Continuous monitoring ('trendscription') detected ventricular premature beats in 62% of exercise tests compared to 44% with intermittent monitoring.
Observational (n=39)
Does a continuous recording system improve the detection of ventricular premature beats compared to intermittent monitoring in patients undergoing exercise studies?
Continuous monitoring during exercise testing significantly increases the detection of ventricular premature beats, especially complex and repetitive forms, compared to intermittent monitoring.
Absolute Event Rate: 62% vs 44%
Exercise stress testing is being increasingly used to verify exercise-induced arrhythmia and to aid in assessing antiarrhythmic drug efficacy. The true prevalence of ventricular arrhythmia during exercise testing is underestimated by means other than continuous monitoring. We compared the yield of ventricular premature beats (VPBs) between a continuous recording system ("trendscription") and intermittent monitoring among 39 patients undergoing a total of 50 consecutive exercise studies. By intermittent monitoring, 22 (44%) of 50 of the exercise tests demonstrated VPBs; with trendscription, 31 (62%) exhibited such arrhythmia. Most striking, however, was a sixfold increase in the disclosure of complex and repetitive forms of VPBs (56 vs nine episodes). Thus, this form of monitoring presents a cost-efficient, on-line method that allows concentration on the patient during exercise as well as clear recording of all arrhythmic events.
Elliott M. Antman (Fri,) conducted a observational in Ventricular arrhythmia (n=39). Continuous recording system ('trendscription') vs. Intermittent monitoring was evaluated on Yield of ventricular premature beats (VPBs). Continuous monitoring ('trendscription') detected ventricular premature beats in 62% of exercise tests compared to 44% with intermittent monitoring.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: