Key result
Mobile cardiac outpatient telemetry had significantly higher diagnostic yields and an earlier mean time to diagnosis for asymptomatic arrhythmias compared to autotrigger looping event recorders.
Why the study?
Does mobile cardiac outpatient telemetry improve the diagnostic yield of asymptomatic arrhythmias compared to autotrigger looping event recorders in patients receiving ambulatory EKG monitoring?
Observational
Does mobile cardiac outpatient telemetry improve the diagnostic yield of asymptomatic arrhythmias compared to autotrigger looping event recorders in patients receiving ambulatory EKG monitoring?
Mobile cardiac outpatient telemetry provides a significantly higher diagnostic yield and faster time to diagnosis for asymptomatic arrhythmias compared to autotrigger looping event recorders.
May support MCOT preference for asymptomatic arrhythmia monitoring; leaves open confirmation in randomized trials before practice change.
INTRODUCTION: Asymptomatic arrhythmias can have important therapeutic implications in certain patient populations, for example, atrial fibrillation in patients with prior ischemic stroke. We sought to compare the diagnostic yield of two commercially available monitoring systems with automated arrhythmia detection algorithms. METHODS: We queried a large, proprietary database containing rhythm data for patients receiving ambulatory EKG monitoring (BioTelemetry, Malvern, PA, USA). We compared all patients prescribed mobile cardiac outpatient telemetry (MCOT™, Braemar Manufacturing, LLC, Eagan, MN, USA) versus autotrigger looping event recorder (AT-LER) devices over a consecutive 8-month period. Data from both device types were analyzed for diagnostic yields in detecting asymptomatic (device-triggered) arrhythmias consisting of atrial fibrillation (of any detected duration), bradycardia (ventricular rate ≤ 40 bpm), ventricular pause (≥ 3 seconds), supraventricular tachycardia (≥ 6 consecutive supraventricular beats), and ventricular tachycardia (≥ 4 consecutive premature ventricular contractions). The mean time to first diagnosis of each arrhythmia for each device was determined. Physician-designated diagnostic codes for patients prescribed each device were also determined from the database. RESULTS: The MCOT™ device had significantly higher diagnostic yields of all evaluated asymptomatic arrhythmias than the AT-LER. The MCOT™ device also produced an earlier mean time to diagnosis for all evaluated asymptomatic arrhythmias. These findings were noted despite a shorter average prescription length for MCOT™ monitored patients. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with conventional diagnostic monitoring indications, MCOT™ had significantly higher diagnostic yields for five asymptomatic arrhythmias compared to the AT-LER.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Derkac et al. (2017) conducted an observational in Ambulatory EKG monitoring indications. Mobile cardiac outpatient telemetry (MCOT) vs. Autotrigger looping event recorder (AT-LER) was evaluated on Diagnostic yields in detecting asymptomatic (device-triggered) arrhythmias. Mobile cardiac outpatient telemetry had significantly higher diagnostic yields and an earlier mean time to diagnosis for asymptomatic arrhythmias compared to autotrigger looping event recorders.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: