Reproducibility of Drug Efficacy Predictions by Holter Monitoring in the Electrophysiologic Study Versus Electrocardiographic Monitoring (ESVEM) Trial

Selection of antiarrhythmic therapy may be based on suppression of spontaneous ventricular arrhythmias assessed by Holter monitoring, but the implications of discordant Holter results on repeat 24-hour monitoring has not been defined. This study examines the frequency and significance of reproducible Holter suppression on two 24-hour recordings in the Electrophysiologic Study Versus Electrocardiographic Monitoring (ESVEM) trial. Repeat 24-hour Holter monitoring was obtained in patients randomized to the Holter monitor limb of the ESVEM trial, during the same hospitalization, after a drug efficacy prediction. These Holters were not used to define drug efficacy but were subsequently analyzed to determine the reproducibility of drug efficacy predictions by Holter monitoring. A repeat 24-hour Holter monitor, following the one that predicted drug efficacy, was available in 119 patients. Ninety-nine patients (83%) also had suppression that met efficacy criteria on the second Holter monitor. There were no significant differences in arrhythmia recurrence (p = 0.612) or mortality (p = 0.638) in patients with concordant Holter results (n = 99; 1-year arrhythmia recurrence = 45%; 1-year mortality = 10%) compared with those with discordant Holter results (n = 20; 1-year arrhythmia recurrence = 45%; 1-year mortality = 16%). We conclude that (1) there is discordance between the first effective Holter monitor and a repeat Holter monitor in 17% of patients, and (2) suppression of ventricular ectopic activity on 2 separate 24-hour Holter monitors does not identify a group with a better outcome, nor does failure of suppression on the second Holter monitor identify a group with a worse prognosis.