Why the study?
CIED-transmitted AF burden notifications are not directly related to clinical AF classifications and impose a time-consuming review burden on caregivers.
Does a new proprietary algorithm reduce the number of transmitted AF alerts requiring review in remotely monitored CIED patients?
Does a new proprietary algorithm reduce the number of transmitted AF alerts requiring review in remotely monitored CIED patients?
A new AF alert algorithm successfully identified clinically significant AF events and reduced the total number of transmitted alerts requiring caregiver review by approximately 85%.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
May reduce CIED AF alert burden; hypothesis-generating and requires prospective validation before practice change.
BackgroundCardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) are an important means of atrial fibrillation (AF) detection. However, the AF burden measurements and notifications transmitted by CIEDs are not directly related to the clinical classification of paroxysmal, persistent, or permanent AF. Moreover, AF alerts are the most frequent form of notification, imposing a time-consuming review on caregivers.ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to compare the incidence of standard AF burden-related notifications in remotely monitored (RM) patients with the incidence of events detected after filtering by a new proprietary algorithm implementing the standard European Society of Cardiology classification of AF.MethodsBetween 2017 and 2022, all RM patients with daily AF burden measurements available for ≥30 days and ≥1 AF burden-related alerts were enrolled at 68 medical centers. The incidence of CIED-transmitted alerts was compared to that of AF episodes detected by a new proprietary algorithm and classified as “first recorded episode of AF”, “paroxysmal AF”, “increased paroxysmal AF”, “persistent AF”, or “end of persistent AF back to paroxysmal AF or back to sinus rhythm.”ResultsBetween January 2017 and September 2022, this retrospective study analyzed data from 4162 recipients of an Abbott, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, or Medtronic CIED, RM over mean follow-up of 605 ± 386 days. The algorithm broke down 67,883 AF burden-related alerts into 9728 (14.3%) clinically relevant AF events.ConclusionA new AF alert algorithm successfully identified clinically significant AF events in RM CIED recipients and would markedly limit the total number of transmitted alerts that require review by caregivers. Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) are an important means of atrial fibrillation (AF) detection. However, the AF burden measurements and notifications transmitted by CIEDs are not directly related to the clinical classification of paroxysmal, persistent, or permanent AF. Moreover, AF alerts are the most frequent form of notification, imposing a time-consuming review on caregivers. The purpose of this study was to compare the incidence of standard AF burden-related notifications in remotely monitored (RM) patients with the incidence of events detected after filtering by a new proprietary algorithm implementing the standard European Society of Cardiology classification of AF. Between 2017 and 2022, all RM patients with daily AF burden measurements available for ≥30 days and ≥1 AF burden-related alerts were enrolled at 68 medical centers. The incidence of CIED-transmitted alerts was compared to that of AF episodes detected by a new proprietary algorithm and classified as “first recorded episode of AF”, “paroxysmal AF”, “increased paroxysmal AF”, “persistent AF”, or “end of persistent AF back to paroxysmal AF or back to sinus rhythm.” Between January 2017 and September 2022, this retrospective study analyzed data from 4162 recipients of an Abbott, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, or Medtronic CIED, RM over mean follow-up of 605 ± 386 days. The algorithm broke down 67,883 AF burden-related alerts into 9728 (14.3%) clinically relevant AF events. A new AF alert algorithm successfully identified clinically significant AF events in RM CIED recipients and would markedly limit the total number of transmitted alerts that require review by caregivers.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lazarus et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: