AIMS: The aim of the present study was to compare the rate of actionable arrhythmic events between patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) who are monitored with an insertable cardiac monitor (ICM) or Holter monitoring. METHODS: We studied 50 patients (mean age 52 years, 72% men) with HCM at low or intermediate risk for sudden cardiac death (SCD), of whom 25 patients received an ICM between November 2014 and February 2019. We retrospectively identified a control group of 25 patients who were matched on age, sex, and HCM Risk-SCD score category. The mean HCM Risk-SCD score was 3.41 ± 1.31 and 3.31 ± 1.43 for the ICM and Holter groups, respectively. The primary endpoint was an actionable event which was defined as an arrhythmic event resulting in a change in patient management. The secondary endpoint was the occurrence of ventricular tachycardia (VT). RESULTS: The cumulative actionable event rate at 30 months was higher in the ICM group (51 vs. 27%, log-rank p value <0.01). De novo atrial fibrillation requiring oral anticoagulation occurred only in the ICM group (n = 3). Overall, 4 implantable cardioverter-defibrillators were implanted for primary prevention (n = 2 in each group). The cumulative rate of VT episodes at 30 months was similar between groups (23% [ICM group] vs. 42% [Holter group], log-rank p value = 0.71). Furthermore, the characteristics of VT were similar between groups with regard to the number of beats and rate. CONCLUSIONS: In adults with HCM, an ICM will detect more arrhythmic events requiring an intervention than a conventional Holter strategy. In contrast, the diagnostic yield of detecting VT seems similar for both groups.
AIMS: The aim of the present study was to compare the rate of actionable arrhythmic events between patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) who are monitored with an insertable cardiac monitor (ICM) or Holter monitoring. METHODS: We studied 50 patients (mean age 52 years, 72% men) with HCM at low or intermediate risk for sudden cardiac death (SCD), of whom 25 patients received an ICM between November 2014 and February 2019. We retrospectively identified a control group of 25 patients who were matched on age, sex, and HCM Risk-SCD score category. The mean HCM Risk-SCD score was 3.41 ± 1.31 and 3.31 ± 1.43 for the ICM and Holter groups, respectively. The primary endpoint was an actionable event which was defined as an arrhythmic event resulting in a change in patient management. The secondary endpoint was the occurrence of ventricular tachycardia (VT). RESULTS: The cumulative actionable event rate at 30 months was higher in the ICM group (51 vs. 27%, log-rank p value <0.01). De novo atrial fibrillation requiring oral anticoagulation occurred only in the ICM group (n = 3). Overall, 4 implantable cardioverter-defibrillators were implanted for primary prevention (n = 2 in each group). The cumulative rate of VT episodes at 30 months was similar between groups (23% [ICM group] vs. 42% [Holter group], log-rank p value = 0.71). Furthermore, the characteristics of VT were similar between groups with regard to the number of beats and rate. CONCLUSIONS: In adults with HCM, an ICM will detect more arrhythmic events requiring an intervention than a conventional Holter strategy. In contrast, the diagnostic yield of detecting VT seems similar for both groups.
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
Authors: Ethan J Rowin; Anais Hausvater; Mark S Link; Patrick Abt; William Gionfriddo; Wendy Wang; Hassan Rastegar; N A Mark Estes; Martin S Maron; Barry J Maron Journal: Circulation Date: 2017-09-15 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Imke Christiaans; Klaartje van Engelen; Irene M van Langen; Erwin Birnie; Gouke J Bonsel; Perry M Elliott; Arthur A M Wilde Journal: Europace Date: 2010-01-29 Impact factor: 5.214
Authors: Jeff S Healey; Stuart J Connolly; Michael R Gold; Carsten W Israel; Isabelle C Van Gelder; Alessandro Capucci; C P Lau; Eric Fain; Sean Yang; Christophe Bailleul; Carlos A Morillo; Mark Carlson; Ellison Themeles; Elizabeth S Kaufman; Stefan H Hohnloser Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2012-01-12 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Perry M Elliott; Aris Anastasakis; Michael A Borger; Martin Borggrefe; Franco Cecchi; Philippe Charron; Albert Alain Hagege; Antoine Lafont; Giuseppe Limongelli; Heiko Mahrholdt; William J McKenna; Jens Mogensen; Petros Nihoyannopoulos; Stefano Nistri; Petronella G Pieper; Burkert Pieske; Claudio Rapezzi; Frans H Rutten; Christoph Tillmanns; Hugh Watkins Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2014-08-29 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Sina Safabakhsh; Darson Du; Janet Liew; Jeremy Parker; Cheryl McIlroy; Elina Khasanova; Praveen Indraratna; Philipp Blanke; Jonathon Leipsic; Jason G Andrade; Matthew T Bennett; Nathaniel M Hawkins; Shantabanu Chakrabarti; John Yeung; Marc W Deyell; Andrew D Krahn; Robert Moss; Kevin Ong; Zachary Laksman Journal: CJC Open Date: 2021-11-11
Authors: Darson Du; Christopher O Y Li; Kevin Ong; Ashkan Parsa; Adaya Weissler-Snir; Jeffrey B Geske; Zachary Laksman Journal: CJC Open Date: 2022-01-07