The Role of External Loop Recorders in Arrhythmia-Related Symptoms in Children: A Single Center Experience.

In this study, we report our experience with the use of external loop recorders (ELRs), in terms of diagnostic efficiency according to symptoms and symptom-rhythm correlation in pediatric patients. We evaluated ELRs applied to 178 patients between April 2017 and November 2020 at our center. The mean age of 172 patients included in the study was 13.6 ± 3.8 years, and 69.8% were female. ELR indications were palpitations in 98 (56.9%) cases, chest pain and palpitations in 43 (25%) cases, presyncope/syncope in 28 (16.2%) cases, and pacemaker/ implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) problems in 3 (0.2%) cases. ELR recording times were 14.2 ± 9.7 days on average, ranging from 2 to 67 days. While the symptom-rhythm correlation was 29.1% in total, when the indications were evaluated one by one, this correlation was found to be 30.2% in palpitations, 34.7% in chest pain and palpitations, and 10.7% in presyncope/syncope. The total diagnostic efficiency was 68.1%. In the follow-up of ELR cases, a total of 139 (80.8%) patients received clinical follow-up without medication, 15 (8.8%) patients received medical treatment, and 18 (10.4%) patients underwent EPS. The cardiac ELR system is useful in detecting underlying arrhythmias. Demonstrating sinus tachycardia at the time of the symptom may be seen as negative finding, but while experiencing symptoms, it is diagnostically valuable and may help avoid further investigation with costly and invasive diagnostic procedures. For diagnostic efficiency and cost effectiveness, the optimal recording time is 2 weeks, but it should be extended to 4 weeks in cases such as of presyncope/syncope that cannot be explained with a 2-week ELR use.

Validation of a smartphone-based event recorder for arrhythmia detection.

INTRODUCTION: Ambulatory cardiac monitoring devices such as external loop recorders (ELRs) are often used in the outpatient clinic to evaluate palpitations. However, ELRs can be bulky and uncomfortable to use, especially in public, at work, or in social situations. An alternative approach is a smartphone-based electrocardiographic (ECG) recorder/event recorder (Kardia Mobile [KM]), but the comparative diagnostic yield of each approach has not been studied. METHODS: Thirty-three patients with palpitations wore an ELR and carried a KM for a period of 14-30 days. They were instructed to transmit ECGs via KM and also to activate the ELR whenever they had symptoms. The tracings obtained from both devices were independently analyzed by two cardiologists, and the overall arrhythmia yield, as well as patient preference and compliance, were evaluated. The paired binomial data obtained from both devices were compared using an unconditional test of noninferiority. RESULTS: Of the 38 patients enrolled in the study, more patients had a potential diagnosis for their symptoms (i.e., at least one symptomatic recording during the entire monitoring period) with KM than with the ELR (KM = 34 [89.5%] vs ELR = 26 [68.4%]; χ2  = 5.1, P = 0.024). In the per protocol analysis, all 33 patients (100%) had a potential diagnosis using the KM device, which was significantly higher compared to 24 patients (72.2%) using the ELR (χ2  = 10.4, P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: KM is noninferior to an ELR for detecting arrhythmias in the outpatient setting. The ease of use and portability of this device make it an attractive option for the detection of symptomatic arrhythmias.

Monitoring and diagnosis of intermittent arrhythmias: evidence-based guidance and role of novel monitoring strategies.

Technological advances have made diagnosis of heart rhythm disturbances much easier, with a wide variety of options, including single-lead portable devices, smartphones/watches to sophisticated implantable cardiac monitors, allowing accurate data to be collected over different time periods depending on symptoms frequency. This review provides an overview of the novel and existing heart rhythm testing options, including a description of the supporting evidence for their use. A description of each of the tests is provided, along with discussion of their advantages and limitations. This is intended to help clinicians towards choosing the most appropriate test, thus improving diagnostic yield management of patients with suspected arrhythmias.