Accuracy of arrhythmia detection in implantable cardiac monitors: A prospective randomized clinical trial comparing Reveal LINQ and Confirm Rx

Background Implantable cardiac monitors (ICMs) are increasingly used to detect arrhythmias in various clinical situations. However, the data transmission time and accuracy of detecting cardiac arrhythmias are unclear. Objective The objective of this study was to compare the efficiency of data transm...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Pacing and clinical electrophysiology 2020-11, Vol.43 (11), p.1344-1350
Main Authors: Ip, John, Jaffe, Brian, Castellani, Mark, Sheikh, Ali, Castellani, Carson, Ip, Randy
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Accuracy
Arrhythmia
atrial fibrillation
Bradycardia
Cardiac arrhythmia
cryptogenic stroke
Data transmission
Devices
Fibrillation
Heart
implantable cardiac monitor
Monitoring systems
Patients
remote monitoring
Statistical analysis
syncope
Tachycardia
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Background Implantable cardiac monitors (ICMs) are increasingly used to detect arrhythmias in various clinical situations. However, the data transmission time and accuracy of detecting cardiac arrhythmias are unclear. Objective The objective of this study was to compare the efficiency of data transmission and arrhythmia detection accuracy of the Reveal LINQ with TruRhythm Detection with the Confirm Rx with SharpSense Technology. Methods In this prospective study, 142 patients were randomized 1:1 to receive Reveal LINQ or Confirm Rx ICM system. Arrhythmic events include atrial fibrillation (AF), pauses, and bradycardia. Data transmission time is defined as the time from event occurrence to physician notification. All the arrhythmic events are adjudicated for accuracy. Results A total of 3510 events were transmitted in 61 patients over 7.1 ± 3.5 months. The transmission time both for all events (448 ± 271 vs 610 ± 515 minutes, P = .02) and for patient activated triggers (24 ± 103 vs 475 ± 426 minutes, P 
ISSN:0147-8389
1540-8159
DOI:10.1111/pace.14076