Ambulatory arrhythmia monitoring: choosing the right device.

Remote cardiac telemetry was developed to allow home ECG monitoring of patients with suspected cardiac arrhythmias. It was first introduced by the American biophysicist Norman J. Holter (1914–1983) in the 1940s. The original Holter monitor was a 75-lb backpack with a reel-to-reel FM tape recorder, analog patient interface electronics, and large batteries.1,2 It could record a single ECG lead for several hours and provided the first opportunity to record and analyze ambulatory ECG data outside a standard hospital or outpatient care setting. The clinical need to monitor outpatients has resulted in advances in technology that now allow us to monitor heart rhythms remotely through a wide variety of devices, including ambulatory external monitors, implantable event recorders, pacemakers, and cardioverter-defibrillators. The rapid expansion of ambulatory monitoring technologies affords the clinician the obvious diagnostic advantage of more comprehensive and real-time data. It also presents the challenge of creating systems to handle and pay for this increased information and the potential liability associated with a continuous data stream. This review focuses on the available technology and factors that guide the choice of monitor. Traditionally, ambulatory monitoring has been used to determine the cause of palpitations and syncope and, to a lesser degree, to identify ventricular ectopy or nonsustained ventricular tachycardia in patients at potential risk for sudden cardiac death.3 Atrial fibrillation (AF) has become an increasingly important indication for ambulatory monitoring, predominantly as a tool to monitor the efficacy and safety of pharmacological and nonpharmacological therapies.4,5 It is also used to identify asymptomatic AF as a potential source of cryptogenic stroke.6,7 Several devices are currently available to remotely assess cardiac rhythm abnormalities in ambulatory patients (Table 1). Devices can record cardiac rhythm continuously or intermittently and can be worn externally or implanted subcutaneously. …

[1]  A. Krahn,et al.  The etiology of syncope in patients with negative tilt table and electrophysiological testing. , 1995, Circulation.

[2]  M. Misfeld,et al.  Twenty-Four–Hour Holter Monitor Follow-Up Does Not Provide Accurate Heart Rhythm Status After Surgical Atrial Fibrillation Ablation Therapy: Up to 12 Months Experience With a Novel Permanently Implantable Heart Rhythm Monitor Device , 2009, Circulation.

[3]  Norman J. Holter,et al.  New Method for Heart Studies , 1961, Science.

[4]  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.

[5]  C. Kurer Implantable looprecorders: dollars and sense* , 2003 .

[6]  B. Hanusa,et al.  The duration of Holter monitoring in patients with syncope. Is 24 hours enough? , 1990, Archives of internal medicine.

[7]  R Yee,et al.  Final results from a pilot study with an implantable loop recorder to determine the etiology of syncope in patients with negative noninvasive and invasive testing. , 1998, The American journal of cardiology.

[8]  M. Linnaluoto,et al.  Remote monitoring of implantable cardioverter defibrillator patients: a safe, time-saving, and cost-effective means for follow-up , 2008, 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.

[9]  Mark Josephson,et al.  The Evolving Role of Ambulatory Arrhythmia Monitoring in General Clinical Practice , 1999, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[10]  N. Freemantle,et al.  The clinical impact of implantable loop recorders in patients with syncope. , 2006, European heart journal.

[11]  E. Mohammadi,et al.  Barriers and facilitators related to the implementation of a physiological track and trigger system: A systematic review of the qualitative evidence , 2017, International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care.

[12]  Massimo Santini,et al.  Monitored atrial fibrillation duration predicts arterial embolic events in patients suffering from bradycardia and atrial fibrillation implanted with antitachycardia pacemakers. , 2005, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[13]  Amanda Neil,et al.  Cardiac Event Recorders Yield More Diagnoses and Are More Cost-effective than 48-Hour Holter Monitoring in Patients with Palpitations: A Controlled Clinical Trial , 1996, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[14]  G. Lamas,et al.  Atrial High Rate Episodes Detected by Pacemaker Diagnostics Predict Death and Stroke: Report of the Atrial Diagnostics Ancillary Study of the MOde Selection Trial (MOST) , 2003, Circulation.

[15]  J. Nielsen,et al.  Symptomatic and Asymptomatic Atrial Fibrillation after Pulmonary Vein Ablation and the Impact on Quality of Life , 2009, Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE.

[16]  P. Kowey,et al.  First experience with a Mobile Cardiac Outpatient Telemetry (MCOT) system for the diagnosis and management of cardiac arrhythmia. , 2005, The American journal of cardiology.

[17]  Safety and feasibility of a clinical pathway for the outpatient initiation of antiarrhythmic medications in patients with atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter. , 2003 .

[18]  A. Krahn,et al.  The high cost of syncope: cost implications of a new insertable loop recorder in the investigation of recurrent syncope. , 1999, American heart journal.

[19]  Dongfeng Qi,et al.  The Relationship Between Daily Atrial Tachyarrhythmia Burden From Implantable Device Diagnostics and Stroke Risk: The TRENDS Study , 2009, Circulation. Arrhythmia and electrophysiology.

[20]  E. Prystowsky,et al.  Utility and cost of event recorders in the diagnosis of palpitations, presyncope, and syncope. , 1997, The American journal of cardiology.

[21]  J. Alpert,et al.  ACC/AHA Guidelines for Ambulatory Electrocardiography. A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee to Revise the Guidelines for Ambulatory Electrocardiography). Developed in collaboration with the North American Society for P , 1999, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[22]  A. Skanes,et al.  A prospective randomized comparison of loop recorders versus Holter monitors in patients with syncope or presyncope. , 2003, The American journal of medicine.

[23]  J. Dimarco,et al.  Use of ambulatory electrocardiographic (Holter) monitoring. , 1990, Annals of internal medicine.

[24]  A. Elhendy,et al.  Heart Rhythm During Syncope and Presyncope: Results of Implantable Loop Recorders , 2000, Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE.

[25]  Jonathan H Seltzer,et al.  The Diagnosis of Cardiac Arrhythmias: A Prospective Multi‐Center Randomized Study Comparing Mobile Cardiac Outpatient Telemetry Versus Standard Loop Event Monitoring , 2007, Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology.

[26]  Charles Ho,et al.  Advances in ambulatory monitoring: regulatory considerations. , 2004, Journal of electrocardiology.

[27]  A. Douen,et al.  Usefulness of Cardiovascular Investigations in Stroke Management: Clinical Relevance and Economic Implications , 2007, Stroke.

[28]  D. Massel,et al.  External loop recorders: determinants of diagnostic yield in patients with syncope. , 2004, American heart journal.

[29]  Martin O'Donnell,et al.  After Acute Ischemic Stroke : A Systematic Review Noninvasive Cardiac Monitoring for Detecting Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation or Flutter , 2007 .

[30]  Ary Goldberger,et al.  Diagnostic Yield and Optimal Duration of Continuous-Loop Event Monitoring for the Diagnosis of Palpitations: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis , 1998, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[31]  Niraj Varma,et al.  Rationale and design of a prospective study of the efficacy of a remote monitoring system used in implantable cardioverter defibrillator follow-up: the Lumos-T Reduces Routine Office Device Follow-Up Study (TRUST) study. , 2007, American heart journal.

[32]  G. Lip,et al.  Multicenter randomized study of anticoagulation guided by remote rhythm monitoring in patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillator and CRT-D devices: Rationale, design, and clinical characteristics of the initially enrolled cohort The IMPACT study. , 2009, American Heart Journal.

[33]  A. Skanes,et al.  Use of the Implantable Loop Recorder in Evaluation of Patients with Unexplained Syncope , 2003, Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology.

[34]  Hugh Calkins,et al.  Symptomatic and Asymptomatic Atrial Fibrillation in Patients Undergoing Radiofrequency Catheter Ablation , 2006, Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology.

[35]  Allan C Skanes,et al.  Cost implications of testing strategy in patients with syncope: randomized assessment of syncope trial. , 2003, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.