Key result
Continuous implantable cardiac monitoring detected significantly more atrial fibrillation recurrences than 24-hour Holter monitoring, which had a sensitivity of only 0.60 (P<0.0001).
Why the study?
Does an implantable continuous cardiac rhythm monitoring device improve the detection of atrial fibrillation recurrence compared to 24-hour Holter monitoring in patients after surgical AF ablation?
Observational (n=45)
Does an implantable continuous cardiac rhythm monitoring device improve the detection of atrial fibrillation recurrence compared to 24-hour Holter monitoring in patients after surgical AF ablation?
Continuous implantable cardiac monitoring is significantly more sensitive than 24-hour Holter monitoring for detecting atrial fibrillation recurrence after surgical ablation.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
May favor continuous over Holter monitoring for post-ablation AF surveillance; leaves open effects on management and outcomes.
BACKGROUND: Twenty-four-hour 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 intraindividually, we evaluated a novel implantable continuous cardiac rhythm monitoring (IMD) device (Reveal XT 9525). METHODS AND RESULTS: Forty-five cardiac surgical patients (male 37, mean age 69.7+/-9.2 years) with a mean preoperative AF duration of 38+/-45 m were treated with either left atrial epicardial high-intensity focus ultrasound ablation (n=33) or endocardial cryothermy (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 2021 hours for 24HM and 220 766 hours for IMD. Mean follow-up was 8.30+/-3.97 m (range 0 to 12 m). Mean postoperative 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 of 0.64 for detecting AF recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: 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 anticoagulation and antiarrhythmic therapy.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hanke et al. (2009) conducted an observational in Atrial fibrillation after surgical ablation therapy (n=45). Implantable continuous cardiac rhythm monitoring (Reveal XT 9525) vs. 24-hour Holter monitoring was evaluated on Confirmation of sinus rhythm previously documented by 24-hour Holter monitoring (Sensitivity 0.60, NPV 0.64, p=<0.0001). Continuous implantable cardiac monitoring detected significantly more atrial fibrillation recurrences than 24-hour Holter monitoring, which had a sensitivity of only 0.60 (P<0.0001).
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: