Key result
Loop recorders fail to increase recurrent AF detection over periodic Holter monitoring in postoperative AF.
Why the study?
Postoperative atrial fibrillation increases mortality and systemic thromboembolism risk, but rates of recurrent AF, optimal follow-up, and management remain unclear.
Does implantation of a loop recorder improve the detection of recurrent atrial fibrillation in patients with postoperative atrial fibrillation following cardiac surgery compared to periodic Holter monitoring?
RCT (n=22)
2:1
Yes
Does implantation of a loop recorder improve the detection of recurrent atrial fibrillation in patients with postoperative atrial fibrillation following cardiac surgery compared to periodic Holter monitoring?
Absolute Event Rate: 40% vs 25%
p-value: p=0.917
In patients with postoperative atrial fibrillation and a CHA2DS2-VASc score ≥2, systematic follow-up revealed an AF recurrence rate of approximately 1 in 3, though implantable loop recorders did not significantly increase detection compared to periodic Holters in this small cohort.
ILR does not improve recurrent AF detection over periodic Holter monitoring after cardiac surgery; confirms no added value and supports simpler strategies in future trials.
Background Postoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF) is the most common complication of cardiac surgery, requiring interventions and prolonging hospital stay. POAF is associated with increased mortality and a higher rate of systemic thrombo-embolism. The rates of recurrent AF, optimal follow-up and management remain unclear. We aimed to evaluate the incidence of recurrent atrial fibrillation (AF) events, during long term follow-up in patients with POAF following cardiac surgery. Methods Patients with POAF and a CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc score of ≥2 were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to either implantation of a loop recorder (ILR) or ECG monitoring using periodic Holters. Participants were followed prospectively for 2 years. The primary end point was the occurrence of AF longer than 5 min. Results The final cohort comprised of 22 patients, of whom 14 received an ILR. Over a median follow up of 25.7 (IQR of 24.7–44.4) months, 8 patients developed AF, representing a cumulative annualized risk of AF recurrence of 35.7%. There was no difference between ILR (6 participants, 40%) and ECG/Holter (2 participants, 25% p = 0.917). All 8 patients with AF recurrence were treated with oral anticoagulation. There were no cases of mortality, stroke or major bleeding. Two patients underwent ILR explantation due to pain at the implantation site. Conclusions The rate of recurrent AF in patients with POAF after cardiac surgery and a CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc score of ≥2 is approximately 1 in 3 when followed systematically. Further research is need to assess the role of ILRs in this population.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sabbag et al. (2023) conducted an RCT in Postoperative atrial fibrillation (n=22). Implantable loop recorder (ILR) vs. ECG monitoring using periodic Holters was evaluated on Occurrence of AF lasting at least 5 min (p=0.917). Implantation of a loop recorder did not significantly increase the detection of recurrent atrial fibrillation compared to periodic Holter monitoring in patients with postoperative atrial fibrillation.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: