Key result
Cardiac event recorders double diagnostic yield for palpitations vs 48-hour Holter monitoring to 64%.
Why the study?
Palpitations are common and can be evaluated by ambulatory Holter ECG monitoring or event recorders, but their comparative diagnostic yield and optimal monitoring duration are unclear.
Does a cardiac event recorder improve the diagnostic yield compared to 48-hour Holter monitoring in patients with undiagnosed palpitations?
RCT (n=33)
Randomly allocated
Does a cardiac event recorder improve the diagnostic yield compared to 48-hour Holter monitoring in patients with undiagnosed palpitations?
Cardiac event recorders provide a significantly higher diagnostic yield than 48-hour Holter monitoring for evaluating palpitations occurring at least once per month.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Event recorders may aid palpitation evaluation beyond 48-hour Holter; leaves open optimal duration, etiologies, and need for confirmatory studies.
Objectives: (1) To compare a diagnostic yield of cardiac event recorders with that of 48‐hour Holler monitoring, (2) to determine the etiologies of palpitations, and (3) to assess an optimal duration of using an event recorder by a patient. Background: Palpitation is a common symptom which accounts for 16% of total complaints reported by patients in general medical settings. An ambulatory Holter ECG monitoring or an event recorder can be used to establish the cause of palpitations. Methods: (1)The study group consisted of 33 consecutive patients (24 females, 9 males, mean age 50 ± 32 years) with undiagnosed attacks of palpitations, occurring at least once per month. Each patient was randomly allocated to use either an event monitor or 48‐hour Holler monitoring. The patient kept the event monitor for 4 weeks. After the first monitor was returned, the patient was given the other device. Results: Holter monitoring determined the etiology of palpitations in 11 (33%) patients, and the event recorder in 21 (64%) patients (P = 0.0138). In the whole study group, the etiology of palpitations was disclosed in 23 (70%) patients. The diagnosis was possible using Holler ECG monitoring in only 2 (9%) patients, whereas the event recorder revealed the underlying mechanism of palpitations in 12 (52%) patients (P = 0.0007). In nine (39%) patients both methods were able to disclose the eliology of palpitations. The findings of 117 recordings obtained using an event recorder during palpitations were atrial fibrillation in 10 (9%), narrow QRS tachycardia in 4 (3%), frequent supraventricular eclopy in 17 (15%), frequent ventricular eclopy in 6 (5%), and episodes of palpitations sinus rhythm were recorded in the remaining 80 (68%). Of patients who experienced episodes of palpitations while using an event recorder, the earliest recording was obtained on the first day of the study, and the latest on the 18 day of using the event recorder. Conclusions: (1) The cardiac event recorders yield more diagnoses than 48‐hour Holter monitoring in patients with palpitations occurring at least once per month, (2) in this group of patients the event recorder provided a diagnostic ECG recording during the first 18 days of using the device, and (3) in the majority (57%) of patients a normal sinus rhythm was recorded during episodes of palpitations. A.N.E. 2000;5(4):315–321
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Makowska et al. (2000) conducted an RCT in Palpitations (n=33). Cardiac event recorder vs. 48-hour Holter monitoring was evaluated on Determination of the etiology of palpitations (p=0.0138). A 4-week cardiac event recorder determined the etiology of palpitations in more patients than 48-hour Holter monitoring.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: