RESUMO
AIMS: Implantable loop recorders (ILRs) are increasingly being used for long-term cardiac monitoring in different clinical settings. The aim of this study was to investigate the real-world performance of ILRs-including the time to diagnosis- in unselected patients with different ILR indications. METHODS AND RESULTS: In this multicenter, observational study, 871 patients with an indication of pre-syncope/syncope (61.9%), unexplained palpitations (10.4%), and atrial fibrillation (AF) detection with a history of cryptogenic stroke (CS) (27.7%) underwent ILR implantation. The median follow-up was 28.8 ± 12.9 months. In the presyncope/syncope group, 167 (31%) received a diagnosis established by the device. Kaplan-Meier estimates indicated that 16.9% of patients had a diagnosis at 6 months, and the proportion increased to 22.5% at 1 year. Of 91 patients with palpitations, 20 (22%) received a diagnosis based on the device. The diagnosis established at 12.2% of patients at 6 months, and the proportion increased to 13.3% at 1 year. Among 241 patients with CS, 47 (19.5%) were diagnosed with AF. The diagnostic yield of the device was 10.4% at 6 months and 12.4% at 1 year. In all cases, oral anticoagulation was initiated. Overall, ILR diagnosis altered the therapeutic strategy in 26.1% in presyncope/syncope group, 2.2% in palpitations group, and 3.7% in CS group in addition to oral anticoagulation initiation. CONCLUSIONS: In this real-world patient population, ILR determines diagnosis and initiates a new therapeutic management in nearly one fourth of patients. ILR implantation is valuable in the evaluation of patients with unexplained presyncope/syncope, CS and palpitations.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: High-power short-duration (HPSD) and very-high-power short-duration (vHPSD-90 W/4 s) radiofrequency (RF) technology has reduced the procedure time of pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) using RF without compromising the efficacy of the technique. The current study compares the novel technology of HPSD/vHPSD with cryoablation (CRYO) in terms of efficacy, safety, and procedure time in a cohort of symptomatic patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (pAF). METHODS: This is a prospective, non-randomized trial. Patients with pAF received either CRYO or HPSD/vHPSD RF PVI. The primary endpoint of the study was arrhythmia recurrence in a 12 month follow-up period. Secondary endpoints included procedure time, fluoroscopy time, and safety. RESULTS: 104 patients were included (45 in HPSD/vHPSD and 59 in CRYO), with comparable characteristics between groups. The follow-up was 12.4 ± 0.5 months. There was no significant difference regarding arrhythmia recurrences during the early post-procedural period of the first 3 months (8.9% recurrences in HPSD/vHPSD versus 5.1% in CRYO-p 0.463) and in the mid-term follow-up of 12 months (17.8% recurrences in HPSD/vHPSD versus 10.2% in CRYO-p 0.385). Safety was excellent for both procedures. CRYO was a procedure of significantly shorter duration (64.64 ± 8.94 min versus 75.29 ± 18.30 min, p = 0.0001) at the expense of longer fluoroscopy time (HPSD/vHPSD 5.34 ± 1.83 versus 7.89 ± 3.70 min CRYO, p 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: HPSD/vHPSD and CRYO in pAF were comparable regarding the arrhythmia recurrence rates in a 12-month follow-up with excellent safety. The hybrid approach of HPSD/vHPSD has accelerated RF-PVI compared to conventional RF, but CRYO remains a procedure of significantly shorter duration at the expense of longer fluoroscopy time.
