Elsevier

Heart Rhythm

Volume 3, Issue 12, December 2006, Pages 1445-1452
Heart Rhythm

Original-clinical
Comparison of continuous versus intermittent monitoring of atrial arrhythmias

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrthm.2006.07.030Get rights and content

Background

The ability of intermittent or symptom-based monitoring to accurately identify patients with atrial tachycardia/atrial fibrillation (AT/AF) and to quantify AT/AF burden is not well established.

Objectives

The purpose of this study was to compare intermittent and symptom-based monitoring to continuous monitoring for (1) identification of patients with any AT/AF, (2) identification of patients with long-duration AT/AF, and (3) assessment of AT/AF burden.

Methods

Data from 574 pacemaker (AT500, Medtronic) patients were analyzed retrospectively over 1 year. The device recorded the amount of AT/AF detected each day. Intermittent monitoring (annual, quarterly, and monthly 24-hour Holter; 7-day and 30-day annual long-term recordings) was simulated by analyzing data from randomly selected days within a prescribed monitoring window. Symptom-based monitoring was approximated by analyzing days when patients indicated symptoms with an external activator.

Results

All intermittent and symptom-based monitoring resulted in significantly lower sensitivity (range 31%–71%) and negative predictive value (range 21%–39%) for identification of patients with any AT/AF (P <.001) and underestimated AT/AF burden (P <.001) compared with continuous monitoring. Sensitivity for identifying patients with long-duration episodes ranged from 23% to 58% (P <.001 vs continuous monitoring). Identification of patients with AT/AF and assessment of AT/AF burden with intermittent monitoring depended on the patient’s actual AT/AF burden and improved with increasing frequency or duration of intermittent monitoring.

Conclusion

Intermittent and symptom-based monitoring is highly inaccurate for identifying patients with any or long-duration AT/AF and for assessing AT/AF burden. Further investigation is required to determine if full AT/AF disclosure with implantable devices is effective in reducing stroke risk and facilitating maintenance of sinus rhythm.

Introduction

Atrial tachycardias (AT) and atrial fibrillation (AF) are the most commonly diagnosed arrhythmias, resulting in significant morbidity and cost to the health care system.1 Furthermore, patients with AT/AF are at an increased risk for stroke and mortality.2 However, numerous studies have indicated that the vast majority of AT/AF episodes are asymptomatic,3, 4, 5 including many episodes of clinically significant duration.6 In patients without implantable devices, intermittent external monitoring is often used to determine the existence of asymptomatic AT/AF, but the ability of these techniques to identify patients with AT/AF has not been quantified. Accurate identification of asymptomatic AT/AF is of primary importance for guiding anticoagulation therapy in patients with clinical risk factors.7

The current guidelines for anticoagulation management8 do not differentiate between patients with symptomatic or asymptomatic AT/AF because asymptomatic (or silent) AT/AF is equally associated with increased stroke risk.9 Furthermore, the guidelines recommend anticoagulation therapy for patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation and risk factors irrespective of the arrhythmia duration or burden. In fact, a study showed that the risk of death or stroke was higher in patients with atrial high rate episodes as brief as 5 minutes in duration.10 Therefore, identification of patients with any amount of asymptomatic AT/AF is clinically important. Conversely, accurate long-term identification of patients who are free from any AT/AF also may be clinically important if discontinuation of anticoagulation is desired in order to reduce bleeding complications, when appropriate. Whether it is safe for patients with certain durations or burden of AT/AF not to undergo anticoagulation therapy currently is a topic of study and debate. Although limited clinical data support that lesser amounts of AT/AF may confer a lower stroke risk, one study has shown an increased risk for embolism in patients with device-detected AT/AF episodes lasting longer than 1 day.11 A larger clinical trial presently is underway to further assess the relationship between device-recorded AT/AF burden and stroke risk.12 In addition, changes in AT/AF burden have been shown to correlate with changes in cardiac hospitalization rates,13 suggesting that it may be a surrogate for clinical outcomes when maintenance of sinus rhythm is the therapeutic goal. Therefore, identification of patients with longer-duration episodes of AT/AF and accurate estimates of AT/AF burden may be of clinical importance as more data supporting their relevance become available.

Common methods of atrial arrhythmia monitoring include intermittent 24-hour Holter monitoring, infrequent periods of long-term monitoring (e.g., 7-day or 30-day recordings), and the transient use of event monitors when symptoms are present. Each method presents significant limitations for the diagnosis and quantification of atrial arrhythmias. The ability of Holter monitoring to diagnose and quantify AT/AF is highly dependent on whether or not the day(s) selected for monitoring coincides with a cluster of AT/AF episodes. External recorders now are capable of recording for up to 30 days and have been shown to increase the yield for arrhythmia detection compared with a single 24-hour Holter monitor.14 However, these external devices often are bulky and interfere with showering and other daily activities. In addition, the patch electrodes can cause skin irritation over such prolonged usage. As a result, patient compliance with such systems often is relatively low.5 Data suggest that the vast majority of AT/AF episodes are asymptomatic and that most symptoms attributed to AT/AF actually are not associated with the arrhythmia.3, 5 Therefore, monitoring of AT/AF episodes based on only symptomatic events will adversely affect the reliability of identifying patients with AT/AF. In contrast, chronic monitoring with implantable devices has been demonstrated to have both high sensitivity and specificity for AT/AF detection.15, 16 Although these devices require an invasive implant procedure, patient compliance is generally not an issue, and these devices rarely interfere with normal daily activities.

The objectives of this investigation were to compare intermittent and symptom-based monitoring to continuous monitoring for (1) identification of patients with any AT/AF, (2) identification of patients with long-duration AT/AF (≥21.6 hours of AT/AF [90%] on at least 1 day), and (3) assessment of AT/AF burden. The various methods of noninvasive monitoring that were simulated included intermittent (annual, quarterly, and monthly) 24-hour Holter recordings, annual long-term recordings (7-day and 30-day duration), and symptom-based monitoring.

Section snippets

Study design

Data from 574 pacemaker (AT500, Medtronic, Inc., Minneapolis, MN, USA) patients with a bradycardia pacing indication, at least one symptomatic AT/AF episode in the 3 months prior to implant, and more than 365 days of device follow-up data were analyzed retrospectively.

The AT500 device has an algorithm to detect AT/AF using both rate and pattern information obtained from dual-chamber bipolar electrograms. The detection criteria require >1:1 AV conduction for a minimum of 24 ventricular cycles.

Results

Patient demographics and baseline antiarrhythmic drug use are given in Table 1. Baseline programming of device parameters is given in Table 2.

Key results

The primary findings from this investigation are that commonly used methods of intermittent and symptom-based monitoring are quite inaccurate in identifying patients with any AT/AF or long-duration AT/AF and in assessing AT/AF burden. However, identification of patients with AT/AF and assessment of AT/AF burden improve as the frequency or duration of intermittent monitoring increase and as the patient’s actual AT/AF burden increases.

Identification of patients with AT/AF by intermittent and symptom-based monitoring

Identifying patients with any AT/AF is clinically important

Conclusion

The highly variable recurrence patterns of AT/AF episodes do not lend themselves to accurate monitoring on an intermittent basis. All methods of intermittent monitoring in this analysis identified significantly fewer patients with any or long-duration AT/AF episodes and provided inaccurate assessments of AT/AF burden compared to continuous monitoring with an implantable device. In addition, chronic monitoring with implantable devices eliminates many of the patient compliance or tolerance

References (21)

There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (255)

View all citing articles on Scopus

All authors are employees and shareholders of Medtronic, Inc.

View full text