Clinical impact, safety, and accuracy of the remotely monitored implantable loop recorder Medtronic Reveal LINQTM

Aims Implantable loop recorders (ILR) are indicated in a variety of clinical situations when extended cardiac rhythm monitoring is needed. We aimed to assess the clinical impact, safety, and accuracy of the new Medtronic Reveal LINQTM ILR that can be inserted outside the electrophysiology (EP) laboratory and remotely monitored. Methods and results All 154 consecutive patients (100 males, 63 ± 15 year-old) who received the Reveal LINQTM ILR during the period July 2014-June 2016 were enrolled. The device was implanted in a procedure room and all patients where provided with the MyCareLinkTM remote monitoring system. Data were reviewed every working day via the Carelink® web system by a specialist nurse who, in case of significant events, consulted an electrophysiologist. During a mean follow-up of 12.1 (6.7-18.4) months (range 2-24 months), a diagnosis was made in 99 (64%) patients and in 60 (39%) ≥1 therapeutic interventions were established following recording of arrhythmias. In 26 of these 60 patients, remote monitoring prompted therapeutic interventions following asymptomatic arrhythmic events 3.8 months before the next theoretical scheduled in-office data download. False bradycardia detection for undersensing occurred in 44 (29%) patients and false tachycardia detection for oversensing in 4 (3%). One patient experienced skin erosion requiring explantation and none suffered from infection. Conclusion The remote monitoring feature of the Reveal LINQTM allowed earlier diagnosis of asymptomatic but serious arrhythmias in a significant proportion of patients. Implantation of the device outside the EP laboratory appeared safe. However, R-wave undersensing and consequent false recognition of bradyarrhythmias remains a clinically important technical issue.

[1]  P. Sanders,et al.  In-office insertion of a miniaturized insertable cardiac monitor: Results from the Reveal LINQ In-Office 2 randomized study. , 2017, Heart rhythm.

[2]  N. Reinsch,et al.  Maintaining Accurate Long‐Term Sensing Ability Despite Significant Size Reduction of Implantable Cardiac Monitors , 2016, Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE.

[3]  R. Mahajan,et al.  Feasibility and safety of Reveal LINQ insertion in a sterile procedure room versus electrophysiology laboratory. , 2016, International journal of cardiology.

[4]  P. Sanders,et al.  Performance of a new atrial fibrillation detection algorithm in a miniaturized insertable cardiac monitor: Results from the Reveal LINQ Usability Study. , 2016, Heart rhythm.

[5]  M. R. Rutten-van Mölken,et al.  Cost comparison of two implantable cardiac monitors in two different settings: Reveal XT in a catheterization laboratory vs. Reveal LINQ in a procedure room. , 2016, Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology.

[6]  P. Sanders,et al.  Safety Profile of a Miniaturized Insertable Cardiac Monitor: Results from Two Prospective Trials , 2015, Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE.

[7]  Dhanunjaya R. Lakkireddy,et al.  Initial real world experience with a novel insertable (Reveal LinQ(@Medtronic)) compared to the conventional (Reveal XT(@Medtronic)) implantable loop recorder at a tertiary care center - Points to ponder! , 2015, International journal of cardiology.

[8]  Renato Pietro Ricci,et al.  HRS Expert Consensus Statement on remote interrogation and monitoring for cardiovascular implantable electronic devices. , 2015, Heart rhythm.

[9]  R. Passman,et al.  The Reveal LINQ insertable cardiac monitor , 2015, Expert review of medical devices.

[10]  Frank Beckers,et al.  Cryptogenic stroke and underlying atrial fibrillation. , 2014, The New England journal of medicine.

[11]  P. Marino,et al.  Inappropriate Asystole Detection in Early Postoperative Phase after Loop Recorder Implantation , 2011, ISRN cardiology.

[12]  A. Brandes,et al.  Use of an implantable loop recorder to increase the diagnostic yield in unexplained syncope: results from the PICTURE registry , 2010, Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology.

[13]  E. Aliot,et al.  Indications for the use of diagnostic implantable and external ECG loop recorders. , 2009, Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology.

[14]  H. Huikuri,et al.  Improved Arrhythmia Detection in Implantable Loop Recorders , 2008, Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology.

[15]  A. Raviele,et al.  Recurrent unexplained palpitations (RUP) study comparison of implantable loop recorder versus conventional diagnostic strategy. , 2007, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[16]  P. Stafford,et al.  Arrhythmia Detection by Patient and Auto-Activation in Implantable Loop Recorders , 2004, Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology.

[17]  P. Vardas,et al.  Sensing issues related to the clinical use of implantable loop recorders. , 2003, Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology.

[18]  P. Vardas,et al.  Implantable loop recorder undersensing mimicking complete heart block. , 2002, Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology.

[19]  Prashanthan Sanders,et al.  Miniaturized Reveal LINQ insertable cardiac monitoring system , 2015 .