Literature DB >> 28545873

Reveal LINQ Versus Reveal XT Implantable Loop Recorders: Intra- and Post-Procedural Comparison.

Hoang H Nguyen1, Ian H Law2, Michael W Rudokas1, Jennifer Lampe2, Tammy M Bowman1, George F Van Hare1, Jennifer N Avari Silva3.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To compare the procedure, recovery, hospitalization times, and costs along with patient/parent satisfaction after newer-generation cardiac implantable loop recorder (Reveal LINQ; Medtronic Inc, Minneapolis, Minnesota) and previous-generation implantable loop recorder (Reveal XT; Medtronic Inc). STUDY
DESIGN: A prospective study of patients undergoing LINQ implantations between April 2014 and October 2015 was performed. Retrospective chart review of patients undergoing XT implantations was performed for comparison.
RESULTS: Thirty-one patients received LINQ and 15 patients received XT. Indications included syncope/palpitations (28/46, 61%), history of arrhythmias (9/46, 20%), arrhythmia burden in congenital heart disease (5/46, 10%), and monitoring in channelopathies (4/46, 9%). The LINQ group underwent more conscious sedation procedures than the XT group (8/31 vs 0/15, P = .04) with shorter procedural time (9 vs 34 minutes, P <.001), room occupation time (38 vs 81 minutes, P <.001), recovery time (21 vs 67 minutes, P <.001), and total hospital time (214 vs 264 minutes, P = .046). The LINQ group also had shorter return to activity time (2 vs 5 days, P = 1). Three device erosions in the LINQ group required reintervention. The LINQ group had fewer body image issues than the XT group (1/26 vs 5/14, P = .01) with both groups scoring 5/5 overall patient/parent satisfaction score at follow-up. Both groups had comparable total direct hospital costs (US $5905 vs $5438, P = .8).
CONCLUSIONS: LINQ offers better procedural and recovery time compared with XT. LINQ implantations under conscious sedation reduce total hospitalization time.
Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  LINQ; Reveal; cardiac monitor; implantable loop recorder

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28545873     DOI: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2017.04.057

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Pediatr        ISSN: 0022-3476            Impact factor:   4.406


  4 in total

1.  Placement of Reveal LINQ Device in the Left Anterior Axillary Position.

Authors:  Heather Anderson; Joseph Dearani; M Yasir Qureshi; Kimberly Holst; Patrick O'Leary; Bryan Cannon; Philip Wackel
Journal:  Pediatr Cardiol       Date:  2019-11-19       Impact factor: 1.655

2.  A tertiary centre experience of thoracic CT and cardiac MRI scanning in the presence of a reveal LINQ insertable cardiac monitoring system: a case series review of artefact, patient safety and data preservation.

Authors:  Benedict M Wiles; Caroline A Illingworth; Michael Lg Couzins; Paul R Roberts; Stephen P Harden
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2018-02-01       Impact factor: 3.039

3.  A Single-center Experience Comparing First- Versus Second-generation Insertable Cardiac Monitors in Pediatric Patients.

Authors:  Nathan Miller; Lisa Roelle; Dean Lorimer; Aarti S Dalal; William B Orr; George F Van Hare; Jennifer N Avari Silva
Journal:  J Innov Card Rhythm Manag       Date:  2022-06-15

4.  Impact of Device Miniaturization on Insertable Cardiac Monitor Use in the Pediatric Population: An Analysis of the MarketScan Commercial and Medicaid Databases.

Authors:  Dustin Nash; Hannah Katcoff; Jennifer Faerber; V Ramesh Iyer; Maully J Shah; Michael L O'Byrne; Christopher Janson
Journal:  J Am Heart Assoc       Date:  2022-08-05       Impact factor: 6.106

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.