (2010) quantified the performance of the first implantable leadless cardiac monitor (ICM) with dedicated AF detection capabilities. Patients (n = 247) with an implanted ICM who were likely to present with paroxysmal AF were selected. A special Holter device stored 46 hours of subcutaneously recorded ECG, ICM markers, and 2 surface ECG leads. The ICM automatic arrhythmia classification was compared with the core laboratory classification of the surface ECG. Of the 206 analyzable Holter recordings collected, 76 (37 %) contained at least 1 episode of core laboratory classified AF. The sensitivity, specificity, positive-predictive value, and NPV for identifying patients with any AF were 96.1 %, 85.4 %, 79.3 %, and 97.4 %, respectively. The AF burden measured with the ICM was very well-correlated with the reference value derived from the Holter (Pearson coefficient = 0.97). The overall accuracy of the ICM for detecting AF was 98.5 %. The authors concluded that in this ICM validation study, the dedicated AF detection algorithm reliably detected the presence or absence of AF and the AF burden was accurately quantified.
Ip et al (2012) examined the outcomes of surgical ablation and post-ablation AF surveillance with a leadless ICM. A total of 45 patients with drug-refractory paroxysmal or persistent AF underwent video-assisted epicardial ablation using a bipolar radiofrequency clamp. An ICM was implanted subcutaneously post-ablation to assess AF recurrence. AF recurrence was defined as greater than or equal to 1 AF episode with a duration of greater than or equal to 30 s. The device-stored data were down-loaded weekly over the internet, and all transmitted events were reviewed. A total of 1,220 AF automatic and patient-activated AF episodes were analyzed over a follow-up of 12 +/- 3 months. Of these episodes, 46 % were asymptomatic. Furthermore, only 66 % of the patient-activated episodes were AF. Recurrence of AF was highest in first 4 weeks and substantially decreased 6 months post-ablation. The overall freedom from AF recurrence at the end of follow-up was 60 %. When 48-hr Holter recordings were compared with the device-stored episodes, the sensitivity of the device to detect AF was 98 %, and the specificity was 71 %. The authors concluded that ICM provides an objective measure of AF ablation success and may be useful in making clinical decisions.
The AliveCor Heart Monitor (AliveCor, Inc., San Francisco, CA) is an iPhone-enabled heart monitor that has been known as the "iPhoneECG". It is in a thin case with 2 electrodes that snaps onto the back of an iPhone 4 or 5. To obtain an electrocardiogram (ECG) recording, the patient just holds the device while pressing fingers from each hand onto the electrodes. The device can also obtain an ECG from the patient's chest. The AliveCor ECG iPhone application can record rhythm strips of any duration to be stored on the phone and uploaded securely for later analysis, sharing, or printing through AliveCor's website. The AliveCor Heart Monitor will operate for about 100 hours on a 3.0 V coin cell battery.
However, there is currently a lack of evidence to support the clinical value of the AliveCor Heart Monitor. Prospective, randomized controlled studies are needed to ascertain how the use of the AliveCor Heart Monitor would improve clinical outcomes in patients with cardiovascular diseases/disorders.
According to the company, research studies are currently in progress to explore effectiveness of the AliveCor Heart Monitor in the following areas:
- Expanding physician assistant/registered nurse data collection abilities
- Long-term atrial fibrillation remote monitoring
- Medication-induced QT-duration response monitoring
- Multi-specialty care integration
- Post-ablation follow-up
- Preventive pediatric care
- Stress induced rhythm morphology changes.
The implantable loop recorder (ILR) is a subcutaneous, single-lead, ECG monitoring device used for diagnosis in patients with recurrent unexplained episodes of palpitations or syncope. The 2009 ESC syncope guidelines include the following recommendations for use of ILRs:
- ILR is indicated for early phase evaluation in patients with recurrent syncope of uncertain origin, absence of high-risk criteria (see appendix), and a high likelihood of recurrence within the battery life of the device.
- An ILR is recommended in patients who have high-risk features (see appendix) in whom a comprehensive evaluation did not demonstrate a cause of syncope or lead to a specific treatment.
- An ILR should be considered to assess the contribution of bradycardia before embarking on cardiac pacing in patients with suspected or certain reflex syncope with frequent or traumatic syncopal episodes.
Ziegler et al (2012) stated that the detection of undiagnosed atrial tachycardia/atrial fibrillation (AT/AF) among patients with stroke risk factors could be useful for primary stroke prevention. These researchers analyzed newly detected AT/AF (NDAF) using continuous monitoring in patients with stroke risk factors but without previous stroke or evidence of AT/AF. Newly detected AT/AF (AT/AF greater than 5 mins on any day) was determined in patients with implantable cardiac rhythm devices and greater than or equal to 1 stroke risk factors (congestive heart failure, hypertension, age greater than or equal to 75 years, or diabetes). All devices were capable of continuously monitoring the daily cumulative time in AT/AF. Of 1,368 eligible patients, NDAF was identified in 416 (30%) during a follow-up of 1.1 ± 0.7 years and was unrelated to the CHADS2 score (clinical prediction rules for estimating the risk of stroke in patients with non-rheumatic AF) (congestive heart failure, hypertension [blood pressure consistently greater than 140/90 mm Hg or hypertension treated with medication], age greater than or equal to 75 years, diabetes mellitus, previous stroke or transient ischemic attack). The presence of AT/AF greater than 6 hours on greater than or equal to 1 day increased significantly with increased CHADS2 scores and was present in 158 (54 %) of 294 patients with NDAF and a CHADS2 score of greater than or equal to 2. Newly detected AT/AF was sporadic, and 78 % of patients with a CHADS2 score of greater than or equal to 2 with NDAF experienced AT/AF on less than 10 % of the follow-up days. The median interval to NDAF detection in these higher risk patients was 72 days (interquartile range: 13 to 177). The authors concluded that continuous monitoring identified NDAF in 30 % of patients with stroke risk factors. In patients with NDAF, AT/AF occurred sporadically, high-lighting the difficulty in detecting paroxysmal AT/AF using traditional monitoring methods. However, AT/AF also persisted for greater than 6 hours on greater than or equal to 1 day in most patients with NDAF and multiple stroke risk factors. Whether patients with CHADS2 risk factors but without a history of AF might benefit from implantable monitors for the selection and administration of anti-coagulation for primary stroke prevention merits additional investigation.
Cotter et al (2013) examined the usefulness of ILR with improved AF detection capability (Reveal XT) and the factors associated with AF in the setting of unexplained stroke. A cohort study was reported of 51 patients in whom ILRs were implanted for the investigation of ischemic stroke for which no cause had been found (cryptogenic) following appropriate vascular and cardiac imaging and at least 24 hours of cardiac rhythm monitoring. Age of patients ranged from 17 to 73 (median of 52) years. Of the 30 patients with a shunt investigation, 22 had a patent foramen ovale (73.3 %; 95 % CI: 56.5 % to 90.1 %). Atrial fibrillation was identified in 13 (25.5 %; 95 % confidence intervals [CI]: 13.1 % to 37.9 %) cases. Atrial fibrillation was associated with increasing age (p = 0.018), inter-atrial conduction block (p = 0.02), left atrial volume (p = 0.025), and the occurrence of atrial premature contractions on preceding external monitoring (p = 0.004). The median (range) of monitoring prior to AF detection was 48 (0 to 154) days. The authors concluded that in patients with unexplained stroke, AF was detected by ILR in 25.5 %. Predictors of AF were identified, which may help to target investigations. They stated that ILRs may have a central role in the future in the investigation of patients with unexplained stroke.
- in 11 (55 %) patients, stored ECGs confirmed AF at 62 ± 38 days after ablation;
- in 4 (20 %) patients, although the ILR suggested AF, episodes actually represented sinus rhythm with frequent premature atrial contractions and/or over-sensing;
- in 5 (25 %) patients, no AF was observed. Episodes less than 4 hours were associated with low AF burden (less than 1 %) or false detections.
The 1-year freedom from any episode of AF greater than 4 and greater than 12 hours was 52 % and 83 %, respectively. The authors concluded that these findings showed that many (but not all) patients develop new AF within the first 4 months of flutter ablation. Since external ECG monitoring for this duration is impractical, the ILR has an important role for long-term AF surveillance. They stated that future research should be directed toward identifying the relationship between duration/burden of AF and stroke and improving existing ILR technology.
An UpToDate review on "Cryptogenic stroke" (Prabhakaran and Elkind, 2013) states that "Paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF), if transient, infrequent, and largely asymptomatic, may be undetected on standard cardiac monitoring such as continuous telemetry and 24 or 48-hour Holter monitors. In a study that assessed longer-term monitoring using an outpatient telemetry system for a median duration of 21 days among 56 patients with cryptogenic stroke, paroxysmal AF was detected in 13 patients (23 %). The median time to detection of AF was 7 days. The majority of patients with paroxysmal AF were asymptomatic during the fleeting episodes. Other reports have noted that the detection rate of paroxysmal AF can be increased with longer duration of cardiac monitoring, and that precursors of AF such as frequent premature atrial contractions may predict those harboring paroxysmal AF. The optimal monitoring method – continuous telemetry, ambulatory electrocardiography, serial electrocardiography, trans-telephonic ECG monitoring, or implantable loop recorders – is uncertain, though longer durations of monitoring are likely to obtain the highest diagnostic yield".
Sanna et al (2014) conducted a randomized, controlled study of 441 patients (CRYSTAL AF trial) to assess whether long-term monitoring with an insertable cardiac monitor (ICM) is more effective than conventional follow-up (control) for detecting atrial fibrillation in patients with cryptogenic stroke. Patients 40 years of age or older with no evidence of atrial fibrillation during at least 24 hours of ECG monitoring underwent randomization within 90 days after the index event. The primary end-point was the time to first detection of atrial fibrillation (lasting greater than 30 seconds) within 6 months. Among the secondary end-points was the time to first detection of atrial fibrillation within 12 months. Data were analyzed according to the intention-to-treat principle. By 6 months, atrial fibrillation had been detected in 8.9 % of patients in the ICM group (19 patients) versus 1.4 % of patients in the control group (3 patients) (hazard ratio [HR], 6.4; 95 % confidence interval [CI]: 1.9 to 21.7; p < 0.001). By 12 months, atrial fibrillation had been detected in 12.4 % of patients in the ICM group (29 patients) versus 2.0 % of patients in the control group (4 patients) (HR, 7.3; 95 % CI, 2.6 to 20.8; p < 0.001). The authors concluded that ECG monitoring with an ICM was superior to conventional follow-up for detecting atrial fibrillation after cryptogenic stroke.
In the EMBRACE trial, Gladstone et al (2014) randomly assigned 572 patients 55 years of age or older, without known atrial fibrillation, who had had a cryptogenic ischemic stroke or TIA within the previous 6 months (cause undetermined after standard tests, including 24-hour electrocardiography [ECG]), to undergo additional noninvasive ambulatory ECG monitoring with either a 30-day event-triggered recorder (intervention group) or a conventional 24-hour monitor (control group). The primary outcome was newly detected atrial fibrillation lasting 30 seconds or longer within 90 days after randomization. Secondary outcomes included episodes of atrial fibrillation lasting 2.5 minutes or longer and anticoagulation status at 90 days. Atrial fibrillation lasting 30 seconds or longer was detected in 45 of 280 patients (16.1 %) in the intervention group, as compared with 9 of 277 (3.2 %) in the control group (absolute difference, 12.9 percentage points; 95 % [CI: 8.0 to 17.6; p < 0.001; number needed to screen, 8). Atrial fibrillation lasting 2.5 minutes or longer was present in 28 of 284 patients (9.9 %) in the intervention group, as compared with 7 of 277 (2.5 %) in the control group (absolute difference, 7.4 percentage points; 95 % CI: 3.4 to 11.3; p < 0.001). By 90 days, oral anti-coagulant therapy had been prescribed for more patients in the intervention group than in the control group (52 of 280 patients [18.6 %] versus 31 of 279 [11.1 %]; absolute difference, 7.5 percentage points; 95 % CI: 1.6 to 13.3; p = 0.01). The investigators concluded that, among patients with a recent cryptogenic stroke or TIA who were 55 years of age or older, paroxysmal atrial fibrillation was common. Non-invasive ambulatory ECG monitoring for a target of 30 days significantly improved the detection of atrial fibrillation by a factor of more than 5 and nearly doubled the rate of anti-coagulant treatment, as compared with the standard practice of short-duration ECG monitoring.
An accompanying editorial stated that at least 2 relevant questions remain unanswered (Kamel, 2014). "First, subclinical atrial fibrillation is clearly not the whole answer to the riddle of cryptogenic stroke. Even after long-term follow-up involving 3 years of continuous rhythm monitoring in the CRYSTAL AF trial, less than one third of the patients had evidence of atrial fibrillation. We need to identify additional sources of embolism and better markers of known stroke mechanisms such as nonobstructive atherosclerosis. Second, we need more evidence to guide therapy for subclinical atrial fibrillation. Randomized trials of antithrombotic therapy have involved patients with a sufficient burden of atrial fibrillation to allow its recognition without prolonged rhythm monitoring. Whether the proven benefit of anticoagulation in this population extends to patients with subclinical atrial fibrillation must be answered in future trials."
The editorialist (Kamel, 2014) continued: "In the meantime, how should the results of the CRYSTAL AF and EMBRACE trials change practice? The weight of current evidence suggests that subclinical atrial fibrillation is a modifiable risk factor for stroke recurrence, and its presence should be thoroughly ruled out in this high-risk population. Therefore, most patients with cryptogenic stroke or transient ischemic attack should undergo at least several weeks of rhythm monitoring. Relatively inexpensive external loop recorders, such as those used in the EMBRACE trial, will probably be cost-effective; the value of more expensive implantable loop recorders is less clear. Furthermore, the detection of subclinical atrial fibrillation in these patients should generally prompt a switch from antiplatelet to anticoagulant therapy. At the least, patients should be followed closely in order to detect progression to clinically apparent atrial fibrillation, in which case the evidence unambiguously supports anticoagulant therapy for the secondary prevention of stroke."
The BIOTRONIK BioMonitor (BIOTRONIK Home Monitoring) is an implantable cardiac monitor. It differs from other implantable devices as it does not have leads going to the heart. The BioMonitor is suggested to continuously record ECG data when an arrhythmia occurs. An external magnet can also be positioned over the implanted device to record ECG data when symptoms are experienced.
The mobile patient management system is a monitoring device designed for detection of cardiac arrhythmias. These devices differ from other ECG devices as they may also monitor activity, body fluid status, body temperature posture and respiratory rate. An example of such a device is the BodyGuardian Remote Monitoring System.
The ViSi Mobile Monitoring System is intended for single or multi-parameter vital sign monitoring of adults. It measures ECG (three or five leads), heart rate, respiration rate, noninvasive blood pressure, noninvasive monitoring of oxygen saturation (SpO2), pulse rate and skin temperature.
Self-monitoring ECG technologies, which may be obtained without physician prescription include, but are not limited to, software applications for smartphones and other electronic devices suggested to monitor ECG, heart rate, oxygen saturation, respiratory rate, etc. In addition, there are devices (wireless or non-wireless) such as the Alive Heart and Activity Monitor (Alive Technologies), a wireless health monitoring system, purported to monitor ECG, heart rate and other non-cardiac related indications. These devices may be attached to a finger, ear lobe or other body part.
Biotronik BioMonitor
Ciconte and colleagues (2017) noted that continuous rhythm monitoring is valuable for adequate AF management in the clinical setting. Subcutaneous leadless ICMs yield an improved AF detection, overcoming the intrinsic limitations of the currently available external recording systems, thus resulting in a more accurate patient treatment. These investigators evaluated the detection performance of a novel 3-vector ICM device equipped with a dedicated AF algorithm. A total of 66 patients (86.4 % males; mean age of 60.4 ± 9.4 years) at risk to present AF episodes, having undergone the novel ICM implant (BioMonitor, Biotronik SE&Co. KG, Berlin, Germany), were enrolled. External 48-hour ECG Holter was performed 4 weeks after the device implantation. The automatic ICM AF classification was compared with the manual Holter arrhythmia recordings. Of the overall study population, 63/66 (95.5 %) had analyzable Holter data, 39/63 (62 %) showed at least 1 true AF episode. All these patients had at least 1 AF episode stored in the ICM. On Holter monitoring, 24/63 (38 %) patients did not show AF episodes, in 16 of them (16/24, 67 %), the ICM confirmed the absence of AF. The AF detection sensitivity and positive predictive value (PPV) for episodes' analysis were 95.4 and 76.3 %, respectively. The authors concluded that continuous monitoring using this novel device, equipped with a dedicated detection algorithm, yielded an accurate and reliable detection of AF episodes. They stated that the ICM is a promising tool for tailoring individual AF patient management; further long-term prospective studies are needed to confirm these encouraging results.
Lau et al (2022) noted that ICMs are increasingly used for cardiac rhythm diagnosis with expanding indications; however, little has been reported regarding their use and effectiveness. These investigators examined the clinical utility of a novel ICM (Biotronik BIOMONITOR III) including the time to diagnosis in unselected patients with different ICM indications. Patients from 2 prospective clinical studies were included to determine the diagnostic yield of the ICM. The primary endpoint was time to clinical diagnosis per implant indication or to the 1st change in AF therapy. A total of 632 patients were included with a mean follow-up of 233 ± 168 days. Of 384 patients with (pre)syncope, 34.2 % had a diagnosis at 1 year. The most frequent therapy was permanent pace-maker implantation. Of 133 patients with cryptogenic stroke, 16.6 % had an AF diagnosis at 1 year, resulting in oral anti-coagulation (OAC). Of 49 patients with an indication for AF monitoring, 41.0 % had a relevant change in AF therapy based on ICM data at 1 year. Of 66 patients with other indications, 35.4 % received a rhythm diagnosis at 1 year. Moreover, 6.5 % of the cohort had additional diagnoses: 26 of 384 patients with syncope, 8 of 133 patients with cryptogenic stroke, and 7 of 49 patients with AF monitoring. The authors concluded that in a large, unselected patient population with heterogeneous ICM indications, the primary endpoint of rhythm diagnosis was achieved in approximately 1 in 4, and additional clinically relevant findings was achieved in 6.5 % of patients at short-term follow-up.
The authors stated that this study had 2 main drawbacks. First, these researchers combined data from 2 studies with a different design. Second, some participants contributed only a relatively short follow-up duration, as the BIO|STREAM.ICM registry is ongoing.
Guarracini et al (2023) stated that remote monitoring (RM) is recognized for its ability to enhance the clinical management of patients with ICM. In a retrospective study, these researchers provided a comprehensive description of the arrhythmic episodes transmitted by a daily and automatic RM system from a cohort of ICM patients. They analyzed daily transmissions from consecutive patients who had been implanted with a long-sensing vector ICM (BioMonitor III/IIIm) at 4 test sites. All transmitted arrhythmic recordings were evaluated to examine if they were true positive episodes or false positives (FP). A total of 14,136 episodes were transmitted from 119 patients (74.8 % men, median age of 62 years old) during a median follow-up of 371 days. The rate of arrhythmic episodes was 14.2 per patient-year (inter-quartile range [IQR]: 1.8 to 126), with 97 patients (81.5 %) experiencing at least 1 ICM activation; 55 % of episodes were identified as FP, and 67 patients (56.3 %) had at least 1 inappropriate activation. The FP rate was 1.4 per patient-year (0 to 40). The best per-episode predictive positive values were observed for bradycardia and atrial fibrillation (0.595 and 0.553, respectively). Notably, the implementation of an algorithm designed to minimize false detections significantly lowered the prevalence of FP episodes of AF (17.6 % versus 43.5 %, p = 0.008). The authors concluded that daily and automatic RM appeared to be a reliable tool for the comprehensive remote management of ICM patients. Moreover, these researchers stated that the number of arrhythmic episodes requiring review was high, and further improvements are needed to reduce FP and facilitate accurate interpretation of transmissions.
The AliveCor Heart Monitor (iPhoneECG)
Chung and Guise (2015) evaluated the feasibility of AliveCor tracings for QTC assessment in patients receiving dofetilide. A total of 5 patients with persistent AF underwent the 2-handed measurement (mimicks Lead I). On the ECG, Lead I or II was used. There was no significant difference between the AliveCor-QTC and ECG-QTC (all ± 20 msec). The authors concluded that the AliveCor device can be used to monitor the QTC in these patients. This was a small (n = 5) feasibility study; the clinical role of the AliveCor heart monitor has yet to be established.
Baquero et al (2015) stated that the AliveCor ECG is an FDA-approved ambulatory cardiac rhythm monitor that records a single channel (lead I) ECG rhythm strip using an iPhone. In the past few years, the use of smartphones and tablets with health related applications has significantly proliferated. In this initial feasibility trial, these researchers attempted to reproduce the 12-lead ECG using the bipolar arrangement of the AliveCor monitor coupled to smart phone technology. They used the AliveCor heart monitor coupled with an iPhone cellular phone and the AliveECG application (APP) in 5 individuals. In these 5 individuals, recordings from both a standard 12-lead ECG and the AliveCor generated 12 lead ECG had the same interpretation. The authors concluded that the findings of this study demonstrated the feasibility of creating a 12-lead ECG with a smart phone. They stated that the validity of the recordings would seem to suggest that this technology could become an important useful tool for clinical use; this new hand-held smartphone 12-lead ECG recorder needs further development and validation.
In a pilot study, Muhlestein et al (2015) attempted to gain experience with smartphone ECG prior to designing a larger multi-center study evaluating standard 12-lead ECG compared to smartphone ECG. A total of 6 patients for whom the hospital STEMI protocol was activated were evaluated with traditional 12-lead ECG followed immediately by a smartphone ECG using right (VnR) and left (VnL) limb leads for precordial grounding. The AliveCor Heart Monitor was utilized for this study. All tracings were taken prior to catheterization or immediately after re-vascularization while still in the catheterization laboratory. The smartphone ECG had excellent correlation with the gold standard 12-lead ECG in all patients; 4 out of 6 tracings were judged to meet STEMI criteria on both modalities as determined by 3 experienced cardiologists, and in the remaining 2, consensus indicated a non-STEMI ECG diagnosis. No significant difference was noted between VnR and VnL. The authors concluded that smartphone-based ECG is a promising, developing technology intended to increase availability and speed of electrocardiographic evaluation. This study confirmed the potential of a smartphone ECG for evaluation of acute ischemia and the feasibility of studying this technology further to define the diagnostic accuracy, limitations and appropriate use of this new technology.
Peritz et al (2015) noted that rapidly detecting dangerous arrhythmias in a symptomatic athlete continues to be an elusive goal. The use of hand-held smartphone ECG monitors could represent a helpful tool connecting the athletic trainer to the cardiologist. A total of 6 college athletes presented to their athletic trainers complaining of palpitations during exercise were included in this analysis. A single-lead ECG was performed using the AliveCor Heart Monitor and sent wirelessly to the Team Cardiologist who confirmed an absence of dangerous arrhythmia. The authors concluded that the AliveCor monitoring has the potential to enhance evaluation of symptomatic athletes by allowing trainers and team physicians to make diagnosis in real-time and facilitate faster return to play.
Chan and associates (2016) stated that diagnosing AF before ischemic stroke occurs is a priority for stroke prevention in AF. Smartphone camera-based photo-plethysmographic (PPG) pulse waveform measurement discriminates between different heart rhythms, but its ability to diagnose AF in real-world situations has not been adequately investigated. These researchers evaluated the diagnostic performance of a stand-alone smartphone PPG application, Cardiio Rhythm, for AF screening in primary care setting. Patients with hypertension, with diabetes mellitus, and/or aged greater than or equal to 65 years were recruited. A single-lead ECG was recorded by using the AliveCor heart monitor with tracings reviewed subsequently by 2 cardiologists to provide the reference standard; PPG measurements were performed by using the Cardiio Rhythm smartphone application; AF was diagnosed in 28 (2.76 %) of 1,013 participants. The diagnostic sensitivity of the Cardiio Rhythm for AF detection was 92.9 % (95 % CI: 77 to 99 %) and was higher than that of the AliveCor automated algorithm (71.4 % [95 % CI: 51 to 87 %]). The specificities of Cardiio Rhythm and the AliveCor automated algorithm were comparable (97.7 % [95 % CI: 97 to 99 %] versus 99.4 % [95 % CI: 99 to 100 %]). The PPV of the Cardiio Rhythm was lower than that of the AliveCor automated algorithm (53.1 % [95 % CI: 38 to 67 %] versus 76.9 % [95 % CI: 56 to 91 %]); both had a very high negative predictive value (NPV) (99.8 % [95 % CI: 99 to 100 %] versus 99.2 % [95 % CI: 98 to 100 %]). The authors concluded that the Cardiio Rhythm smartphone PPG application provided an accurate and reliable means to detect AF in patients at risk of developing AF and has the potential to enable population-based screening for AF.
Desteghe and colleagues (2017) determined the usability, accuracy, and cost-effectiveness of 2 hand-held single-lead ECG devices for AF screening in a hospital population with an increased risk for AF. Hospitalized patients (n = 445) at cardiological or geriatric wards were screened for AF by 2 hand-held ECG devices (MyDiagnostick and AliveCor). The performance of the automated algorithm of each device was evaluated against a full 12-lead or 6-lead ECG recording. All ECGs and monitor tracings were also independently reviewed in a blinded fashion by 2 electrophysiologists. Time investments by nurses and physicians were tracked and used to estimate cost-effectiveness of different screening strategies. Hand-held recordings were not possible in 7 and 21.4 % of cardiology and geriatric patients, respectively, because they were not able to hold the devices properly. Even after the exclusion of patients with an implanted device, sensitivity and specificity of the automated algorithms were sub-optimal (Cardiology: 81.8 and 94.2 %, respectively, for MyDiagnostick; 54.5 and 97.5 %, respectively, for AliveCor; Geriatrics: 89.5 and 95.7 %, respectively, for MyDiagnostick; 78.9 and 97.9 %, respectively, for AliveCor). A scenario based on automated AliveCor evaluation in patients without AF history and without an implanted device proved to be the most cost-effective method, with a provider cost to identify 1 new AF patient of €193 and €82 at cardiology and geriatrics, respectively. The cost to detect 1 preventable stroke per year would be €7535 and €1916, respectively (based on average CHA2DS2-VASc of 3.9 ± 2.0 and 5.0 ± 1.5, respectively). Manual interpretation increases sensitivity, but decreases specificity, doubling the cost per detected patient, but remains cheaper than sole 12-lead ECG screening. The authors concluded that using AliveCor or MyDiagnostick hand-held recorders requires a structured screening strategy to be effective and cost-effective in a hospital setting. It must exclude patients with implanted devices and known AF, and requires targeted additional 12-lead ECGs to optimize specificity. They noted that under these circumstances, the expenses per diagnosed new AF patient and preventable stroke are reasonable.
Chan and colleagues (2017) noted that 2 new devices have been introduced that use automated algorithms to diagnose AF. One FDA-approved device uses algorithms on a smartphone and dry electrodes that plug into the phone to detect AF (AliveCor Heart Monitor), while the other is in use in Europe and uses an algorithm integrated with an automatic blood pressure device (Microlife WatchBP Office AFIB). In this study from Hong Kong, a total of 2,052 patients with a mean age of 68 years were evaluated by both devices. If either diagnosed AF, a 12-lead ECG was performed. Two cardiologists examined the single-lead ECG generated by the AliveCor device to determine the reference standard cardiac rhythm. They then calculated the sensitivity and specificity of the devices. Poor sensitivity could lead to missed diagnoses, whereas poor specificity would lead to the need for unnecessary ECGs to confirm the diagnosis. The AliveCor device detected 16 of 24 patients with a final diagnosis of AF (67 % sensitivity; 95 % CI: 45 % to 84%) compared with 20 of 24 for the MicroLife device (83 % sensitivity; 95 % CI: 63 % to 95 %). The AliveCor device had 11 false-positive results (99.5 % specificity) compared with 27 for the Microlife device (98.7 % specificity).
Lown and co-workers (2017) stated that AF is a cause of stroke and a marker of atherosclerosis and of all patients with stroke, around 17 % have AF. The screening and treatment of AF could prevent about 12 % of all strokes. Several relatively low-cost devices with good accuracy now exist which can detect AF including WatchBP and AliveCor. However, they can only measure the ECG or pulse over short time periods. Inexpensive devices such as heart rate monitors, which are widely available, can measure heart rate for prolonged periods and may have potential in screening for AF. In a pilot study, these researchers determined the accuracy of AliveCor and WatchBP along with a bespoke algorithm using a heart rate monitor belt (Polar H7) and a wearable RR interval recorder (Firstbeat Bodyguard 2) for detecting AF during a single screening visit in primary care patients. This is a multi-center case-control diagnostic study comparing the 4 different devices for the detection of AF with a reference standard consisting of a 12-lead ECG in GP surgeries across Hampshire, UK. These investigators aim to recruit 92 participants with AF and 329 without AF aged 65 years and over. They will ask participants to rate comfort and overall impression for each device; and will collect qualitative data from participants capturing their experience of using wearable devices in order to evaluate acceptability. These researchers will collect data from general practitioners to determine their views on AF screening. The authors concluded that this protocol was approved by the London-City & East Research Ethics Committee in June 2016. The findings of the trial will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals, national and international conference presentations and the Atrial Fibrillation Association, UK. Moreover, these investigators stated that based on the results, they will design a larger clinical trial to examine prolonged AF screening in the community using inexpensive consumer devices.
Tu and colleagues (2017) stated that paroxysmal AF is a common and preventable cause of devastating strokes. However, currently available monitoring methods, including Holter monitoring, cardiac telemetry and event loop recorders, have drawbacks that restrict their application in the general stroke population. AliveCor heart monitor, a novel device that embeds miniaturized ECG in a smartphone case coupled with an application to record and diagnose the ECG, has recently been shown to provide an accurate and sensitive single-lead ECG diagnosis of AF. This device could be used by nurses to record a 30-s ECG instead of manual pulse taking and automatically provide a diagnosis of AF. These researchers plan to compare the proportion of patients with paroxysmal AF detected by AliveCor ECG monitoring with current standard practice. Consecutive ischemic stroke and transient ischemic attack patients presenting to participating stroke units without known AF will undergo intermittent AliveCor ECG monitoring administered by nursing staff at the same frequency as the vital observations of pulse and blood pressure until discharge, in addition to the standard testing paradigm of each participating stroke unit to detect paroxysmal AF. This study will enroll 296 subjects; primary outcome will be proportion of patients with paroxysmal AF detected by AliveCor ECG monitoring compared to 12-lead ECG, 24-h Holter monitoring and cardiac telemetry. The authors concluded that the use of AliveCor heart monitor as part of routine stroke unit nursing observation has the potential to be an inexpensive non-invasive method to increase paroxysmal AF detection, leading to improvement in stroke secondary prevention.
CardioPatch
Marcelli and colleagues (2017) described the conceptual design and the first prototype implementation of the Multi-Sense CardioPatch, a wearable multi-sensor patch for remote heart monitoring aimed at providing a more detailed and comprehensive heart status diagnostics. The system integrates multiple sensors in a single patch for detection of both electrical (ECG) and mechanical (Heart Sounds, HS) cardiac activity, in addition to physical activity (PA). The prototypal system also comprises a microcontroller board with a radio communication unit and it is powered by a Li-Ion rechargeable battery. Results from preliminary evaluations on healthy subjects have shown that the prototype can successfully measure electro-mechanical cardiac activity, providing useful cardiac indexes. The authors concluded that the system has potential to improve remote monitoring of cardiac function in chronically diseased patients undergoing home-based cardiac rehabilitation programs.
iHEART/Kardia Mobile
Kardia Mobile is the next generation of trans-telephonic ECG event recorders.
Hickey et al (2016) stated that AF is a major public health problem and is the most common cardiac arrhythmia, affecting an estimated 2.7 million Americans. The true prevalence of AF is likely under-estimated because episodes are often sporadic; therefore, it is challenging to detect and record an occurrence in a "real world" setting. To-date, mobile health tools that promote earlier detection and treatment of AF and improvement in self-management behaviors and knowledge have not been evaluated. This study will be the first to address the problem of AF with a novel approach utilizing advancements in mobile health ECG technology to empower patients to actively engage in their healthcare and to evaluate impact on quality of life and quality-adjusted life years. Furthermore, sending a daily ECG transmission, coupled with receiving educational and motivational text messages aimed at promoting self-management and a healthy lifestyle may improve the management of chronic cardiovascular conditions (e.g., diabetes, heart failure, and hypertension, etc.). These researchers are currently conducting a prospective, single-center RCT to evaluate the effectiveness of a mobile health intervention, iPhone® Helping Evaluate Atrial fibrillation Rhythm through Technology (iHEART) versus usual cardiac care. A total of 300 participants with a recent history of AF will be enrolled. Participants will be randomized 1:1 to receive the iHEART intervention, receiving an iPhone® equipped with an AliveCor® Mobile ECG and accompanying Kardia application and behavioral altering motivational text messages or usual cardiac care for 6 months. The authors stated that this will be the first study to investigate the utility of a mobile health intervention in a "real world" setting. They will evaluate the ability of the iHEART intervention to improve the detection and treatment of recurrent AF and assess the intervention's impact on improving clinical outcomes, quality of life, quality-adjusted life-years and disease-specific knowledge.
Halcox and associates (2017) conducted a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of AF screening using an AliveCor Kardia monitor attached to a WiFi-enabled iPod to obtain ECGs (iECGs) in ambulatory patients. Patients greater than or equal to 65 years of age with a CHADS-VASc score greater than or equal to 2 free from AF were randomized to the iECG arm or routine care (RC). iECG participants acquired iECGs twice-weekly over 12 months (plus additional iECGs if symptomatic) onto a secure study server with over-read by an automated AF detection algorithm and by a cardiac physiologist and/or consultant cardiologist. Time to diagnosis of AF was the primary outcome measure. The overall cost of the devices, ECG interpretation, and patient management were captured and used to generate the cost per AF diagnosis in iECG patients. Clinical events and patient attitudes/experience were also evaluated. These researchers studied 1,001 patients (500 iECG, 501 RC) who were 72.6 ± 5.4 years of age; 534 were women. Mean CHADS-VASc score was 3.0 (heart failure, 1.4 %; hypertension, 54 %; diabetes mellitus, 30 %; prior stroke/transient ischemic attack, 6.5 %; arterial disease, 15.9 %; all CHADS-VASc risk factors were evenly distributed between groups). A total of 19 patients in the iECG group were diagnosed with AF over the 12-month study period versus 5 in the RC arm (HR, 3.9; 95 % CI: 1.4 to 10.4; p = 0.007) at a cost per AF diagnosis of $10,780 (£8255). There was a similar number of stroke/transient ischemic attack/systemic embolic events (6 versus 10, iECG versus RC; HR = 0.61; 95 % CI: 0.22 to 1.69; p = 0.34). The majority of iECG patients were satisfied with the device, finding it easy to use without restricting activities or causing anxiety. The authors concluded that screening with twice-weekly single-lead iECG with remote interpretation in ambulatory patients greater than or equal to 65 years of age at increased risk of stroke was significantly more likely to identify incident AF than RC over a 12-month period. They stated that this approach is also highly acceptable to this group of patients, supporting further evaluation in an appropriately powered, event-driven clinical trial.
Narasimha and colleagues (2018) noted that ambulatory cardiac monitoring devices such as ELRs are often used in the out-patient clinic to evaluate palpitations. However, ELRs can be bulky and uncomfortable to use, especially in public, at work, or in social situations. An alternative approach is a smartphone-based ECG recorder/event recorder (Kardia Mobile [KM]), but the comparative diagnostic yield of each approach has not been studied. In this study, a total of 33 patients with palpitations wore an ELR and carried a KM for a period of 14 to 30 days. They were instructed to transmit ECGs via KM and also to activate the ELR whenever they had symptoms. The tracings obtained from both devices were independently analyzed by 2 cardiologists, and the overall arrhythmia yield, as well as patient preference and compliance, were evaluated. The paired binomial data obtained from both devices were compared using an unconditional test of non-inferiority. Of the 38 patients enrolled in the study, more patients had a potential diagnosis for their symptoms (i.e., at least 1 symptomatic recording during the entire monitoring period) with KM than with the ELR (KM = 34 [89.5 %] versus ELR = 26 [68.4 %]; χ2 = 5.1, p = 0.024). In the per protocol analysis, all 33 patients (100 %) had a potential diagnosis using the KM device, which was significantly higher compared to 24 patients (72.2 %) using the ELR (χ2 = 10.4, p = 0.001). The authors concluded that KM was non-inferior to an ELR for detecting arrhythmias in the out-patient setting. They stated that the ease of use and portability of this device made it an attractive option for the detection of symptomatic arrhythmias. This was a small study (n = 33) with a short study duration (14 to 30 days). These findings need to be validated by well-designed studies.
Pacemaker Event Recorders for Detection of Ventricular Arrhythmias
Sampaio and colleagues (2018) noted that although new pacemakers can register cardiac rhythm, few studies were performed evaluating their accuracy in diagnosing ventricular arrhythmias (VA). These investigators examined the correlation and agreement between the pacemaker's monitor and the ambulatory Holter in detecting VA. They studied 129 patients with pacemakers, mean age of 68.6 ± 19.1 years, 54.8 % women. Once Holter monitoring was connected, the pacemakers' event counters were reset and clocks of both systems were synchronized to register ECG simultaneously. Pacemakers were programmed to detect the lowest ventricular rate and lowest number of sequential beats allowed in their event monitors. After 72 hours, Holter and pacemakers records were analyzed; VA was defined in Holter and event monitor respectively as: isolated premature ventricular complexes: "PVC"; pairs: "couplets"; non-sustained ventricular tachycardia (NSVT): "triplets"- 3 beats; "runs"- 4 to 8 or greater than 8 beats, and "HVR"- 3 to 4 beats. Spearman correlations evaluated whether pacemaker and Holter identified the same parameters. Intra-class correlation coefficients (ICCs) and respective 95 % CIs were calculated to assess the concordance between methods. The agreement between both systems was low, except for "triplet" and 3 beats NSVT (ICC = 0.984). The correlation for more than 10 PVC/hour was moderate (kappa = 0.483). When the pacemaker was programmed to detect HVR sequences of 3 beats lower than 140 bpm (less than 140/3), the correlation with NSVT was perfect (r = 1) and agreement was also quite high (ICC = 0.800). The authors concluded that pacemaker's event monitors under-estimated the occurrence of VAs detected by Holter. They stated that standardization of pacemakers' algorithms is needed before using this function for patient's clinical follow-up.
Zio AT
Zio AT is a single-use, mobile cardiac telemetry monitor; no battery charges or replacements, or electrode re-positioning are needed. It can provide monitoring for up to 14 days.
Implantable Loop Recorder for Monitoring for Residual Atrial Fibrillation Burden
Kapa et al (2013) noted that arrhythmia monitoring in patients undergoing AF ablation is challenging. Trans-telephonic monitors (TTMs) are cumbersome to use and provide limited temporal assessment; ILRs may overcome these limitations. In a pilot study, these researchers examined the use of ILRs versus conventional monitoring (CM) in patients undergoing AF ablation. A total of 44 patients undergoing AF ablation received ILRs and CM (30-day TTM at discharge, and months 5 and 11 post-ablation). Over the initial 6 months, clinical decisions were made based on CM. Participants were then randomized for the remaining 6 months to arrhythmia assessment and management by ILR versus CM. The primary endpoint was arrhythmia recurrence. The secondary endpoint was actionable clinical events (change of anti-arrhythmic drugs [AADs], anticoagulation, non-AF arrhythmia events, etc.) due to either monitoring strategy. Over the study period, 6 patients withdrew. In the first 6 months, AF recurred in 18 patients (7 noted by CM, 18 by ILR; p = 0.002); 5 patients in the CM (28 %) and 5 in the ILR arm (25 %; p = NS) had AF recurrence during the latter 6 months. AF was falsely diagnosed frequently by ILR (730 of 1,421 episodes; 51 %). In more patients in the ILR compared with the CM arm, rate control agents (60 % versus 39 %, p = 0.02) and AADs (71 % versus 44 %, p = 0.04) were discontinued. The authors concluded that in AF ablation patients, ILR could detect more arrhythmias than CM; however, false detection remained a challenge. These investigators stated that with adequate oversight, ILRs may be useful in monitoring these patients following ablation.
The authors stated that this study had several drawbacks. First, this study was designed as a pilot study; therefore, the number of patients included was small (n = 44); additionally, there was a significant drop-out rate (14 %). Second, this trial occurred in 2 phases -- an initial 6-month non-randomized phase followed by a 6-month randomized phase. Because of this design, assessment of the 2 monitoring strategies vis-a-vis clinical management of patients was relegated to the second half, which may have been too short a duration for making this comparison. Third, given the non-compliance of patients with TTM, the ability of ILR to offer incremental benefit in identifying patients with AF recurrence may be over-stated. However, non-compliance with TTM is a reality in clinical practice and this trial highlighted this point. It was unclear if compliance would have differed had all patients not also received the ILR. Nevertheless, TTM non-compliance rates observed in this trial were comparable to those previously reported. Fourth, 4/44 patients (9.0 %) required ILR removal because of local infection/erosion and cosmetic reasons, which was not inconsequential but was still less than the 28 % non-compliance rate observed with the use of TTM.
In an editorial commentary on “Reporting AF Recurrence After Catheter Ablation – the CABANA Trial ”, Marchlinski et al (2020) noted that reporting treatment outcome based on AF burden came with its own set of challenges that warrant discussion. First, a baseline burden assessment before any therapeutic intervention needs to be carried out. This assessment would often be conducted while administering an anti-arrhythmic drug, which confounded a true baseline state that could serve as a comparison in the absence of anti-arrhythmic drugs or on a different anti-arrhythmic drug. Second, monitoring has to be of sufficient duration and accuracy. A 96-hour Holter monitor performed twice-yearly might identify frequent, short-lived AF, but could miss a single prolonged episode of comparable total AF burden. Although implantable EKG monitors are probably ideal to avoid a time-limited snapshot of recurrences, cost concerns, over-diagnosis of AF due to short-lived artifact, and the work effort needed to monitor large numbers of patients need to be considered. Whether wearable monitors with active patient participation would provide an accurate and cost-effective method of evaluating burden requires further study. Third, burden should be examined only for patients with recurrence of AF. The absence of AF remains an important objective and worthy of reporting as a separate endpoint. Because many patients will have no AF following ablation, burden results for the entire group would be skewed to reflect those good outcomes if patients with no AF during follow-up were included in the overall burden assessment. Furthermore, an analysis that included patients with no AF during the burden assessment may actually obscure clinically meaningful burden differences in patients with definite AF recurrences. In a similar fashion, patients treated with pharmacological AF rate control should not be included in a burden assessment to avoid favoring non-pharmacological treatment benefit in an AF burden analysis. Ideally, a burden benefit would be determined only for the patients with AF recurrence and compared with a baseline burden assessment for each individual patient. These investigators previously reported that patients with AF recurrences but having greater than 95 % burden reduction compared with baseline recordings had excellent clinical outcome despite AF recurrence. Elimination or prevention of persistent AF should also be reported. Ideally, the baseline monitoring for each patient with AF recurrences should be employed to determine a clinically meaningful reduction in AF burden, because the significance of absolute burden values as a treatment effect for a group of patients has not been determined. More importantly, although a few studies have suggested that having persistent AF was worse than paroxysmal AF with a time-dependent relationship to stroke risk, the true AF burden threshold for identifying increased risk for stroke, heart failure (HF), and death needs to be delineated. Fourth, because the objective of AF ablation is symptom improvement, ideally, any burden assessment and defined reduction in burden would need to be accompanied by a report of symptom and quality-of-life (QOL) improvement compared with baseline to aid in controlling for the marked intra-patient variability in the relationship between symptoms and AF burden. Such data were not provided in this study, and the editorialists anticipated it would be forthcoming in other CABANA publications. They believed including this important information could have strengthened the presentation and emphasized its potential immediate clinical relevance. Such data reporting would have been valuable even if direct symptom and Holter AF burden correlation was not systematically available by study design.
Moreover, Marchlinski et al (2020) stated that this study report also highlighted the challenges in accurately evaluating and reporting burden, and some of the limitations in using burden as an endpoint. They believed that until burden thresholds that have clinical implications are clearly defined for a population of patients, burden assessment should focus on those patients with AF recurrences after rhythm control treatment is initiated. A reduction in burden should not only be referenced to an individual patient's baseline burden assessment, but also needs to emphasize reasonable clinical imperatives that might include an objective dramatic decrease in episodes (e.g., greater than 95 % reduction compared with baseline), and/or a limited time in AF (e.g., 30 mins or less per follow-up month) and the elimination of persistent AF with all but the rare cardioversion (1 or less/year) required. The burden reduction threshold should always be coupled with a consistent subjective improvement in AF symptoms. These investigators stated that only with this dramatic effect and detailed reporting will differences in AF burden due to a therapy have a major influence on strategies for clinical care.
Aguilar et al (2021) stated that various non-invasive intermittent rhythm monitoring strategies have been employed to evaluate arrhythmia recurrences in trials examining pharmacological as well as invasive therapeutic interventions for AF. These researchers examined if a frequency and duration of non-invasive rhythm monitoring could be identified that accurately detects arrhythmia recurrences and approximates the AF burden derived from continuous monitoring using an ICM. The rhythm history of 346 patients enrolled in the CIRCA-DOSE Trial (Cryoballoon Versus Contact-Force Irrigated Radiofrequency Catheter Ablation) was reconstructed. Using computer simulations, these investigators assessed event-free survival (EFS), sensitivity, NPV, and AF burden of a range of non-invasive monitoring strategies, including those used in contemporary AF ablation studies. A total of 126,290 monitoring days were included in the analysis. At 12 months, 164 patients experienced atrial arrhythmia (AA) recurrence as documented by the ICM (1-year EFS, 52.6 %). Most non-invasive monitoring strategies used in AF ablation studies had poor sensitivity for detecting arrhythmia recurrence. Sensitivity increased with the intensity of monitoring, with serial (3) short-duration monitors (24-/48-hour ECG monitors) missing a substantial proportion of recurrences (sensitivity, 15.8 % [95 % CI: 8.9 % to 20.7 %] and 24.5% [95 % CI: 16.2 % to 30.6 %], respectively). Serial (3) longer-term monitors (14-day ECG monitors) more closely approximated the gold standard ICM (sensitivity, 64.6 % [95 % CI: 53.6 % to 74.3 %]). AF burden derived from short-duration monitors significantly over-estimated the true AF burden in patients with recurrences. Increasing monitoring duration resulted in improved correlation and concordance between non-invasive estimates of the invasive AF burden (R2 = 0.85 and inter-class correlation coefficient = 0.91 for serial [3] 14-day ECG monitors versus ICM). The authors concluded that the observed rate of post-ablation atrial tachyarrhythmia recurrence was highly dependent on the arrhythmia monitoring strategy employed. Between-trial discrepancies in outcomes may reflect different monitoring protocols. On the basis of measures of agreement, serial long-term (7 to 14 day) intermittent monitors accumulating at least 28 days of annual monitoring provided estimates of AF burden comparable with ICM; however, ICMs outperformed intermittent monitoring for arrhythmia detection, and should be considered the gold standard for clinical trials.
The authors stated that this study had several drawbacks. First, these researchers assumed 100 % compliance with ambulatory monitoring, which may have over-estimated the detection characteristics of non-invasive monitoring relative to that observed in clinical practice. Second, the findings of this trial were directly applicable only to patients with paroxysmal AF; patients with persistent AF respond differently to AF ablation; thus, may benefit from a different post-ablation monitoring strategy. Third, the probability of AF in the study population was not equally distributed over the follow-up period such that a similar monitoring intensity (number of days monitored) may return slightly different detection characteristics. In other words, three 14-day monitors at 3, 6, and 12 months (monitored days = 42) did not yield the exact same detection as weekly 1-day monitors (monitored days ≈ 42). Moreover, front-loading the monitoring (e.g., more intensive intermittent monitoring for the first few months after the blanking period) risked missing AF episodes and under-estimating AF burden given the differences in AF density between patients. Fourth, the correlation between ICM-derived AF burden and non-invasive burden estimates was driven by patients with higher AF burdens; however, patients with a higher AF burden may represent a subset in whom a more accurate non-invasive estimation of AF burden would be clinically desirable.
Hennings et al (2023) noted that emerging evidence indicated that a high AF burden is associated with adverse outcome; however, AF burden is not routinely measured in clinical practice. An artificial intelligence (AI)-based tool could facilitate the assessment of AF burden. These researchers compared the assessment of AF burden carried out manually by physicians with that measured by an AI-based tool. In a prospective, multi-center study (the Swiss-AF Burden Trial), these investigators analyzed 7-day Holter EKG recordings of AF patients. AF burden was defined as percentage of time in AF, and was assessed manually by physicians and by an AI-based tool (Cardiomatics, Cracow, Poland). They examined the agreement between both techniques by means of Pearson correlation coefficient, linear regression model, and Bland-Altman plot. These researchers examined the AF burden in 100 Holter ECG recordings of 82 patients. They identified 53 Holter EKGs with 0 % or 100 % AF burden, where they found a 100 % correlation. For the remaining 47 Holter EKGs with an AF burden between 0.01 % and 81.53 %, Pearson correlation coefficient was 0.998. The calibration intercept was -0.001 (95 % CI: -0.008; 0.006), and the calibration slope was 0.975 (95 % CI: 0.954; 0.995; multiple R2 0.995, residual standard error 0.017). Bland-Altman analysis resulted in a bias of -0.006 (95 % limits of agreement -0.042 to 0.030). The authors concluded that the assessment of AF burden with an AI-based tool provided very similar results compared to manual assessment; thus, an AI-based tool may be an accurate and efficient option for the evaluation of AF burden; and may have the potential to improve patient care.
The authors stated that this study had several drawbacks. The key drawback was the small sample size, including a low number of women, which lowered the generalizability of this trial; however, the duration of Holter ECG recordings was long, allowing for AF burden assessment over a period of 7 days. These findings only applied to patients with confirmed AF and these researchers could not apply their findings to patients without diagnosed AF. They stated that future studies should examine the use of AI tools for AF detection in patients without known AF. The findings of this trial were only limited to the AI-based tool used, and each AI-based tool needs to be validated and calibrated individually. These researchers included a small number of non-independent Holter EKGs in their analysis; however, the sensitivity analysis did not show marked differences in the estimates when excluding these. Lasty, various raters carried out the 1st manual evaluation of AF burden, which may have increased the variability of the results; however, the 2nd rater was always the same physician, and a 3rd rating was conducted in case of discrepancy. Finally, these findings only applied to the Swiss population, as the study was carried out in Switzerland.
Reddy et al (2024) stated that the randomized ADVENT Trial demonstrated no significant difference in 1-year freedom from AA between thermal (radiofrequency [RF]/cryo-balloon [CB]) and pulsed field ablation (PFA). However, recent studies reported that the post-ablation AA burden is a better predictor of clinical outcomes than the dichotomous endpoint of 30-second AA recurrence. These researchers ascertained the impact of post-ablation AA burden on outcomes; and examined the effect of ablation modality on AA burden. In the ADVENT Trial, symptomatic drug-refractory patients with paroxysmal AF underwent PFA or thermal ablation. Post-ablation TTM EKG recordings were collected weekly or for symptoms, and 72-hour Holter monitoring was performed at 6 and 12 months. AA burden was calculated from percentage AA on Holters and TTM electrocardiogram; QOL assessments were assessed at baseline and 12 months. From a total of 593 randomized patients (299 PFA, 294 thermal), using aggregate PFA/thermal data, an AA burden exceeding 0.1 % was associated with a significantly reduced QOL and an increase in clinical interventions: redo ablation, cardioversion, and hospitalization. There were more patients with residual AA burden of less than 0.1 % with PFA than thermal ablation (OR: 1.5; 95 % CI: 1.0 to 2.3; p = 0.04). Evaluation of outcomes by baseline demographics showed that patients with prior failed class I/III AADs had less residual AA burden after PFA compared to thermal ablation (OR: 2.5; 95 % CI: 1.4 to 4.3; p = 0.002); patients receiving only class II/IV AADs pre-ablation had no difference in AA burden between ablation groups. The authors concluded that compared with thermal ablation, PFA more often resulted in an AA burden less than the clinically significant threshold of 0.1 % burden. Moreover, these researchers stated that future comparative trials should incorporate AA burden into the primary effectiveness endpoint.
The authors stated that this study had several drawbacks. First, it was important to recognize that outcomes by AA burden was not a pre-specified analysis but was instead a post-hoc analysis. On the other hand, any potential bias was mitigated by the fact that this was an obvious analysis to carry out after the afore-mentioned recent studies of the importance of AA burden on QOL and healthcare utilization (largely published after the ADVENT Trial commenced enrollment). Second, AA burden was not derived from continuous implantable monitoring, but rather from weekly TTM EKG and episodic 72-hour Holter monitoring. Furthermore, this AA burden calculation relied on an intermittent monitoring strategy and only considered 1 time-point during follow-up (1 year). These researchers stated that further studies are needed to understand the relation between burden over time based on ablation treatment modalities and clinical outcomes. However, as described previously, clinically relevant AA burden data can nonetheless be derived from intermittent monitoring. Third, pre-ablation AA burden data were not collected in this study; accordingly, these investigators could not directly confirm the magnitude of reduction in AA burden by catheter ablation. However, there is a wealth of data indicating that catheter ablation in paroxysmal AF resulted in an approximately 99 % reduction in AA burden. Fourth, although patients were blinded to the ablation modality, treating physicians were not blinded, which could potentially bias referral for clinical interventions.
Appendix
Short-Term High Risk Criteria Which Require Prompt Hospitalization or Intensive Evaluation
- Severe structural or coronary artery disease (heart failure, low LVEF, or previous myocardial infarction)
- Clinical or ECG features suggesting arrhythmic syncope
- Syncope during exertion or supine
- Palpitations at the time of syncope
- Family history of SCD
- Non-sustained VT
- Bifascicular-block (LBBB or RBBB combined with left anterior or left posterior fascicular block) or other intraventricular conduction abnormalities with QRS duration ≥120 ms
- Inadequate sinus bradycardia (<50 bpm) or sinoartrial block in absence of negative chronotropic medications or physical training
- Pre-excited QRS complex
- Prolonged or short QT interval
- RBBB pattern with ST-elevation in leads V1-V3 (Brugada pattern)
- Negative T waves in right precordial leads, epsilon waves, and ventricular late potentials suggestive of ARVC
- Important co-morbidities
- Severe anemia
- Electrolyte disturbance
Key: ARVC: arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy; bpm: beats per minute; LBBB: left bundle branch block; LVEF: left ventricular ejection fraction; RBBB: right bundle branch block; SCD: sudden cardiac death; VT: ventricular tachycardia.
Source: Task Force for the Diagnosis and Management of Syncope; European Society of Cardiology (ESC); European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA); Heart Failure Association (HFA); Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), Moya A, Sutton R, Ammirati F, et al. Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of syncope (version 2009). Eur Heart J. 2009;30(21):2631-2671.
References
The above policy is based on the following references:
- Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). Remote cardiac monitoring. Technology Assessment. Prepared for the AHRQ by the ECRI Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC). Contract No. 290-02-0019. Rockville, MD: AHRQ; December 12, 2007.
- Aguilar M, Macle L, Deyell MW, et al. Influence of monitoring strategy on assessment of ablation success and postablation atrial fibrillation burden assessment: Implications for practice and clinical trial design. Circulation. 2022;145(1):21-30.
- Al Dhahri KN, Potts JE, Chiu CC, et al. Are implantable loop recorders useful in detecting arrhythmias in children with unexplained syncope? Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2009;32(11):1422-1427.
- Bang N. Cardiac patients can be monitored in their home. Project of the Month, January 2004. Aalborg, DK: The Digital NorthDenmark; 2004. Available at: http://www.det-digitale-nordjylland.dk/en/themes/project_of_the_month/project_of_the_month_january_2005.htm. Accessed April 28, 2004.
- Baquero GA, Banchs JE, Ahmed S, et al. Surface 12 lead electrocardiogram recordings using smart phone technology. J Electrocardiol. 2015;48(1):1-7.
- Barrett PM, Komatireddy R, Haaser S, et al. Comparison of 24-hour Holter monitoring with 14-day novel adhesive patch electrocardiographic monitoring. Am J Med. 2014;127:95.e11-95.e17.
- Biowatch Medical Inc. Vital Signs Transmitter [website]. Columbia, SC: Biowatch Medical; 2008. Available at: http://www.biowatchmed.com/. Accessed January 15, 2008.
- Bloch Thomsen PE, Jons C, Raatikainen MJ, et al; Cardiac Arrhythmias and Risk Stratification After Acute Myocardial Infarction (CARISMA) Study Group. Long-term recording of cardiac arrhythmias with an implantable cardiac monitor in patients with reduced ejection fraction after acute myocardial infarction: The Cardiac Arrhythmias and Risk Stratification After Acute Myocardial Infarction (CARISMA) study. Circulation. 2010;122(13):1258-1264.
- Cardiac Risk in the Young (CRY). LifeWatch Cardiac Monitoring. Surrey, UK: CRY; 2004.
- CardioNet, Inc. A new service: Mobile outpatient cardiac telemetry. Control No. 220-0011-01. San Diego, CA: CardioNet; 2002. Available at: http://www.cardionet.com/images/brochure.pdf. Accessed February 7, 2003.
- CardioNet, Inc. CardioNet: Monitoring at the Speed of Life [website]. Philadelphia, PA: CardioNet; 2003. Available at: http://www.cardionet.com. Accessed February 4, 2003.
- CardioPhonics. CardioPhonics 1000 Digital Event Recorder [website]. Timonium, MD; CardioPhonics, 2006. Available at: http://www.cardiophonics.com/Monitor.html. Accessed March 15, 2007.
- CardioPhonics. CardioPhonics 1000 Transtelephonic Cardiac Recorder [website]. Timonium, MD: RLT Medical Associates, Inc.; 2001. Available at: http://www.cardiophonics.com/cardiophonicsmonitor.htm. Accessed March 20, 2004.
- Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). Decision memo for electrocardiographic services (CAG-00158N). Medicare Coverage Database. Baltimore, MD: CMS; August 26, 2004.
- Chan PH, Wong CK, Poh YC, et al. Diagnostic performance of a smartphone-based photoplethysmographic application for atrial fibrillation screening in a primary care setting. J Am Heart Assoc. 2016;5(7).
- Chan PH, Wong CK, Pun L, et al. Head-to-head comparison of the AliveCor Heart Monitor and Microlife WatchBP Office AFIB for atrial fibrillation screening in a primary care setting. Circulation 2017;135(1):110-112.
- Chung EH, Guise KD. QTC intervals can be assessed with the AliveCor heart monitor in patients on dofetilide for atrial fibrillation. J Electrocardiol. 2015;48(1):8-9.
- Ciconte G, Saviano M, Giannelli L, et al. Atrial fibrillation detection using a novel three-vector cardiac implantable monitor: The atrial fibrillation detect study. Europace. 2017;19(7):1101-1108.
- ClinicalTrials.gov. True Continuous ECG Monitoring (TCEM Study). Sponsor: iRhythm Technologies, Inc. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01559246. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes for Health (NIH); updated March 19, 2012.
- Cotter PE, Martin PJ, Ring L, et al. Incidence of atrial fibrillation detected by implantable loop recorders in unexplained stroke. Neurology. 2013;80(17):1546-1550.
- Cox JB. It calls for help when you can’t [news]. Raleigh News Observer, January 8, 2003. Available at: http://www.skyaid.org/LifeWatch/ibm-watch/htm. Accessed April 28, 2004.
- Crawford MH, Bernstein SJ, Deedwania PC, et al. ACC/AHA Guidelines for Ambulatory Electrocardiography: Executive summary and recommendations. A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association task force on practice guidelines. Circulation. 1999;100(8):886-893.
- Crawford MH, Bernstein SJ, Deedwania PC, et al. ACC/AHA Guidelines for Ambulatory Electrocardiography. A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee to Revise the Guidelines for Ambulatory Electrocardiography). Developed in collaboration with the North American Society for Pacing and Electrophysiology. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1999;34(3):912-948.
- Daja N, Reljin I, Reljin B. Telemonitoring in cardiology – ECG transmission by mobile phone. Ann Acad Studenica. 2001;4:63-66.
- Davis S, Westby M, Pitcher D, Petkar S. Implantable loop recorders are cost-effective when used to investigate transient loss of consciousness which is either suspected to be arrhythmic or remains unexplained. Europace. 2012;14(3):402-409.
- Derkac WM, Finkelmeier JR, Horgan DJ, Hutchinson MD. Diagnostic yield of asymptomatic arrhythmias detected by mobile cardiac outpatient telemetry and autotrigger looping event cardiac monitors. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2017;28(12):1475-1478.
- Desteghe L, Raymaekers Z, Lutin M, et al. Performance of handheld electrocardiogram devices to detect atrial fibrillation in a cardiology and geriatric ward setting. Europace. 2017;19(1):29-39.
- Dhruva SS, Murillo J, Ameli O, et al. Effectiveness, utilisation and cost associated with implantable loop recorders versus external monitors after ischaemic or cryptogenic stroke. Open Heart. 2024;11(1):e002714.
- Diederichsen SZ, Haugan KJ, Højberg S, et al. Complications after implantation of a new-generation insertable cardiac monitor: Results from the LOOP study. Int J Cardiol. 2017;241:229-234.
- eCardio Diagnostics. eTrigger AF 920. Cardiac Event Monitoring [website]. The Woodlands, TX: eCardio Diagnostics; 2004. Available at: http://www.ecardio.com. Accessed April 4, 2007.
- eCardio. eVolution. Emerging Technology in Extended Daily Monitoring. Houston, TX: eCardio; 2010. Available at: http://www1.ecardio.com/Shared/pdf/eVolution2.pdf. Accessed September 1, 2010.
- Favilla CG, Ingala E, Jara J, et al. Predictors of finding occult atrial fibrillation after cryptogenic stroke. Stroke. 2015;46(5):1210-1215.
- Fogel RI, Evans JJ, Prystowsky EN. Utility and cost of event recorders in the diagnosis of palpitations, presyncope, and syncope. Am J Cardiol. 1997;79(2):207-208.
- Giada F, Gulizia M, Francese M, et al. Recurrent unexplained palpitations (RUP) study comparison of implantable loop recorder versus conventional diagnostic strategy. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007;49(19):1951-1956.
- Gladstone DJ, Spring M, Dorian P, et al.; EMBRACE Investigators and Coordinators. Atrial fibrillation in patients with cryptogenic stroke. N Engl J Med. 2014;370(26):2467-2477.
- Gottipaty VK, Khoury L, Beard JT, Hamson V. A novel real-time ambulatory cardiac monitoring system is user-friendly and effective for identifying cardiac arrhythmias [abstract]. Clinical Studies. Columbia, SC: Biowatch Medical, Inc.; 2008.
- Grubb BP, Kosinski D. Current trends in etiology, diagnosis, and management of neurocardiogenic syncope. Curr Opin Cardiol. 1996;11(1):32-41.
- Guarracini F, Maines M, Nappi F, et al. Daily and automatic remote monitoring of implantable cardiac monitors: A descriptive analysis of transmitted episodes. Int J Cardiol. 2023:389:131199.
- Halcox JPJ, Wareham K, Cardew A, et al. Assessment of remote heart rhythm sampling using the AliveCor heart monitor to screen for atrial fibrillation: The REHEARSE-AF study. Circulation. 2017;136(19):1784-1794.
- Hammill SC. Value and limitations of noninvasive assessment of syncope. Cardiol Clin. 1997;15(2):195-218.
- Hanke T, Charitos EI, Stierle U, et al. Twenty-four-hour holter monitor follow-up does not provide accurate heart rhythm status after surgical atrial fibrillation ablation therapy: Up to 12 months experience with a novel permanently implantable heart rhythm monitor device. Circ. 2009;120(11 Suppl):S177-S184.
- Hart GT. Evaluation of syncope. Am Fam Physician. 1995;51(8):1941-1948.
- Health Monitoring Services of America, Inc. Telemetry@Home. HEARTLink II. Boca Raton, FL: Health Monitoring Services of America; 2000. Available at: http://www.healthmonitoringservices.com/telemetryHome.html. Accessed November 15, 2004.
- HealthFrontier, Inc. ecg@Home Web, Wireless & Trans-telephonic ECG Device. HealthFrontier Products. Lewiston, NY: HealthFrontier; 2004. Available at: http://www.healthfrontier.com/Products/product_detail.cfm?productid=1. Accessed April 28, 2004.
- Healthwise, Inc. Ambulatory electrocardiography. Health Guide A-Z. Boise, ID: Healthwise; 2003.
- Hennings E, Coslovsky M, Paladini RE, et al. Assessment of the atrial fibrillation burden in Holter electrocardiogram recordings using artificial intelligence. Cardiovasc Digit Health J. 2023;4(2):41-47.
- Hickey KT, Hauser NR, Valente LE, et al. A single-center randomized, controlled trial investigating the efficacy of a mHealth ECG technology intervention to improve the detection of atrial fibrillation: The iHEART study protocol. BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2016;16:152.
- Higgins SL. A novel patch for heart rhythm monitoring: Is the Holter monitor obsolete? Future Cardiol. 2013;9(3):325-333.
- Hindricks G, Pokushalov E, Urban L, et al., XPECT Trial Investigators. Performance of a new leadless implantable cardiac monitor in detecting and quantifying atrial fibrillation: Results of the XPECT trial. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2010;3(2):141-147.
- Hindricks G, Potpara T, Dagres N, et al.; ESC Scientific Document Group. 2020 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of atrial fibrillation developed in collaboration with the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS): The Task Force for the diagnosis and management of atrial fibrillation of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Developed with the special contribution of the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) of the ESC. Eur Heart J. 2021;42(5):373-498.
- Hong P, Sulke N. Implantable diagnostic monitors in the early assessment of syncope and collapse. Prog Cardiovasc Dis. 2013;55(4):410-417.
- IBM Corporation (IBM). Remote monitoring of health conditions. IBM Research News. White Plains, NY: IBM; 2004. Available at: http://domino.research.ibm.com/comm/pr.nsf/pages/news.20031112_mobilehealth.html. Accessed April 28, 2004.
- Ip JH, Viqar-Syed M, Grimes D, et al. Surveillance of AF recurrence post-surgical AF ablation using implantable cardiac monitor. J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2012;33(1):77-83.
- Jacobus C, Lichtenstein E. The benefits of remote patient monitoring. In: Business Briefing: Global Healthcare 2003. London, UK: Business Briefings Ltd.; 2004. Available at: www.bbriefings.com/pdf/28/gh031_t_Cybernet.pdf. Accessed April 28, 2004.
- Joshi AK, Kowey PR, Prystowsky EN, et al. First experience with a Mobile Cardiac Outpatient Telemetry (MCOT) system for the diagnosis and management of cardiac arrhythmia. Am J Cardiol. 2005;95(7):878-881.
- Kamel H. Heart-rhythm monitoring for evaluation of cryptogenic stroke. N Engl J Med. 2014;370(26):2532-2533.
- Kapa S, Epstein AE, Callans DJ, et al. Assessing arrhythmia burden after catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation using an implantable loop recorder: The ABACUS study. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2013;24(8):875-881.
- Kapoor WN. Diagnostic evaluation of syncope. Am J Med. 1991;90(1):91-106.
- Kenny RA, Krahn AD. Implantable loop recorder: Evaluation of unexplained syncope. Heart. 1999;81(4):431-433.
- Kinlay S, et al. Cardiac event recorders yield more diagnoses and are more cost-effective than 48-hour Holter monitoring in patients with palpitations. A controlled clinical trial. Ann Intern Med. 1996;124(1 pt 10):16-20.
- Kleindorfer DO, Towfighi A, Chaturvedi S, et al. 2021 Guideline for the prevention of stroke in patients with stroke and transient ischemic attack: A guideline from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association. Stroke. 2021;52(7):e364-e467.
- Krahn AD, Klein GJ, Norris C, Yee R. The etiology of syncope in patients with negative tilt table and electrophysiological testing. Circulation. 1995;92(7):1819-1824.
- Krahn AD, Klein GJ, Yee R, et al. Final results from a pilot study with an implantable loop recorder to determine the etiology of syncope in patients with negative noninvasive and invasive testing. Am J Cardiol. 1998;82(1):117-119.
- Krahn AD, Klein GJ, Yee R, et al. The high cost of syncope: Cost implications of a new insertable loop recorder in the investigation of recurrent syncope. Am Heart J. 1999;137(5):870-877.
- Krahn AD, Klein GJ, Yee R, et al. Use of an extended monitoring strategy in patients with problematic syncope. Reveal Investigators. Circulation. 1999;99(3):406-410.
- Krahn AD, Klein GJ, Yee R, Skanes AC. Use of the implantable loop recorder in patients with unexplained syncope. Minerva Cardioangiol. 2003;51(1):21-27.
- Krahn AD, Klein GJ, Yee R. Recurrent syncope. Experience with an implantable loop recorder. Cardiol Clin. 1997;15(2):313-326.
- Krahn AD, Klein GJ, Yee R. Recurrent unexplained syncope: Diagnostic and therapeutic approach. Can J Cardiol. 1996;12(10):989-994.
- Lau DH, Pierre B, Cabanas P, et al. BIO|MASTER.BIOMONITOR III study and BIO|STREAM.ICM registry investigators. Diagnostic yield of an insertable cardiac monitor in a large patient population. Heart Rhythm O2. 2022;4(2):97-102.
- LifeWatch, Inc. and Instromedix. LifeWatch and Instromedix announce launch of cardiac event monitors with automatic afib detection [press release]. San Diego, CA: Instromedix; May 9, 2002. Available at: http://www.lifewatchinc.com/pages/News/AFibLaunch.asp. Accessed March 20, 2004.
- LifeWatch, Inc. LifeStar ACT Ambulatory Cardiac Telemetry [website]. Rosemount, IL: LifeWatch; 2007. Available at: http://www.lifewatchinc.com/ACT-Monitoring.asp. Accessed August 25, 2007.
- LifeWatch, Inc. LifeWatch AF auto-trigger looping monitors. Products and Services [website]. Buffalo Grove, IL: LifeWatch; 2004. Available at: http://www.lifewatchinc.com/LifeWatch-Auto-Trigger-Devices.asp. Accessed April 4, 2007.
- LifeWatch, Inc. King of Hearts Express II Monitor. The Arrhythmia Monitoring System. A Multi-Channel Cardiac Event Recorder with Auto-Trigger Capability. Datasheet. MAR 008. Buffalo Grove, IL: LifeWatch; 2002. Available at: http://www.lifewatchinc.com/pages/Products/KOHExpressII.asp. Accessed April 28, 2004.
- Linzer M, Pritchett E, Pontinen M, et al. Incremental diagnostic yield of loop electocardiographic recorders in unexplained syncope. Am J Cardiol. 1990;66(2):214-219.
- Lown M, Yue A, Lewith G, et al. Screening for atrial fibrillation using economical and accurate technologY (SAFETY)-a pilot study. BMJ Open. 2017;7(1):e013535.
- Macinnes M, Martin N, Fulton H, McLeod KA. Comparison of a smartphone-based ECG recording system with a standard cardiac event monitor in the investigation of palpitations in children. Arch Dis Child. 2019;104(1):43-47.
- Marcelli E, Capucci A, Minardi G, Cercenelli L. Multi-sense CardioPatch: A wearable patch for remote monitoring of electro-mechanical cardiac activity. ASAIO J. 2017;63(1):73-79.
- Marchlinski FE, Walsh K, Guandalini GS. Reporting AF recurrence after catheter ablation: The burden is on us to get it right. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020;75(25):3119-3121.
- Medic G, Kotsopoulos N, Connolly MP, et al. Mobile cardiac outpatient telemetry patch vs implantable loop recorder in cryptogenic stroke patients in the US - Cost-minimization model. Med Devices (Auckl). 2021;14:445-458.
- Medical Services Advisory Committee (MSAC). Implantable loop recorder for unexplained recurrent syncope. Assessment Rerport. MSAC Application 1061. Canberra, ACT: Medical Services Advisory Committee (MSAC); 2003.
- Medical Services Options (MSO), Inc. Telemetry @ Home Physician Information. Fair Lawn, NJ: MSO; 2003. Available at: http://ww.msobiz.com/site/telemetryhome/physician/. Accessed November 15, 2004.
- Medicomp, Inc. CardioPAL SAVI. Event Monitors. Products [website]. Melbourne, FL: MediComp; 2005. Available at: http://www.medicompinc.com/event_monitors.html. Accessed April 4, 2007.
- Miller DJ, Khan MA, Schultz LR, et al. Outpatient cardiac telemetry detects a high rate of atrial fibrillation in cryptogenic stroke. J Neurol Sci. 2013;324(1-2):57-61
- Mittal S, Movsowitz C, Steinberg JS. Ambulatory external electrocardiographic monitoring: Focus on atrial fibrillation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;58(17):1741-1749.
- Mittal S, Pokushalov E, Romanov A, et al. Long-term ECG monitoring using an implantable loop recorder for the detection of atrial fibrillation after cavo-tricuspid isthmus ablation in patients with atrial flutter. Heart Rhythm. 2013;10(11):1598-1604.
- Mittal S, Sanders P, Pokushalov E, et al. Safety profile of a miniaturized insertable cardiac monitor: Results from two prospective trials. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2015;38(12):1464-1469.
- Muhlestein JB, Le V, Albert D, et al. Smartphone ECG for evaluation of STEMI: Results of the ST LEUIS Pilot Study. J Electrocardiol. 2015;48(2):249-259.
- Naccarelli GV. Ambulatory electrocardiographic monitoring: Has mobile cardiac outpatient telemetry changed the playing field? J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2007;18(3):248-249.
- Narasimha D, Hanna N, Beck H, et al. Validation of a smartphone-based event recorder for arrhythmia detection. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2018;41(5):487-494.
- National Horizon Scanning Centre. Insertable loop recorders for the diagnosis of syncope - horizon scanning review. Birmingham, UK: National Horizon Scanning Centre (NHSC); 2002.
- National Horizon Scanning Centre. Reveal Plus implantable loop recorders for the investigation of syncope and other events - horizon scanning review Birmingham, UK: National Horizon Scanning Centre (NHSC); 2004.
- National institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Reveal LINQ insertable cardiac monitor to detect atrial fibrillation after cryptogenic stroke. Medtech Innovation Briefing [MIB141]. London, UK: NICE; February 2018
- National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Zio Service for detecting cardiac arrhythmias. Medtech Innovation Briefing [MIB 101]. London, UK: NICE; March 28, 2017.
- No authors listed. Lloyds mobile heart monitoring service [news]. Pharmaceutical J. 1999;263(7069):699.
- Norlock V, Vazquez R, Dunn A, et al. Comparing the outcomes and costs of cardiac monitoring with implantable loop recorders and mobile cardiac outpatient telemetry following stroke using real-world evidence. J Comp Eff Res. 2024;13(6):e240008.
- Olson JA, Fouts AM, Padanilam BJ, Prystowsky EN. Utility of mobile cardiac outpatient telemetry for the diagnosis of palpitations, presyncope, syncope, and the assessment of therapy efficacy. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2007;18(5):473-477.
- PDSHeart, Cardiac Telecom form strategic alliance; PDSHEART gains national distribution rights to 'Telemetry @ Home' service [press release]. Stockbridge, GA: PDSHEART; May 16, 2001. Available at: http://www.pdsheart.com/old/news_flash_cardiac_telecom.htm. Accessed March 20, 2004.
- PDSHeart. Dual alert afib. Products [website]. Stockbridge, GA: Physicians Diagnostic Services, Inc.; 2006. Available at: http://www.pdsheart.com/products.html. Accessed April 21, 2007.
- Peritz DC, Howard A, Ciocca M, Chung EH. Smartphone ECG aids real time diagnosis of palpitations in the competitive college athlete. J Electrocardiol. 2015;48(5):896-899.
- Pezawas T. ECG Smart monitoring versus implantable loop recorders for atrial fibrillation detection after cryptogenic stroke - An overview for decision making. J Cardiovasc Dev Dis. 2023;10(7):306.
- Philips HeartCare Telemedicine Services [website]. Düsseldorf, Germany: Royal Philips Electronics; 2001. Available at: http://www.telemedicine.philips.com/. Accessed April 28, 2004.
- Philips Medical Systems. EASITrak 12 Monitor. Diagnostic ECG [website]. Best, The Netherlands: Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV; 2003. Available at: http://www.medical.philips.com/main/products/cardiography/products/cardiac/easi/. Accessed March 25, 2004.
- Pierre B, Fauchier L, Breard G, et al. Implantable loop recorder for recurrent syncope: Influence of cardiac conduction abnormalities showing up on resting electrocardiogram and of underlying cardiac disease on follow-up developments. Europace. 2008;10(4):477-481.
- Poole JE, Bahnson TD, Monahan KH, et al, for the CABANA Investigators and ECG Rhythm Core Lab. Recurrence of atrial fibrillation after catheter ablation or antiarrhythmic drug therapy in the CABANA trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020;75(25):3105-3118.
- Prabhakaran S, Elkind MSV. Cryptogenic stroke. UpToDate [online serial]. Waltham, MA: UpToDate; reviewed October 2013.
- Pratt CM, Francis MJ, Stone CL, et al. Transtelephonic electrocardiographic monitoring: Reliability in detecting the ischemic ST segment response during exercise. Am Heart J. 1984;108(4 Pt 1):967-974.
- Pratt CM, Slymen DJ, Wierman AM, et al. Asymptomatic telephone EKG transmissions as an outpatient surveillance system of ventricular arrhythmias: Relationship to quantitative ambulatory EKG recording. Am Heart J. 1987;113(1):1-7.
- Pritchett ELC, Zimmerman JM, Hammill KF, et al. Electrocardiogram recording by telephone in antiarrhythmic drug trial. Chest. 1982;81(4):473-476.
- Prystowsky EN. Assessment of rhythm and rate control in patients with atrial fibrillation. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2006;17(Suppl 2):S7-S10.
- Rabinstein AA, Fugate JE, Mandrekar J, et al. Paroxysmal atrial fibrillation in cryptogenic stroke: A case-control study. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2013;22(8):1405-1411.
- Reddy VY, Mansour M, Calkins H, et al; ADVENT Investigators. Pulsed field vs conventional thermal ablation for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation: Recurrent atrial arrhythmia burden. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2024;84(1):61-74.
- Roche F, Gaspoz JM, Pichot V, et al. Accuracy of an automatic and patient-triggered long-term solid memory ambulatory cardiac event recorder. Am J Cardiol. 1997;80(8):1095-1098.
- Rosenberg MA, Samuel M, Thosani A, Zimetbaum PJ. Use of a noninvasive continuous monitoring device in the management of atrial fibrillation: A pilot study. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2013;36(3):328-333.
- Rothman SA, Laughlin JC, Seltzer J, et al. The diagnosis of cardiac arrhythmias: A prospective multi-center randomized study comparing mobile cardiac outpatient telemetry versus standard loop event monitoring. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2007;18(3):241-247.
- Ruwald MH, Zareba W. ECG monitoring in syncope. Prog Cardiovasc Dis. 2013;56(2):203-210.
- Saarel EV, Doratotaj S, Sterba R. Initial experience with novel mobile cardiac outpatient telemetry for children and adolescents with suspected arrhythmia. Congenit Heart Dis. 2008;3(1):33-38.
- Saarel EV, Stefanelli CB, Fischbach PS, et al. Transtelephonic electrocardiographic monitors for evaluation of children and adolescents with suspected arrhythmias. Pediatrics. 2004;113(2):248-251.
- Sampaio SMV, Craveiro NM, Darrieux F, et al. Accuracy of the pacemaker event recorder versus Holter-ECG to detect both symptomatic and asymptomatic ventricular arrhythmias. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2018;29(1):154-159.
- Sanna T, Diener HC, Passman RS, et al.; CRYSTAL AF Investigators. Cryptogenic stroke and underlying atrial fibrillation. N Engl JMed. 2014;370(26):2478-2486.
- Schiller AG. ECG Holter Recorder MT120 [website]. Altgasse, Switzerland; Schiller; 2004. Available at: http://www.schiller.ch/products/. Accessed April 28, 2004.
- Schwartzman D, Blagev DP, Brown ML, Mehra R. Electrocardiographic events preceding onset of atrial fibrillation: Insights gained using an implantable loop recorder. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2006;17(3):243-246.
- Slater SG. Telehealth solution: Telemetry at home -- it's time has come. Home Healthcare Manag Pract. 2003;15(3):264-265.
- Sposato LA, Cipriano LE, Saposnik G, et al. Diagnosis of atrial fibrillation after stroke and transient ischaemic attack: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Neurol. 2015;14(4):377-387.
- Strickberger SA, Benson DW, Biaggioni I, et al. AHA/ACCF scientific statement on the evaluation of syncope. Circulation. 2006;113:316-327.
- Task Force for the Diagnosis and Management of Syncope; European Society of Cardiology (ESC); European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA); Heart Failure Association (HFA); Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), Moya A, Sutton R, Ammirati F, et al. Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of syncope (version 2009). Eur Heart J. 2009;30(21):2631-2671.
- Tayal AH, Tian M, Kelly KM, et al. Atrial fibrillation detected by mobile cardiac outpatient telemetry in cryptogenic TIA or stroke. Neurology. 2008;71(21):1696-1701.
- TransMedEx. EZD. Products. Lake Ronkoncoma, NY: TransMedEx; 2001. Available at: http://www.transmedex.com/products/product001d41d.html. Accessed April 28, 2004.
- Tu HT, Chen Z, Swift C, et al. Smartphone electrographic monitoring for atrial fibrillation in acute ischemic stroke and transient ischemic attack. Int J Stroke. 2017;12(7):786-789.
- Turakhia MP, Hoang DD, Zimetbaum P, et al. Diagnostic utility of a novel leadless arrhythmia monitoring device. Am J Cardiol. 2013;112(4):520-524.
- U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Center for Devices and Radiologic Health. CardioNet ambulatory ECG monitor with arrhythmia detection. 510(k) No. K012241 (traditional). Rockville, MD: FDA; February 1, 2002.
- U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Center for Devices and Radiologic Health. CardioNet Ambulatory ECG Monitor, Model CN10000A. 510(k) No. K003707 (traditional). Rockville, MD: FDA; May 16, 2001.
- U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Center for Devices and Radiologic Health. Cardiac Telecom Corporation’s “HeartLink II” [ECG Arrhythmia Detector and Alarm System]. 510(k) No. K982803. Rockville, MD: FDA; November 13, 1998.
- U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). eCARD and cCARD. Telephone Electrocardiograph Transmitter and Receiver. 510(k) No. K081471. Rockville, MD: FDA; June 24, 2008.
- U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). ZEUS System Model S100. Programmable Diagnostic Computer. 510(k) No. K091075. Rockville, MD: FDA; July 21, 2009.
- U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Zio Patch Model Z100. Medical Magnetic Tape Recorder. 510(k) No. K090363. Rockville, MD: FDA; May 8, 2009.
- U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Zio Patch. Medical Magnetic Tape Recorder. 510(k) No. K113862. Rockville, MD: FDA; February 6, 2012.
- Vasamreddy CR, Dalal D, Dong J, et al. Symptomatic and asymptomatic atrial fibrillation in patients undergoing radiofrequency catheter ablation. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2006;17:134-139.
- Versweyveld L. TransMedEx to deliver state-of-the-art in digital ambulatory electro-cardiography. Almere, The Netherlands: Virtual Medical Worlds Monthly; August 2001. Available at: http://www.hoise.com/vmw/01/articles/vmw/LV-VM-08-01-26.html. Accessed March 20, 2004.
- Vilcant V, Kousa O, Hai O. Implantable loop recorder. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island, FL: StatPearls Publishing; 2024.
- Waktare JE, Malik M. Holter, loop recorder, and event counter capabilities of implanted devices. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 1997;20(10 Pt 2):2658-2669.
- Ziegler PD, Glotzer TV, Daoud EG, et al. Detection of previously undiagnosed atrial fibrillation in patients with stroke risk factors and usefulness of continuous monitoring in primary stroke prevention. Am J Cardiol. 2012;110(9):1309-1314.
- Zimetbaum P, Kim KY, Ho KK, et al. Utility of patient-activated cardiac event recorders in general clinical practice. Am J Cardiol. 1997;79(3):371-372.
- Zimetbaum, PJ, Josephson ME. The evolving role of ambulatory arrhythmia monitoring in general clinical practice. Ann Intern Med. 1999;130(10):848-856.