Key result
ECG smart monitoring lacks clear evidence versus ILRs for AF detection after cryptogenic stroke.
Why the study?
The role of MCOT and hand-held devices within ECG smart monitoring for AF detection before and after cryptogenic stroke remains unclear.
Does ECG smart monitoring compared to implantable loop recorders improve the detection of atrial fibrillation in patients with cryptogenic stroke?
Does ECG smart monitoring compared to implantable loop recorders improve the detection of atrial fibrillation in patients with cryptogenic stroke?
This review highlights the potential role and current knowledge gaps of non-invasive ECG smart monitoring compared to implantable loop recorders for detecting atrial fibrillation after cryptogenic stroke.
Evidence gaps leave ECG smart monitoring's role versus loop recorders unclear after cryptogenic stroke; leaves open direct comparative trials.
Up to 20% of patients with ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack have a prior history of known atrial fibrillation (AF). Additionally, unknown AF can be detected by different monitoring strategies in up to 23% of patients with cryptogenic or non-cardioembolic stroke. However, most studies had substantial gaps in monitoring time, especially early after the index event. Following this, AF rates would be higher if patients underwent continuous monitoring early after stroke, avoiding any gaps in monitoring. The few existing randomized studies focused on patients with cryptogenic stroke but did not focus otherwise specifically on prevention strategies in patients at high risk for AF (patients at higher age or with high CHA2DS2-VASC scores). Besides invasive implantable loop recorders (ILRs), external loop recorders (ELRs) and mobile cardiac outpatient telemetry (MCOT) are non-invasive tools that are commonly used for long-term ECG monitoring in cryptogenic-stroke patients in the ambulatory setting. The role of MCOT and hand-held devices within ECG smart monitoring in the detection of AF for the prevention of and after cryptogenic stroke is currently unclear. This intense review provides an overview of current evidence, techniques, and gaps in knowledge and aims to advise which patients benefit most from the current available devices.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Thomas Pezawas (2023) conducted a review in Cryptogenic stroke. ECG smart monitoring (MCOT and hand-held devices) vs. Implantable loop recorders (ILRs) was evaluated on Atrial fibrillation detection. The role of ECG smart monitoring versus implantable loop recorders for atrial fibrillation detection after cryptogenic stroke remains unclear due to gaps in monitoring time and current evidence.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: