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

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.

The Current Indication for Pacemaker in Patients with Cardioinhibitory Vasovagal Syncope.

The most frequent cause of syncope is vasovagal reflex. It is associated with worse quality of life, depression, fatigue and physical injury. Recurrence of vasovagal syncope is an aggravating, reaching the rate of 69%. Initial step and pharmacological treatment may not work, especially in patients with recurrent syncope without prodrome. These patients can present cardioinhibitory response with asystole. Studies were designed to analyses the effectiveness of pacemaker for prevention of syncope. In this review, nonrandomized clinical trials, open-label randomized, double-blind randomized, placebo-controlled, and studies based on tilt test or Implantable Loop Recorder findings will be discussed.