open access

Vol 25, No 3 (2018)
Original articles — Clinical cardiology
Published online: 2017-08-24
Get Citation

Outcome of implantable loop recorder evaluation

Peter M. Magnusson, Maciej Olszowka, Marita Wallhagen, Hirsh Koyi
DOI: 10.5603/CJ.a2017.0101
·
Pubmed: 28840588
·
Cardiol J 2018;25(3):363-370.

open access

Vol 25, No 3 (2018)
Original articles — Clinical cardiology
Published online: 2017-08-24

Abstract

Background: The aim of this study was to evaluate implantable loop recorders (ILRs) in an unselected cohort in order to determine diagnostic yield, time to pacemaker/implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation, predictors thereof, safety issues, and syncope management including usage of preceding diagnostic tools.

Methods: Patients who underwent ILR evaluation in any of three centers in Region Gävleborg, Swe­den, between April 2007 and April 2013 were included and their medical records retrieved. Logistic regression was used to evaluate predictors of pacemaker/ICD outcome expressed as odds ratios (ORs) and Kaplan-Meier estimates for time-dependent analysis.

Results: A total of 173 patients (52.6% females) with a mean age of 56.2 years received an ILR dur­ing a mean follow-up of 605 days. In the 146 patients evaluated for syncope/presyncope, 28.1% received a pacemaker (n = 39) or ICD (n = 2). The cumulative incidence at 6, 12, and 18 months were 8.8%, 21.3%, and 26.7%, respectively. Age > 75 years was the only significant predictor for outcome (p = 0.010) and the following variables showed a tendency toward significance: abnormal elevation of the biomarker B-type natriuretic peptide (OR 2.05, p = 0.100), a history of trauma (OR 1.71, p = 0.179), and patho­logic electrocardiogram (OR 1.68, p = 0.231). A computerized tomography of the skull was performed in 52.1% of the syncope cases.

Conclusions: In syncope evaluation in an unselected cohort, 28.1% were diagnosed with an arrhyth­mia necessitating a pacemaker/ICD. The only significant predictor was advanced age. Time to diag­nosis is unpredictable and prolonged ILR monitoring is warranted in addition to optimal use of other diagnostic tools.

Abstract

Background: The aim of this study was to evaluate implantable loop recorders (ILRs) in an unselected cohort in order to determine diagnostic yield, time to pacemaker/implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation, predictors thereof, safety issues, and syncope management including usage of preceding diagnostic tools.

Methods: Patients who underwent ILR evaluation in any of three centers in Region Gävleborg, Swe­den, between April 2007 and April 2013 were included and their medical records retrieved. Logistic regression was used to evaluate predictors of pacemaker/ICD outcome expressed as odds ratios (ORs) and Kaplan-Meier estimates for time-dependent analysis.

Results: A total of 173 patients (52.6% females) with a mean age of 56.2 years received an ILR dur­ing a mean follow-up of 605 days. In the 146 patients evaluated for syncope/presyncope, 28.1% received a pacemaker (n = 39) or ICD (n = 2). The cumulative incidence at 6, 12, and 18 months were 8.8%, 21.3%, and 26.7%, respectively. Age > 75 years was the only significant predictor for outcome (p = 0.010) and the following variables showed a tendency toward significance: abnormal elevation of the biomarker B-type natriuretic peptide (OR 2.05, p = 0.100), a history of trauma (OR 1.71, p = 0.179), and patho­logic electrocardiogram (OR 1.68, p = 0.231). A computerized tomography of the skull was performed in 52.1% of the syncope cases.

Conclusions: In syncope evaluation in an unselected cohort, 28.1% were diagnosed with an arrhyth­mia necessitating a pacemaker/ICD. The only significant predictor was advanced age. Time to diag­nosis is unpredictable and prolonged ILR monitoring is warranted in addition to optimal use of other diagnostic tools.

Get Citation

Keywords

cardiac arrhythmia, implantable loop recorder, electrocardiography monitoring, pacemaker, syncope

About this article
Title

Outcome of implantable loop recorder evaluation

Journal

Cardiology Journal

Issue

Vol 25, No 3 (2018)

Pages

363-370

Published online

2017-08-24

DOI

10.5603/CJ.a2017.0101

Pubmed

28840588

Bibliographic record

Cardiol J 2018;25(3):363-370.

Keywords

cardiac arrhythmia
implantable loop recorder
electrocardiography monitoring
pacemaker
syncope

Authors

Peter M. Magnusson
Maciej Olszowka
Marita Wallhagen
Hirsh Koyi

References (31)
  1. Moya A, Sutton R, Ammirati F, et al. Task Force for the Diagnosis and Management of Syncope, European Society of Cardiology (ESC), European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA), Heart Failure Association (HFA), Heart Rhythm Society (HRS). Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of syncope (version 2009). Eur Heart J. 2009; 30(21): 2631–2671.
  2. Soteriades ES, Evans JC, Larson MG, et al. Incidence and prognosis of syncope. N Engl J Med. 2002; 347(12): 878–885.
  3. Colivicchi F, Ammirati F, Melina D. OESIL (Osservatorio Epidemiologico sulla Sincope nel Lazio) Study Investigators. Development and prospective validation of a risk stratification system for patients with syncope in the emergency department: the OESIL risk score. Eur Heart J. 2003; 9: 811–819.
  4. Costantino G, Sun B, Barbic F, et al. Syncope clinical management in the emergency department: a consensus from the first international workshop on syncope risk stratification in the emergency department. Eur Heart J. 2016; 37(19): 1493–1498.
  5. Ganzeboom KS, Mairuhu G, Reitsma JB, et al. Lifetime cumulative incidence of syncope in the general population: a study of 549 Dutch subjects aged 35-60 years. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2006; 17(11): 1172–1176.
  6. Vitale E, Ungar A, Maggi R, et al. Discrepancy between clinical practice and standardized indications for an implantable loop recorder in patients with unexplained syncope. Europace. 2010; 12(10): 1475–1479.
  7. Solano A, Menozzi C, Maggi R, et al. Incidence, diagnostic yield and safety of the implantable loop-recorder to detect the mechanism of syncope in patients with and without structural heart disease. Eur Heart J. 2004; 25(13): 1116–1119.
  8. Brignole M, Menozzi C, Bartoletti A, et al. A new management of syncope: prospective systematic guideline-based evaluation of patients referred urgently to general hospitals. Eur Heart J. 2006; 27(1): 76–82.
  9. Sanna T, Diener HC, Passman RS, et al. CRYSTAL AF Investigators. Cryptogenic stroke and underlying atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2014; 370(26): 2478–2486.
  10. Bhangu J, McMahon CG, Hall P, et al. Long-term cardiac monitoring in older adults with unexplained falls and syncope. Heart. 2016; 102(9): 681–686.
  11. Edvardsson N, Frykman V, van Mechelen R, et al. PICTURE Study Investigators. Use of an implantable loop recorder to increase the diagnostic yield in unexplained syncope: results from the PICTURE registry. Europace. 2011; 13(2): 262–269.
  12. Brignole M, Auricchio A, Baron-Esquivias G, et al. 2013 ESC Guidelines on cardiac pacing and cardiac resynchronization therapy: the Task Force on cardiac pacing and resynchronization therapy of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Developed in collaboration with the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA). Eur Heart J. 2013; 34(29): 2281–2329.
  13. Priori SG, Blomström-Lundqvist C, Mazzanti A, et al. 2015 ESC Guidelines for the management of patients with ventricular arrhythmias and the prevention of sudden cardiac death: The Task Force for the Management of Patients with Ventricular Arrhythmias and the Prevention of Sudden Cardiac Death of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Endorsed by: Association for European Paediatric and Congenital Cardiology (AEPC). Eur Heart J. 2015; 36: 2793–2867.
  14. Ahmed N, Frontera A, Carpenter A, et al. Clinical Predictors of Pacemaker Implantation in Patients with Syncope Receiving Implantable Loop Recorder with or without ECG Conduction Abnormalities. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2015; 38(8): 934–941.
  15. Pierre B, Fauchier L, Breard G, et al. Implantable loop recorder for recurrent syncope: influence of cardiac conduction abnormalities showing up on resting electrocardiogram and of underlying cardiac disease on follow-up developments. Europace. 2008; 10(4): 477–481.
  16. Palmisano P, Accogli M, Zaccaria M, et al. Predictive factors for pacemaker implantation in patients receiving an implantable loop recorder for syncope remained unexplained after an extensive cardiac and neurological workup. Int J Cardiol. 2013; 168(4): 3450–3457.
  17. Lacunza-Ruiz FJ, Moya-Mitjans A, Martínez-Alday J, et al. Implantable loop recorder allows an etiologic diagnosis in one-third of patients. Results of the Spanish reveal registry. Circ J. 2013; 77(10): 2535–2541.
  18. Statistics Sweden Database. Official population statistics. Kommunfakta Befolkningspyramid. 2016. www.scb.se.
  19. Lombardi F, Calosso E, Mascioli G, et al. Utility of implantable loop recorder (Reveal Plus) in the diagnosis of unexplained syncope. Europace. 2005; 7(1): 19–24.
  20. Furukawa T, Maggi R, Bertolone C, et al. Additional diagnostic value of very prolonged observation by implantable loop recorder in patients with unexplained syncope. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2012; 23(1): 67–71.
  21. Podoleanu C, DaCosta A, Defaye P, et al. FRESH investigators. Early use of an implantable loop recorder in syncope evaluation: a randomized study in the context of the French healthcare system (FRESH study). Arch Cardiovasc Dis. 2014; 107(10): 546–552.
  22. Maggi R, Rafanelli M, Ceccofiglio A, et al. Additional diagnostic value of implantable loop recorder in patients with initial diagnosis of real or apparent transient loss of consciousness of uncertain origin. Europace. 2014; 16(8): 1226–1230.
  23. Kulakowski P, Lelonek M, Krynski T, et al. Prospective evaluation of diagnostic work-up in syncope patients: results of the PL-US registry. Europace. 2010; 12(2): 230–239.
  24. Brignole M, Menozzi C, Maggi R, et al. The usage and diagnostic yield of the implantable loop-recorder in detection of the mechanism of syncope and in guiding effective antiarrhythmic therapy in older people. Europace. 2005; 7(3): 273–279.
  25. Sarasin FP, Hanusa BH, Perneger T, et al. A risk score to predict arrhythmias in patients with unexplained syncope. Acad Emerg Med. 2003; 10(12): 1312–1317.
  26. Del Rosso A, Ungar A, Maggi R, et al. Clinical predictors of cardiac syncope at initial evaluation in patients referred urgently to a general hospital: the EGSYS score. Heart. 2008; 94(12): 1620–1626.
  27. Kanjwal K, Kanjwal Y, Karabin B, et al. Clinical symptoms associated with asystolic or bradycardic responses on implantable loop recorder monitoring in patients with recurrent syncope. Int J Med Sci. 2009; 6(2): 106–110.
  28. Sud S, Klein GJ, Skanes AC, et al. Predicting the cause of syncope from clinical history in patients undergoing prolonged monitoring. Heart Rhythm. 2009; 6(2): 238–243.
  29. Davis S, Westby M, Pitcher D, et al. Implantable loop recorders are cost-effective when used to investigate transient loss of consciousness which is either suspected to be arrhythmic or remains unexplained. Europace. 2012; 14(3): 402–409.
  30. Carpenter A, Frontera A. Smart-watches: a potential challenger to the implantable loop recorder? Europace. 2016; 18(6): 791–793.
  31. Edvardsson N, Wolff C, Tsintzos S, et al. Costs of unstructured investigation of unexplained syncope: insights from a micro-costing analysis of the observational PICTURE registry. Europace. 2015; 17(7): 1141–1148.

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