Key result
Syncope patients show imperfect AECG understanding globally, though ~42% of USA patients view ICMs favorably.
Why the study?
Practice guidelines direct clinicians in selecting ambulatory ECG monitors for syncope or collapse, but whether patients understand differences among systems is unknown.
What is the patient understanding and perception of ambulatory ECG monitors for syncope/collapse evaluation across different geographies?
Cross-Sectional (n=214)
Yes
What is the patient understanding and perception of ambulatory ECG monitors for syncope/collapse evaluation across different geographies?
Patients globally have an imperfect understanding of ambulatory ECG technologies, highlighting a need for improved patient education to enhance symptom-arrhythmia correlation.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Imperfect understanding of ambulatory ECG options among syncope patients supports targeted education; cross-sectional data leaves open effects on diagnostic yield.
BACKGROUND: Practice guidelines provide clinicians direction for the selection of ambulatory ECG (AECG) monitors in the evaluation of syncope/collapse. However, whether patients' understand differences among AECG systems is unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: A survey was conducted of USA (n = 99), United Kingdom (UK)/Germany (D) (n = 75) and Japan (n = 40) syncope/collapse patients who underwent diagnostic AECG monitoring. Responses were quantitated using a Likert-like 7-point scale (mean ± SD) or percent of patients indicating a Top 2 box (T2B) for a particular AECG attribute. Patient ages and diagnosed etiologies of syncope/collapse were similar across geographies. Patients were queried on AECG attributes including the ability to detect arrhythmic/cardiac causes of collapse, instructions received, ease of use, and cost. Patient perception of the diagnostic capabilities and ease of use did not differ significantly among the AECG technologies; however, USA patients had a more favorable overall view of ICM/ILRs (T2B: 42.4%) than did UK/D (T2B: 28%) or Japan (T2B: 17.5%) patients. Similarly, US patient rankings for education received regarding device choice and operation tended to be higher than UK/D or Japan patients; nevertheless, at their best, the Likert scores were low (approximately 4.7-6.0) suggesting need for education improvement. Finally, both US and UK/D patients were similarly concerned with ICM costs (T2B, 31% vs 20% for Japan). CONCLUSIONS: Patients across several geographies have a similar but imperfect understanding of AECG technologies. Given more detailed education the patient is likely to be a more effective partner with the clinician in establishing a potential symptom-arrhythmia correlation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Altınsoy et al. (2021) conducted a cross-sectional in Syncope and collapse (n=214). Ambulatory ECG monitoring was evaluated on Patient perception of AECG attributes (diagnostic capabilities, ease of use, cost). Syncope patients showed imperfect understanding of ambulatory ECG technologies across regions, though USA patients had a more favorable view of ICM/ILRs than UK/Germany or Japan.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: