open access

Vol 22, No 3 (2015)
Original articles
Published online: 2015-06-19
Get Citation

Differences in the yield of the implantable loop recorder between secondary and tertiary centers

Francisco Javier Lacunza-Ruiz, Angel Moya-Mitjans, Jesús Martínez-Alday, Gonzalo Barón-Esquivias, Ricardo Ruiz-Granell, Nuria Rivas-Gándara, Susana González-Enríquez, Juan Leal-del-Ojo, Natalie García-Heil, Arcadi García-Alberola
DOI: 10.5603/CJ.a2014.0088
·
Pubmed: 25428732
·
Cardiol J 2015;22(3):241-246.

open access

Vol 22, No 3 (2015)
Original articles
Published online: 2015-06-19

Abstract

Background: The implantable loop recorder (ILR) is a useful tool for diagnosis of syncope or palpitations. Its easy use and safety have extended its use to secondary hospitals (those without an Electrophysiology Lab). The aim of the study was to compare results between secondary and tertiary hospitals.

Methods: National prospective and multicenter registry of patients with an ILR inserted for clinical reasons. Data were collected in an online database. The follow-up ended when the first diagnostic clinical event occurred, or 1 year after implantation. Data were analyzed according to the center of reference; hospitals with Electrophysiology Lab were considered Tertiary Hospi­tals, while those hospitals without a lab were considered Secondary Hospitals.

Results: Seven hundred and forty-three patients (413 [55.6%] men; 65 ± 16 year-old): 655 (88.2%) from Tertiary Centers (TC) and 88 (11.8%) from Secondary Centers (SC). No differences in clinical characteristics between both groups were found. The electrophysi­ologic study and the tilt table test were conducted more frequently in Tertiary Centers. Fol­low-up was conducted for 680 (91.5%) patients: 91% in TC and 94% in SC. There was a higher rate of final diagnosis among SC patients (55.4% vs. 30.8%; p < 0.001). Tertiary Hospital patients showed a trend towards a higher rate of neurally mediated events (20% vs. 4%), while bradyarrhythmias were more frequent in SC (74% vs. 60%; p = 0.055). The rate of deaths and adverse events was similar in both populations.

Conclusions: Patients with an ILR in SC and TC have differences in terms of the use of complementary tests, but not in clinical characteristics. There was a higher rate of diagnosis in Secondary Hospital patients.  

Abstract

Background: The implantable loop recorder (ILR) is a useful tool for diagnosis of syncope or palpitations. Its easy use and safety have extended its use to secondary hospitals (those without an Electrophysiology Lab). The aim of the study was to compare results between secondary and tertiary hospitals.

Methods: National prospective and multicenter registry of patients with an ILR inserted for clinical reasons. Data were collected in an online database. The follow-up ended when the first diagnostic clinical event occurred, or 1 year after implantation. Data were analyzed according to the center of reference; hospitals with Electrophysiology Lab were considered Tertiary Hospi­tals, while those hospitals without a lab were considered Secondary Hospitals.

Results: Seven hundred and forty-three patients (413 [55.6%] men; 65 ± 16 year-old): 655 (88.2%) from Tertiary Centers (TC) and 88 (11.8%) from Secondary Centers (SC). No differences in clinical characteristics between both groups were found. The electrophysi­ologic study and the tilt table test were conducted more frequently in Tertiary Centers. Fol­low-up was conducted for 680 (91.5%) patients: 91% in TC and 94% in SC. There was a higher rate of final diagnosis among SC patients (55.4% vs. 30.8%; p < 0.001). Tertiary Hospital patients showed a trend towards a higher rate of neurally mediated events (20% vs. 4%), while bradyarrhythmias were more frequent in SC (74% vs. 60%; p = 0.055). The rate of deaths and adverse events was similar in both populations.

Conclusions: Patients with an ILR in SC and TC have differences in terms of the use of complementary tests, but not in clinical characteristics. There was a higher rate of diagnosis in Secondary Hospital patients.  

Get Citation

Keywords

implantable loop recorder, registry, secondary centers, tertiary centers

About this article
Title

Differences in the yield of the implantable loop recorder between secondary and tertiary centers

Journal

Cardiology Journal

Issue

Vol 22, No 3 (2015)

Pages

241-246

Published online

2015-06-19

DOI

10.5603/CJ.a2014.0088

Pubmed

25428732

Bibliographic record

Cardiol J 2015;22(3):241-246.

Keywords

implantable loop recorder
registry
secondary centers
tertiary centers

Authors

Francisco Javier Lacunza-Ruiz
Angel Moya-Mitjans
Jesús Martínez-Alday
Gonzalo Barón-Esquivias
Ricardo Ruiz-Granell
Nuria Rivas-Gándara
Susana González-Enríquez
Juan Leal-del-Ojo
Natalie García-Heil
Arcadi García-Alberola

Important: This website uses cookies. More >>

The cookies allow us to identify your computer and find out details about your last visit. They remembering whether you've visited the site before, so that you remain logged in - or to help us work out how many new website visitors we get each month. Most internet browsers accept cookies automatically, but you can change the settings of your browser to erase cookies or prevent automatic acceptance if you prefer.

By "Via Medica sp. z o.o." sp.k., ul. Świętokrzyska 73, 80–180 Gdańsk, Poland
tel.:+48 58 320 94 94, fax:+48 58 320 94 60, e-mail: viamedica@viamedica.pl