Literature DB >> 24665972

Atrial fibrillation burden estimates derived from intermittent rhythm monitoring are unreliable estimates of the true atrial fibrillation burden.

Efstratios I Charitos1, Paul D Ziegler, Ulrich Stierle, Derek R Robinson, Bernhard Graf, Hans-Hinrich Sievers, Thorsten Hanke.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Estimates of atrial fibrillation (AF) burden (AFB) derived from intermittent rhythm monitoring (IRM) are increasingly being used as an outcome measure after therapeutic interventions; however, their accuracy has never been validated. The aim of this study was to compare IRM-derived AFB estimates to the true AFB as measured by implantable continuous monitoring (CM) devices.
METHODS: Rhythm histories from 647 patients (mean AFB: 12 ± 22%; 687 patient·years) with CM devices were analyzed. IRM of various frequencies and durations were simulated and the obtained IRM-derived AF burdens were compared to the true AFB measured by CM.
RESULTS: The relative error of the IRM burden estimates was dependent on the IRM length (P < 0.001), frequency of IRM (P < 0.001), the true AFB (P < 0.001), and its temporal aggregation (AF density, P < 0.001). In paroxysmal AF patients, the relative error even with aggressive IRM strategies was >80% of the true AFB. The relative error decreased with higher true AF burdens, lower AF densities, and higher IRM frequency or duration (P < 0.001). However, even in patients with high AF burdens and/or low AF densities, IRM estimates of AFB significantly deviated from the true AFB (relative error >20%, P < 0.001) and resulted in a substantial measurement error.
CONCLUSION: IRM-derived AFB estimates are unreliable estimators of the true AFB. Particularly for paroxysmal AF patients, IRM-derived AFB estimates should not be used to evaluate outcomes after AF interventions. ©2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  arrhythmia; atrial fibrillation; clinical trial design; monitoring

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24665972     DOI: 10.1111/pace.12389

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pacing Clin Electrophysiol        ISSN: 0147-8389            Impact factor:   1.976


  7 in total

1.  Atrial fibrillation variability on long-term monitoring of implantable cardiac rhythm management devices.

Authors:  Rachel M Kaplan; Paul D Ziegler; Jodi Koehler; Taya V Glotzer; Rod S Passman
Journal:  Clin Cardiol       Date:  2017-08-11       Impact factor: 2.882

2.  Incidence of Previously Undiagnosed Atrial Fibrillation Using Insertable Cardiac Monitors in a High-Risk Population: The REVEAL AF Study.

Authors:  James A Reiffel; Atul Verma; Peter R Kowey; Jonathan L Halperin; Bernard J Gersh; Rolf Wachter; Erika Pouliot; Paul D Ziegler
Journal:  JAMA Cardiol       Date:  2017-10-01       Impact factor: 14.676

Review 3.  The Role of Implantable Cardiac Monitors in Atrial Fibrillation Management.

Authors:  Giuseppe Ciconte; Daniele Giacopelli; Carlo Pappone
Journal:  J Atr Fibrillation       Date:  2017-08-31

Review 4.  Is extensive atrial fibrosis in the setting of heart failure associated with a reduced atrial fibrillation burden?

Authors:  Alexander Burashnikov; Charles Antzelevitch
Journal:  Pacing Clin Electrophysiol       Date:  2018-09-09       Impact factor: 1.976

5.  Intermittent vs. Continuous Anticoagulation theRapy in patiEnts with Atrial Fibrillation (iCARE-AF): a randomized pilot study.

Authors:  Stavros Stavrakis; Julie A Stoner; Joel Kardokus; Paul J Garabelli; Sunny S Po; Ralph Lazzara
Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol       Date:  2016-10-01       Impact factor: 1.900

6.  Atrial fibrillation. Cryptogenic stroke--can we abandon this apologetic diagnosis?

Authors:  A John Camm
Journal:  Nat Rev Cardiol       Date:  2014-07-29       Impact factor: 32.419

7.  Long-term Arrhythmia Monitoring in Cryptogenic Stroke: Who, How, and for How Long?

Authors:  Mayra Montalvo; Rushna Ali; Brian Silver; Muhib Khan
Journal:  Open Cardiovasc Med J       Date:  2016-05-27
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.