Key result
Continuous monitoring via implantable loop recorder detected atrial fibrillation recurrences earlier than intermittent follow-up (P<0.001) and revealed a low median AF burden of 5.7% over 24 months.
Why the study?
Does continuous monitoring via implantable loop recorder improve the detection of atrial fibrillation recurrence and its correlation with symptoms compared to intermittent monitoring in patients post-radiofrequency ablation?
Cohort (n=57)
Does continuous monitoring via implantable loop recorder improve the detection of atrial fibrillation recurrence and its correlation with symptoms compared to intermittent monitoring in patients post-radiofrequency ablation?
p-value: p=<0.001
Continuous monitoring with an implantable loop recorder after AF ablation reveals that AF burden remains low, but one-third of patient-reported symptoms are not associated with actual AF episodes.
ILR monitoring may enable earlier AF recurrence detection post-ablation with low burden; leaves open effects on outcomes versus intermittent follow-up.
CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://clinicaltrials.gov. Unique Identifier: NCT00697359. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate rhythm control up to two years after atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation and its relation to reported symptoms. BACKGROUND: The implantable loop recorder (ILR) continuously records the electrocardiogram (ECG), has an automatic AF detection algorithm, and has a possibility for patients to activate an ECG recording during symptoms. METHODS: Fifty-seven patients (mean age 57 ± 9 years, 60% male, 88% paroxysmal AF) underwent AF ablation following ILR implantation. Device data were downloaded at the ablation and three, six, 12, 18, and 24 months after ablation. RESULTS: Fifty-four patients completed the two-year follow-up. Thirteen (24%) patients had no AF episodes detected by ILR during follow-up. Ten of 41 patients (24%) with AF recurrence were only detected by ILR and AF recurrences were detected earlier by ILR (P < 0.001). The median AF burden in patients with AF recurrence was 5.7% (interquartile range 0.4-14.4) and was even lower in patients with AF only detected by ILR (P = 0.001). Forty-eight % of the patients indicated symptoms via the patient activator but 33% of those recordings were not due to AF. Early AF recurrence (within 3 months) was highly associated with later AF recurrence (P < 0.001). AF burden >0.5% and longest AF episode >6 hours before the ablation were independent predictors of AF recurrence during intermittent but not continuous monitoring. CONCLUSIONS: After AF ablation, the AF burden was low throughout the 24 months follow-up. Nevertheless, symptoms were commonly indicated but one-third of patient-activated recordings did not show AF. Continuous monitoring was superior to intermittent follow-up in detecting AF episodes and assessing the AF burden.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Björkenheim et al. (2016) conducted a cohort in Atrial fibrillation (n=57). Continuous monitoring via implantable loop recorder (ILR) vs. Intermittent follow-up was evaluated on Atrial fibrillation recurrence detection (p=<0.001). Continuous monitoring via implantable loop recorder detected atrial fibrillation recurrences earlier than intermittent follow-up (P<0.001) and revealed a low median AF burden of 5.7% over 24 months.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: