Literature DB >> 32002114

Contemporary Yield of 24-hour Holter Monitoring: Role of Inter-Atrial Block Recognition.

Victor Bazan1, German Cediel1, Cinta Llibre1, Axel Sarrias1, Isabel Romeo2, Sònia Ibars2, Francisco Escudero2, Sandra Valdivielso2, Felipe Bisbal1, Roger Villuendas1, Antoni Bayes-Genis1, Ferran Padilla2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The diagnostic yield of 24-hour ECG Holter monitoring (24H) is currently overcome by alternative ECG monitoring techniquesand it needs to be optimized. The recognition of inter-atrial block (IAB) has emerged as a reliable indicator of patients at risk of atrial fibrillation relapses, and its role enhancing the yield of 24H is yet to be determined. We hypothesized that a presumably low yield of 24H may be ameliorated by means of incorporating the assessment for IAB.
METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 1017 consecutive 24H registers performed in a Multidisciplinary Integrated Health Care Institution, in which a restrictive definition of diagnostic 24H findings was used. A univariate and multivariate regression analysis served to determine the variables associated with a higher 24H's yield, including the requesting medical specialty, type of indication and a number of clinical, echocardiographic and ECG variables, including IAB.
RESULTS: The mean age of our population was 62 ± 17 years (55% males). The majority of 24H were indicated from the Cardiology department (48%). The overall yield was 12.8%, higher for the assessment of the integrity of the electrical conduction system (26.1%) and poorer for the assessment of syncope (3.2%) and cryptogenic stroke (4.6%). The variables associated with higher diagnostic performance were indication from Cardiology (p < 0.001), IAB (p = 0.004), structural heart disease (p = 0.008) and chronic renal failure (p = 0.009). Patients ≤ 50 years old only retrieved a 7% yield. In the multivariate analysis, indication from Cardiology and IAB remained significant predictors of higher 24H's yield. In a secondary analysis including echocardiographic data, only identification of IAB remained statistically significant.
CONCLUSIONS: The recognition of IAB and the type of indication are major determinants of a higher 24H's diagnostic yield and may help to optimize the selection of candidates.

Entities:  

Keywords:  24-hour ECG Holter monitoring; Atrial fibrillation; Inter-atrial block

Year:  2019        PMID: 32002114      PMCID: PMC6990051          DOI: 10.4022/jafib.2225

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Atr Fibrillation        ISSN: 1941-6911


  25 in total

1.  Lenient versus strict rate control in patients with atrial fibrillation.

Authors:  Isabelle C Van Gelder; Hessel F Groenveld; Harry J G M Crijns; Ype S Tuininga; Jan G P Tijssen; A Marco Alings; Hans L Hillege; Johanna A Bergsma-Kadijk; Jan H Cornel; Otto Kamp; Raymond Tukkie; Hans A Bosker; Dirk J Van Veldhuisen; Maarten P Van den Berg
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2010-03-15       Impact factor: 91.245

2.  Real-World Experience with Insertable Cardiac Monitors to Find Atrial Fibrillation in Cryptogenic Stroke.

Authors:  Paul D Ziegler; John D Rogers; Scott W Ferreira; Allan J Nichols; Shantanu Sarkar; Jodi L Koehler; Eduardo N Warman; Mark Richards
Journal:  Cerebrovasc Dis       Date:  2015-08-28       Impact factor: 2.762

Review 3.  Indications for the use of diagnostic implantable and external ECG loop recorders.

Authors:  Michele Brignole; Panos Vardas; Ellen Hoffman; Heikki Huikuri; Angel Moya; Renato Ricci; Neil Sulke; Wouter Wieling; Angelo Auricchio; Gregory Y H Lip; Jesus Almendral; Paulus Kirchhof; Etienne Aliot; Maurizio Gasparini; Frieder Braunschweig; Gregory Y H Lip; Jesus Almendral; Paulus Kirchhof; Gian Luca Botto
Journal:  Europace       Date:  2009-05       Impact factor: 5.214

4.  Guidelines for ambulatory electrocardiography. A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Assessment of Diagnostic and Therapeutic Cardiovascular Procedures (Subcommittee on Ambulatory Electrocardiography).

Authors:  S B Knoebel; M H Crawford; M I Dunn; C Fisch; J S Forrester; A M Hutter; H L Kennedy; R L Lux; L T Sheffield; C Fisch
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  1989-01       Impact factor: 29.690

5.  Comparison of autotriggered memory loop recorders versus standard loop recorders versus 24-hour Holter monitors for arrhythmia detection.

Authors:  James A Reiffel; Robert Schwarzberg; Maria Murry
Journal:  Am J Cardiol       Date:  2005-05-01       Impact factor: 2.778

6.  Efficacy of diagnostic tools for detecting cardiac arrhythmias: systematic literature search.

Authors:  E Hoefman; P J E Bindels; H C P M van Weert
Journal:  Neth Heart J       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 2.380

7.  Comparison of automatic and patient-activated arrhythmia recordings by implantable loop recorders in the evaluation of syncope.

Authors:  Cengiz Ermis; Alan X Zhu; Scott Pham; Jian Ming Li; Marco Guerrero; Amy Vrudney; Laura Hiltner; Fei Lu; Scott Sakaguchi; Keith G Lurie; David G Benditt
Journal:  Am J Cardiol       Date:  2003-10-01       Impact factor: 2.778

8.  A prospective randomized comparison of loop recorders versus Holter monitors in patients with syncope or presyncope.

Authors:  Soori Sivakumaran; Andrew D Krahn; George J Klein; Jane Finan; Raymond Yee; Suzanne Renner; Allan C Skanes
Journal:  Am J Med       Date:  2003-07       Impact factor: 4.965

9.  Holter monitoring in patients with transient and focal ischemic attacks of the brain.

Authors:  P J Koudstaal; J van Gijn; A P Klootwijk; F G van der Meche; L J Kappelle
Journal:  Stroke       Date:  1986 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 7.914

10.  The diagnostic significance of the holter monitoring in the evaluation of palpitation.

Authors:  Badri Paudel; Klara Paudel
Journal:  J Clin Diagn Res       Date:  2013-03-01
View more
  1 in total

1.  Nonlinear relationship between serum total bilirubin levels and initial ischemic stroke in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation.

Authors:  Ying Liu; Jie Wang; Wen-Zhen Zeng; Qing-Shan Lyu
Journal:  J Int Med Res       Date:  2020-10       Impact factor: 1.671

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.