Key result
Conventional monitoring strategies were projected to diagnose only 13.8% to 30.2% of patients with pause arrhythmias compared to insertable cardiac monitors, while incurring higher costs per diagnosis.
Why the study?
It is not well understood whether higher up-front costs of ICMs are offset by the costs of repeat evaluation in conventional monitoring strategies.
Do insertable cardiac monitors improve diagnostic sensitivity and lower cost per diagnosis compared to conventional monitoring in patients with unexplained syncope?
Observational (n=44)
Do insertable cardiac monitors improve diagnostic sensitivity and lower cost per diagnosis compared to conventional monitoring in patients with unexplained syncope?
Insertable cardiac monitors are projected to be more cost-effective and diagnostically sensitive than conventional short-term monitoring for detecting pause arrhythmias in unexplained syncope.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
May lower per-diagnosis costs with ICM versus repeated CM in unexplained syncope; leaves open prospective outcome trials.
Diagnosing cardiac pauses that could produce syncopal episodes is important to guide appropriate therapy. However, the infrequent nature of these episodes can make detection challenging with conventional monitoring (CM) strategies with short-term ECG monitors. Insertable cardiac monitors (ICMs) continuously monitor for arrhythmias but present a higher up-front cost. It is not well understood whether these higher costs are offset by the costs of repeat evaluation in CM strategies. We simulated the likelihood of diagnostic success and cost-per-diagnosis of pause arrhythmias with CM strategies compared to ICM monitoring. ICM device data from syncope patients diagnosed with pause arrhythmias was utilized to simulate patient pathways and diagnostic success with CM. We assumed that detected true pause episodes (≥5 seconds) were symptomatic and prompted a hospital encounter and further evaluation with CM. Subsequent true pause episodes in yet-undiagnosed patients triggered additional rounds of CM. Costs of monitoring were accrued at each encounter and represent the U.S. payer perspective. Cost per diagnosed patient was calculated as the total costs accrued for all patients divided by the number of patients diagnosed, across 1,000 simulations. During a mean 505±333 days of monitoring ICM detected 2.4±2.7 pause events per patient, with an average of 109±94 days until the first event. CM was projected to diagnose between 13.8% (24-hour Holter) and 30.2% (two 30-day monitors) of the ICM-diagnosed patients. Total diagnostic costs per ICM-diagnosed patient averaged $7,847, whereas in the CM strategies average cost-per-diagnosis ranged from $12,950±2,589 with 24-hour Holter to $32,977±14,749 for two 30-day monitors. Relative to patients diagnosed with pause arrhythmias via ICM, CM strategies diagnose fewer patients and incur higher costs per diagnosed patient.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rogers et al. (2022) conducted an observational in Unexplained syncope with pause arrhythmias (n=44). Conventional monitoring strategies (short-term ECG) vs. Insertable cardiac monitors (ICM) was evaluated on Diagnostic sensitivity for pause arrhythmias (≥5 seconds). Conventional monitoring strategies were projected to diagnose only 13.8% to 30.2% of patients with pause arrhythmias compared to insertable cardiac monitors, while incurring higher costs per diagnosis.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: