John D Rogers1, Prashanthan Sanders2, Christopher Piorkowski3, M Rizwan Sohail4, Rishi Anand5, Karl Crossen6, Farhat S Khairallah7, Rachelle E Kaplon8, Kurt Stromberg8, Robert C Kowal9. 1. Scripps Green Hospital, La Jolla, California. Electronic address: rogers.john@scrippshealth.org. 2. Centre for Heart Rhythm Disorders, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia; Department of Cardiology, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, Australia. 3. Herzzentrum Dresden- Abteilung für Invasive Elektrophysiologie, Dresden, Germany. 4. Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, Minnesota. 5. Holy Cross Hospital, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. 6. Cardiology Associates of North Mississippi, Tupelo, Mississippi. 7. Tallahassee Research Institute, Inc., Tallahassee, Florida. 8. Diagnostics, Cardiac Rhythm and Heart Failure, Medtronic, Inc., Mounds View, Minnesota. 9. Baylor University Medical Center, Dallas, Texas.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recent miniaturization of an insertable cardiac monitor (ICM) may make it possible to move device insertion from a hospital to office setting. However, the safety of this strategy is unknown. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective was to compare the safety of inserting the Reveal LINQ ICM in an office vs a hospital environment. Ancillary objectives included summarizing device- and procedure-related adverse events and responses to a physician questionnaire. METHODS:Five hundred twenty-one patients indicated for an ICM were randomized (1:1 ratio) to undergo ICM insertion in a hospital or office environment at 26 centers in the United States in the Reveal LINQ In-Office 2 study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02395536). Patients were followed for 90 days. RESULTS:ICM insertion was successful in all 482 attempted patients (office: 251; hospital: 231). The untoward event rate (composite of unsuccessful insertion and ICM- or insertion-related complications) was 0.8% (2 of 244) in the office and 0.9% (2 of 227) in the hospital (95% confidence interval, -3.0% to 2.9%; 5% noninferiority: P < .001). In addition, adverse events occurred during 2.5% (6 of 244) of office and 4.4% (10 of 227) of hospital insertions (95% confidence interval [office minus inhospital rates], -5.8% to 1.9%; 5% noninferiority: P < .001). Physicians indicated that for procedures performed in an office vs a hospital, there were fewer delays >15 minutes (16% vs 35%; P < .001) and patient response was more often "very positive." Physicians considered the office location "very convenient" more frequently than the hospital location (85% vs 27%; P < .001). CONCLUSION: The safety profile for the insertion of the Reveal LINQ ICM is excellent irrespective of insertion environment. These results may expand site of service options for LINQ insertion.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Recent miniaturization of an insertable cardiac monitor (ICM) may make it possible to move device insertion from a hospital to office setting. However, the safety of this strategy is unknown. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective was to compare the safety of inserting the Reveal LINQ ICM in an office vs a hospital environment. Ancillary objectives included summarizing device- and procedure-related adverse events and responses to a physician questionnaire. METHODS: Five hundred twenty-one patients indicated for an ICM were randomized (1:1 ratio) to undergo ICM insertion in a hospital or office environment at 26 centers in the United States in the Reveal LINQ In-Office 2 study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02395536). Patients were followed for 90 days. RESULTS: ICM insertion was successful in all 482 attempted patients (office: 251; hospital: 231). The untoward event rate (composite of unsuccessful insertion and ICM- or insertion-related complications) was 0.8% (2 of 244) in the office and 0.9% (2 of 227) in the hospital (95% confidence interval, -3.0% to 2.9%; 5% noninferiority: P < .001). In addition, adverse events occurred during 2.5% (6 of 244) of office and 4.4% (10 of 227) of hospital insertions (95% confidence interval [office minus inhospital rates], -5.8% to 1.9%; 5% noninferiority: P < .001). Physicians indicated that for procedures performed in an office vs a hospital, there were fewer delays >15 minutes (16% vs 35%; P < .001) and patient response was more often "very positive." Physicians considered the office location "very convenient" more frequently than the hospital location (85% vs 27%; P < .001). CONCLUSION: The safety profile for the insertion of the Reveal LINQ ICM is excellent irrespective of insertion environment. These results may expand site of service options for LINQ insertion.
Authors: Sergio Conti; James A Reiffel; Bernard J Gersh; Peter R Kowey; Rolf Wachter; Jonathan L Halperin; Rachelle E Kaplon; Erika Pouliot; Atul Verma Journal: J Atr Fibrillation Date: 2017-02-28
Authors: Barbara Ratajczak-Tretel; Anna Tancin Lambert; Henriette Johansen; Bente Halvorsen; Vigdis Bjerkeli; David Russell; Else Charlotte Sandset; Hege Ihle-Hansen; Erik Eriksen; Halvor Næss; Vojtech Novotny; Andrej Netland Khanevski; Thomas C Truelsen; Titto Idicula; Karen L Ægidius; Håkon Tobro; Siv B Krogseth; Håkon Ihle-Hansen; Guri Hagberg; Christina Kruuse; Kathrine Arntzen; Grete K Bakkejord; Maja Villseth; Ingvild Nakstad; Guttorm Eldøen; Raheel Shafiq; Anne Gulsvik; Martin Kurz; Mehdi Rezai; Jesper Sømark; Stein-Helge Tingvoll; Christine Jonassen; Susanne Ingebrigtsen; Linn Hofsøy Steffensen; Christine Kremer; Dan Atar; Anne Hege Aamodt Journal: Eur Stroke J Date: 2019-03-19
Authors: Prashanthan Sanders; Christopher Piorkowski; Johannes A Kragten; Grahame K Goode; Satish R Raj; Trang Dinh; M Rizwan Sohail; Rishi Anand; Angel Moya-Mitjans; Noreli Franco; Kurt Stromberg; John D Rogers Journal: BMC Cardiovasc Disord Date: 2019-05-31 Impact factor: 2.298
Authors: Matthew Swale; Sinny Delacroix; Glenn Young; Vincent Paul; Luke McSpadden; Kyungmoo Ryu; David Di Fiore; Maria Santos; Isabel Tan; Andre Conradie; MyNgan Duong; Nisha Schwarz; Stephen Worthley; Stephen Pavia Journal: Cardiovasc Digit Health J Date: 2021-12-30
Authors: Thomas Deneke; Pilar Cabanas; Daniel Hofer; Thomas Gaspar; Bertrand Pierre; Giovanni Bisignani; Rajeev Kumar Pathak; Victor Manuel Sanfins; Eimo Martens; Jacques Mansourati; Antonio Berruezo-Sanchez; Marcus Wiemer; Andreas Hain; Thomas Pezawas; Beate Wenzel; Dennis Lau Journal: Heart Rhythm O2 Date: 2022-01-30
Authors: Michael I Ellenbogen; Kathleen M Andersen; Joseph E Marine; Nae-Yuh Wang; Jodi B Segal Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2021-12-23 Impact factor: 1.817