RESUMO
The ZOLL Arrhythmia Monitoring System, a mobile cardiac telemetry (MCT) device from ZOLL Corporation (Chelmsford, MA, USA), records single-channel electrocardiogram (ECG) signals, heart rate, activity, respiratory rate, and posture. Comprehensive reporting from these multiple biometrics may provide a global evaluation of arrhythmic or other cardiovascular risks in individual patients and insights into the patient's overall wellness and health status. The objective of the study was to evaluate the physician-perceived utility of adding biometric data to the traditional ECG-only-based assessment and subject-reported symptoms. This prospective study recruited candidates for MCT. Independent event and end-of-use (EOU) reports based on ECG and biometrics data were provided to physicians. To document whether the biometric data affected treatment plan decisions or added value over the ECG-alone data, physicians completed a questionnaire for each report. Additionally, they completed the questionnaire to understand the utility of the subject wellness information provided in the EOU report. From December 2020 to July 2021, 583 patients were enrolled by 27 physicians from 18 cardiology practices in the United States. When using biometrics data compared to the ECG alone, this study found that 96% of the physicians made changes to the treatment plan that initially was based on the ECG alone. The biometrics-based changes involved 64% of all patients (n = 535), and included modifications to medications, follow-up, and lifestyle in 18%, 19%, and 63% of the subjects, respectively. In this largest MCT study conducted to date, next-generation MCT, by providing multiple biometric parameters along with ECG data, improves physicians' ability to make patient management decisions. This added functionality and clarity may replace traditional "ECG with diary"-based monitoring.
RESUMO
CONTEXT: In patients with moderate- and high-risk acute coronary syndromes (ACS) who undergo an early, invasive treatment strategy, current guidelines recommend administration of platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa (Gp IIb/IIIa) inhibitors, either upstream to all patients prior to angiography or deferred for selective use in the catheterization laboratory just prior to angioplasty. The preferred approach is undetermined. OBJECTIVE: To determine the optimal strategy for the use of Gp IIb/IIIa inhibitors in patients with moderate- and high-risk ACS undergoing an early, invasive treatment strategy. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, open-label trial with 30-day clinical follow-up. SETTING: Four hundred fifty academic and community-based institutions in 17 countries. PATIENTS: A total of 9207 patients with moderate- and high-risk ACS undergoing an invasive treatment strategy. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive either routine upstream (n=4605) or deferred selective (n=4602) Gp IIb/IIIa inhibitor administration, respectively. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was assessment of noninferiority of deferred Gp IIb/IIIa inhibitor use compared with upstream administration for the prevention of composite ischemic events (death, myocardial infarction, or unplanned revascularization for ischemia) at 30 days, using a 1-sided alpha level of .025. Major secondary end points included noninferiority or superiority of major bleeding and net clinical outcomes (composite ischemia or major bleeding). RESULTS: Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors were used more frequently (98.3% vs 55.7%, respectively) and for a significantly longer duration (median, 18.3 vs 13.1 hours; P<.001) in patients in the upstream group compared with the deferred group. Composite ischemia at 30 days occurred in 7.9% of patients assigned to deferred use compared with 7.1% of patients assigned to upstream administration (relative risk, 1.12; 95% confidence interval, 0.97-1.29; P = .044 for noninferiority; P = .13 for superiority); as such, the criterion for noninferiority was not met. Deferred use compared with upstream use resulted in reduced 30-day rates of major bleeding (4.9% vs 6.1%, respectively; P<.001 for noninferiority; P = .009 for superiority) and similar rates of net clinical outcomes (11.7% vs 11.7%; P<.001 for noninferiority; P = .93 for superiority). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with moderate- and high-risk ACS undergoing an invasive treatment strategy, deferring the routine upstream use of Gp IIb/IIIa inhibitors for selective administration in the cardiac catheterization laboratory only to patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention resulted in a numerical increase in composite ischemia that, while not statistically significant, did not meet the criterion for noninferiority. This finding was offset by a significant reduction in major bleeding. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00093158.
