Key result
Continuous monitoring detects ~50% more atrial arrhythmia recurrences than intermittent monitoring in paroxysmal AF.
Why the study?
The impact of rhythm-monitoring strategy on the detection of atrial arrhythmia recurrence after catheter ablation for AF is not well characterized.
Does continuous rhythm monitoring compared to intermittent monitoring increase the detection of atrial arrhythmia recurrence in adult patients undergoing first catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation?
Systematic Review (n=5,322)
Does continuous rhythm monitoring compared to intermittent monitoring increase the detection of atrial arrhythmia recurrence in adult patients undergoing first catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation?
Absolute Event Rate: 46.9% vs 31.2%
p-value: p=0.001
Continuous rhythm monitoring detects higher rates of atrial arrhythmia recurrence compared to intermittent monitoring in patients with paroxysmal AF after first catheter ablation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Intermittent monitoring underestimates post-ablation recurrence in paroxysmal AF; confirms monitoring method as a key determinant of reported outcomes.
Unni et al. (2022) conducted a systematic review in Atrial fibrillation (n=5,322). Continuous rhythm monitoring vs. Intermittent rhythm monitoring was evaluated on Single-procedure recurrence of atrial arrhythmia (p=0.001). Continuous rhythm monitoring detected significantly higher atrial arrhythmia recurrence rates compared to intermittent monitoring in patients with paroxysmal AF (46.9% vs 31.2%, P=0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: