Key result
Implantable cardiac monitors are a safe and highly effective tool for detecting atrial fibrillation episodes, though benefits must be weighed against potential limitations for individualized care.
Implantable cardiac monitors are increasingly used and effective for detecting atrial fibrillation, but require individualized patient selection due to inherent limitations.
Highlights need for individualized decisions with implantable monitors; leaves open definitive guidelines pending higher-level evidence.
Continuous heart rhythm monitoring using implantable cardiac monitors (ICMs) for atrial fibrillation (AF) management is steadily increasing in current clinical practice, even in the absence of an established indication provided by international guidelines. The increasing use of such devices is mainly associated with recent technological improvements including miniaturization, easier implant procedures, and remote monitoring, all of which make this strategy continuously more appealing and promising. For these and other reasons, ICMs have been proven to be a safe and highly effective tool for detecting AF episodes. However, ICMs are not the best option for every patient, as limitations exist. Therefore, it is imperative to weigh the possible benefits against the potential limitations of using these devices when deciding individualized patient care.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ciconte et al. (2017) conducted a review in Atrial fibrillation. Implantable cardiac monitors (ICMs) was evaluated. Implantable cardiac monitors are a safe and highly effective tool for detecting atrial fibrillation episodes, though benefits must be weighed against potential limitations for individualized care.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: