January 8, 2007Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology

The Diagnosis of Cardiac Arrhythmias: A Prospective Multi‐Center Randomized Study Comparing Mobile Cardiac Outpatient Telemetry Versus Standard Loop Event Monitoring

Q: What is the clinical evidence from this study?

Study design: RCT. Population: Symptoms suggestive of a cardiac arrhythmia (n=266). Intervention: Mobile cardiac outpatient telemetry system (MCOT) vs. Patient-activated external looping event monitor (LOOP). Primary outcome: Confirmation or exclusion of a probable arrhythmic cause of their symptoms (p=0.008).

Q: What does this research mean for the field?

Mobile cardiac outpatient telemetry (MCOT) is superior to standard loop monitoring for confirming or excluding a probable arrhythmic cause of symptoms. Novelty: ClaimNovelty.INCREMENTAL. Consensus alignment: ConsensusAlignment.NEUTRAL.

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Key result

Mobile cardiac outpatient telemetry (MCOT) was superior to standard loop monitoring for confirming or excluding a probable arrhythmic cause of symptoms (88% vs 75%; P=0.008).

Why the study?

Does a mobile cardiac outpatient telemetry system (MCOT) improve the confirmation or exclusion of a probable arrhythmic cause of symptoms in patients with syncope, presyncope, or severe palpitations and a nondiagnostic 24-hour Holter monitor?

Population

266 patients with symptoms of syncope, presyncope, or severe palpitations who had a nondiagnostic 24-hour…

Comparison

Mobile cardiac outpatient telemetry system for… vs Patient-activated external looping event monitor…

Design

RCT, Randomized to either LOOP or MCOT

Follow-up

up to 30 days

Authors

SRSteven A. RothmanLankenau Medical Center JLJAMES C. LAUGHLINMain Line Health JSJonathan SeltzerNorth Carolina Department of Public Safety

Discussion

Member takes

Implication

Supports preferring MCOT after nondiagnostic Holter in syncope or palpitations; extends comparative evidence with RCT data.

Study Design

Type

RCT (n=266)

Multicenter

Yes

Structured PICO

Population

266 patients with symptoms of syncope, presyncope, or severe palpitations who had a nondiagnostic 24-hour Holter monitor

Intervention

Mobile cardiac outpatient telemetry system (MCOT) for up to 30 days

Comparator

Patient-activated external looping event monitor (LOOP) for up to 30 days

Outcome

Confirmation or exclusion of a probable arrhythmic cause of their symptoms

Main Result

Absolute Event Rate: 88% vs 75%

p-value: p=0.008

Mobile cardiac outpatient telemetry (MCOT) significantly improves diagnostic yield compared to standard loop event monitoring in patients with symptoms suggestive of arrhythmia and a nondiagnostic Holter monitor.

Cite This Study

Rothman et al. (2007) conducted an RCT in Symptoms suggestive of a cardiac arrhythmia (n=266). Mobile cardiac outpatient telemetry system (MCOT) vs. Patient-activated external looping event monitor (LOOP) was evaluated on Confirmation or exclusion of a probable arrhythmic cause of their symptoms (p=0.008). Mobile cardiac outpatient telemetry (MCOT) was superior to standard loop monitoring for confirming or excluding a probable arrhythmic cause of symptoms (88% vs 75%; P=0.008).

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a17c37daeefdf6d9c12f2b4 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-8167.2006.00729.x

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

The Diagnosis of Cardiac Arrhythmias: A Prospective Multi‐Center Randomized Study Comparing Mobile Cardiac Outpatient Telemetry Versus Standard Loop Event Monitoring

Discussion

Member takes

Implication

Study Design

Structured PICO

Main Result

Cite This Study

The Diagnosis of Cardiac Arrhythmias: A Prospective Multi‐Center Randomized Study Comparing Mobile Cardiac Outpatient Telemetry Versus Standard Loop Event Monitoring

Discussion

Member takes

Implication

Study Design

Structured PICO

Main Result

Cite This Study

Also Consider

Also Consider