Ambulatory Arrhythmia Detection with ZIO® XT Patch in Pediatric Patients: A Comparison of Devices

Caught in the Act: A Detailed Analysis of Cardiac Event Monitoring in a Cohort of Pediatric and ACHD Patients

BACKGROUND

Event monitors are being increasingly used in pediatric and adult congenital heart disease (ACHD) patients for arrhythmia evaluation. Data on their diagnostic yield are limited.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the diagnostic yield of event monitors, patient characteristics associated with critical events, and clinical response to events.

METHODS

We retrospectively assessed event monitors prescribed to patients at our institution's Heart Center from 2017 to 2020. Thirty-day event monitor tracings were reviewed by an electrophysiologist (EP) to identify critical events defined as supraventricular tachycardia (SVT, re-entrant, atrial tachycardia, atrial flutter, and atrial fibrillation), ventricular tachycardia (VT), atrioventricular block, and pauses greater than 3 s. Patient characteristics and treatment data were collected. Characteristics associated with events were assessed using multivariable logistic regression. Trends in monitor prescription over time, diagnostic yield, and clinical response to events were analyzed.

RESULTS

204/2330 (8.8%) event monitors had EP-confirmed critical events. Critical events included SVT (51.5%), VT (38.5%), atrioventricular block (4%), and pauses (6%). 129/198 (65%) patients with critical events underwent treatment. Event monitoring usage increased by 52% between 2017 and 2020 (p < 0.0001). Complex CHD (OR 2.1, 95% CI 1.3-3.4, p = 0.004), cardiomyopathy (OR 2.9, 95% CI 1.5-4.8, p < 0.001), and EP-ordered monitors (OR 1.6, 95% CI 1.2-2.1, p = 0.001) were more highly associated with critical events.

CONCLUSION

Event monitor use is common, and critical events were captured in 8.8% of patients. The majority of patients with critical events underwent treatment. Factors associated with critical events include EPs as ordering providers, complex CHD, and cardiomyopathy.

Comparative effectiveness and healthcare utilization for ambulatory cardiac monitoring strategies in Medicare beneficiaries

BACKGROUND

Objective data comparing the diagnostic performance of different ambulatory cardiac monitors (ACMs) are lacking.

OBJECTIVES

To assess variation in monitoring strategy, clinical outcomes and healthcare utilization in patients undergoing ambulatory monitoring without a pre-existing arrhythmia diagnosis.

METHODS

Using the full sample (100%) of Medicare claims data, we performed a retrospective cohort study of diagnostic-naïve patients who received first-time ACM in 2017 to 2018 and evaluated arrhythmia encounter diagnosis at 3-months, repeat ACM testing at 6 months, all-cause 90-day emergency department (ED) and inpatient utilization, and cost of different strategies: Holter; long-term continuous monitor (LTCM); non-continuous, event-based external ambulatory event monitor (AEM); and mobile cardiac telemetry (MCT). We secondarily performed a device-specific analysis by manufacturer, identified from unique claim modifier codes.

RESULTS

ACMs were used in 287,789 patients (AEM = 10.3%; Holter = 53.8%; LTCM = 13.3%; MCT = 22.5%). Device-specific analysis showed that compared to Holter, AEM, MCT, or other LTCM manufacturers, a specific LTCM (ZioⓇ XT 14-day patch, iRhythm Technologies, San Francisco, CA) had the highest adjusted odds of diagnosis and lowest adjusted odds of ACM retesting. Findings were consistent for specific arrhythmia diagnoses of ventricular tachycardia, atrioventricular block, and paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. As a category, LTCM was associated with the lowest 1-year incremental health care expenditures (mean Δ$10,159), followed by Holter ($10,755), AEM ($11,462), and MCT ($12,532).

CONCLUSIONS

There was large variation in diagnostic monitoring strategy. A specific LTCM was associated with the highest adjusted odds of a new arrhythmia diagnosis and lowest adjusted odds of repeat ACM testing. LTCM as a category had the lowest incremental acute care utilization. Different monitoring strategies may produce different results with respect to diagnosis and care.

Utility of smart watches for identifying arrhythmias in children

BACKGROUND

Arrhythmia symptoms are frequent complaints in children and often require a pediatric cardiology evaluation. Data regarding the clinical utility of wearable technologies are limited in children. We hypothesize that an Apple Watch can capture arrhythmias in children.

METHODS

We present an analysis of patients ≤18 years-of-age who had signs of an arrhythmia documented by an Apple Watch. We include patients evaluated at our center over a 4-year-period and highlight those receiving a formal arrhythmia diagnosis. We evaluate the role of the Apple Watch in arrhythmia diagnosis, the results of other ambulatory cardiac monitoring studies, and findings of any EP studies.

RESULTS

We identify 145 electronic-medical-record identifications of Apple Watch, and find arrhythmias confirmed in 41 patients (28%) [mean age 13.8 ± 3.2 years]. The arrythmias include: 36 SVT (88%), 3 VT (7%), 1 heart block (2.5%) and wide 1 complex tachycardia (2.5%). We show that invasive EP study confirmed diagnosis in 34 of the 36 patients (94%) with SVT (2 non-inducible). We find that the Apple Watch helped prompt a workup resulting in a new arrhythmia diagnosis for 29 patients (71%). We note traditional ambulatory cardiac monitors were worn by 35 patients (85%), which did not detect arrhythmias in 10 patients (29%). In 73 patients who used an Apple Watch for recreational or self-directed heart rate monitoring, 18 (25%) sought care due to device findings without any arrhythmias identified.

CONCLUSION

We demonstrate that the Apple Watch can record arrhythmia events in children, including events not identified on traditionally used ambulatory monitors.

The Evolving Role of Insertable Cardiac Monitors in Patients with Congenital Heart Disease

Insertable cardiac monitors (ICMs) have been used more frequently and in a wider variety of circumstances in recent years. ICMs are used for symptom-rhythm correlation when patients have potentially arrhythmogenic syncope and for less traditional reasons such as rhythm surveillance in patients with genetic arrhythmia syndromes or other diseases with high arrhythmia risk. ICMs have good diagnostic yield in pediatric patients and in adults with congenital heart disease and have a low rate of complications. Implantation techniques should take patient-specific factors into account to optimize diagnostic yield and minimize risk.

Arrhythmias Occurring in Children during HEMS Intervention: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Background

Arrhythmias in patients during medical transport remain a challenge for medical personnel. Helicopter emergency medical service (HEMS) crews, as the only medical rescue teams in Poland to conduct rescue flights, keep detailed documentation of monitoring vital functions over short time intervals during the flight.

Aims

The aim of this study was to determine the characteristics of cardiac arrhythmia in pediatric patients (up to 12 years of age) transported by HEMS operatives, considering life-threatening rhythms and those that occur during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA).

Methods

The analysis of HEMS medical documentation covered 90345 missions carried out from 2011 to 2020. Among all activations, 820 cases of arrhythmias in pediatric patients up to 12 years of age were extracted.

Results

Missions for males accounted for 60% of all activations (n = 492), while flights for females accounted for 40% (n = 328). A statistically significant relationship between the number of HEMS flights and the season was demonstrated (p = 0.015). During the study period, pediatric patients mostly experienced cardiac arrhythmias in the form of supraventricular tachycardia (sVT) (n = 504). Asystole (n = 178) and pulseless electrical activity (PEA) (n = 52) ranked second and third in terms of occurrence, respectively. A statistically significant relationship between the type of heart rhythm disorder and age was demonstrated (p < 0.05).

Conclusions

Heart rhythm disorders most often affected children between 0 and 3 years of age. As the patient's age increased, the incidence of arrhythmias decreased. Among pediatric patients, supraventricular tachycardia proved to be the predominant arrhythmia during the study period.

Diagnostic yield of ambulatory cardiac monitoring in pediatric patients with palpitations

Background

Palpitations are a frequent reason for referral to pediatric cardiology providers and diagnostic workup includes ambulatory cardiac monitoring. While common practice, the diagnostic yield is unknown in the pediatric population. The objective is to evaluate the diagnostic yield of 24-h Holter and extended ambulatory cardiac monitoring in pediatric patients with palpitations.

Methods and Results

All pediatric patients aged 10-18 years who had ambulatory cardiac monitoring (1-30 days) through the Pocket Electrocardiogram (PocketECG™) system (Medi-Lynx) between January 2016 and July 2020 were included. Patients with an International Classification of Diseases-10 diagnosis code of palpitations (R00.2) during enrollment were evaluated separately. Tachyarrhythmia diagnoses included atrial fibrillation (AF), nonsustained supraventricular tachycardia (nSVT), supraventricular tachycardia (SVT), nonsustained ventricular tachycardia (nVT), and ventricular tachycardia (VT). Age, heart rates, arrhythmia type, and symptomatic transmission data were collected and analyzed. A total of 2388 patients (mean age 11.6 years, 58% F) with the R00.2 code had ambulatory cardiac monitoring (28% 24-h Holter, 72% extended) performed during the study period and there were 6287 total patients (mean age 13.9 years, 54% F) that underwent ambulatory cardiac monitoring (42% 24-h Holter, 58% extended) during that time. Of 2388 patients, 321 (13%) were diagnosed with tachyarrhythmia: AF (9), nSVT (192), SVT (59), and nVT (61). In the overall cohort, 764 (12%) patients were diagnosed with tachyarrhythmia: AF (22), nSVT (478), SVT (85), nVT (177), and VT (2). Symptomatic transmissions with normal cardiac rhythm were common in the R00.2 (n = 1697, 71%) and overall (n = 3848, 61%) groups. No episodes of nSVT, SVT, nVT, or VT were associated with symptomatic transmissions.

Conclusion

Ambulatory cardiac monitors are an integral part of the diagnostic workup for pediatric palpitations patients and have demonstrated a high yield of combined positive arrhythmia diagnoses and symptomatic normal transmissions. Further prospective study of this population with the integration of clinical information is warranted.

Cardiac arrhythmias in postural tachycardia syndrome and orthostatic intolerance

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

There is sparse literature on cardiac arrhythmias and the utility of ambulatory rhythm monitoring in patients with postural tachycardia syndrome and orthostatic intolerance. This study's primary aim was to investigate the prevalence of arrhythmias in this population. Knowing the prevalence and types of arrhythmias in dysautonomia patients could influence the decision to pursue ambulatory rhythm monitoring and ultimately guide therapy.

METHODS

This retrospective descriptive study examined the frequency of cardiac arrhythmias, as detected by ambulatory rhythm monitoring, in children with postural tachycardia syndrome/orthostatic intolerance or syncope who were seen at the Children's National Hospital Electrophysiology Clinic between January 2001 and December 2020.

RESULTS

In postural tachycardia syndrome/orthostatic intolerance patients, arrhythmia was detected on 15% of 332 ambulatory rhythm monitors. In syncope patients, arrhythmia was detected on 16% of 157 ambulatory rhythm monitors, not significantly different from the postural tachycardia syndrome/orthostatic intolerance group. The difference in rate of arrhythmia detection between 24-hour Holter and 2-week Zio® monitoring was not statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that a substantial proportion of postural tachycardia syndrome/orthostatic intolerance patients may have concomitant underlying cardiac arrhythmias, at a frequency similar to what is seen in patients undergoing primary evaluation for cardiac symptoms such as chest pain, palpitations, and syncope. In the appropriate clinical context, physicians caring for postural tachycardia syndrome/orthostatic intolerance patients should consider additional evaluation for arrhythmias beyond sinus tachycardia.

Ambulatory Cardiac Monitoring in Infants with Supraventricular Tachycardia

Supraventricular tachycardia (SVT) is a frequent cause of tachyarrhythmia in infants < 1 year of age and ambulatory cardiac monitoring is an important tool for diagnosis and follow-up of these patients. We retrospectively reviewed 594 infants (mean age 4.05 months, SD 3.55; 54% M) who underwent ambulatory cardiac monitoring (69% 24 h Holter, 31% extended monitor) through the Pocket ECG system (MediLynx) between January 2016 and July 2020. 170 patients who had the ICD-10 code I47.1 for SVT used at enrollment were analyzed separately. 49 (8.3%) patients had sustained SVT or non-sustained SVT (nSVT) during the study period, including 20 patients (11.8%) who had the ICD-10 code I47.1 at enrollment. Extended ambulatory cardiac monitors detected 61% of all patients with nSVT or SVT and was superior when compared to 24 h Holter (p < 0.0001). In the overall group, the first episode of SVT or nSVT was detected within 24 h of monitoring in 40/49 patients (82%). 48/49 patients (98%) were diagnosed within a week of monitoring and the single remaining patient was diagnosed with nSVT at day 15 of monitoring. There was no significant difference in minimal, maximal, and average heart rate between patients with and without ICD-10 code I47.1 at enrollment or between patients with and without SVT or nSVT. Despite their low yield, ambulatory cardiac monitors are an important diagnostic tool. The ideal length of monitoring in patients with known or suspected SVT has yet to be defined, although all patients in our cohort were identified by day 15 of monitoring.

Assessment of a new KoMaWo electrode-patch configuration accuracy and review of the literature

INTRODUCTION

Standard 12‑lead electrocardiogram (ECG) is a basic element of routine everyday clinical practice. Traditional cardiac monitoring devices are associated with considerable limitations. Adhesive patches, novel digital solutions, may become a useful diagnostic tool for several cardiovascular diseases.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We propose a new variation of ECG electrodes positioning called KoMaWo. 15 consecutive patients presenting with ST segment deviations due to coronary artery disease were enrolled. The accuracy and utility of the new configuration was assessed and compared with the Mason-Likar configuration, as well as with a standard 12‑lead ECG recording. The scans were blinded and interpreted by two independent cardiologists.

RESULTS

There were no statistically significant differences in morphology, as well as in the duration of individual waves, complexes, segments, and intervals between the scans obtained using all three methods. In a subgroup analysis, with regard to age, body mass and left ventricle ejection fraction (LVEF), KoMaWo was non-inferior to standard ECG with a 0.2 mm margin.

DISCUSSION

The role of traditional cardiac monitoring devices is recognized as the gold standard of patient management. However, certain limitations should be considered. Adhesive patches are light-weight, well-tolerated and do not interfere with daily activities of patients. These novel devices allow for extended monitoring, facilitating increased diagnostic accuracy, regarding cardiac arrhythmias.

CONCLUSIONS

The KoMaWo configuration is not inferior to standard electrode placement, nor to Mason-Likar configuration, including its ability to capture ST segment deviations. Adhesive patches may become a valid alternative for traditional cardiac monitoring methods.

Comparison Between the 24-hour Holter Test and 72-hour Single-Lead Electrocardiogram Monitoring With an Adhesive Patch-Type Device for Atrial Fibrillation Detection: Prospective Cohort Study

Background

There is insufficient evidence for the use of single-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) monitoring with an adhesive patch-type device (APD) over an extended period compared to that of the 24-hour Holter test for atrial fibrillation (AF) detection.

Objective

In this paper, we aimed to compare AF detection by the 24-hour Holter test and 72-hour single-lead ECG monitoring using an APD among patients with AF.

Methods

This was a prospective, single-center cohort study. A total of 210 patients with AF with clinical indications for the Holter test at cardiology outpatient clinics were enrolled in the study. The study participants were equipped with both the Holter device and APD for the first 24 hours. Subsequently, only the APD continued ECG monitoring for an additional 48 hours. AF detection during the first 24 hours was compared between the two devices. The diagnostic benefits of extended monitoring using the APD were evaluated.

Results

A total of 200 patients (mean age 60 years; n=141, 70.5% male; and n=59, 29.5% female) completed 72-hour ECG monitoring with the APD. During the first 24 hours, both monitoring methods detected AF in the same 40/200 (20%) patients (including 20 patients each with paroxysmal and persistent AF). Compared to the 24-hour Holter test, the APD increased the AF detection rate by 1.5-fold (58/200; 29%) and 1.6-fold (64/200; 32%) with 48- and 72-hour monitoring, respectively. With the APD, the number of newly discovered patients with paroxysmal AF was 20/44 (45.5%), 18/44 (40.9%), and 6/44 (13.6%) at 24-, 48-, and 72-hour monitoring, respectively. Compared with 24-hour Holter monitoring, 72-hour monitoring with the APD increased the detection rate of paroxysmal AF by 2.2-fold (44/20).

Conclusions

Compared to the 24-hour Holter test, AF detection could be improved with 72-hour single-lead ECG monitoring with the APD.

Machine Learning for Cardiovascular Outcomes From Wearable Data: Systematic Review From a Technology Readiness Level Point of View

BACKGROUND

Wearable technology has the potential to improve cardiovascular health monitoring by using machine learning. Such technology enables remote health monitoring and allows for the diagnosis and prevention of cardiovascular diseases. In addition to the detection of cardiovascular disease, it can exclude this diagnosis in symptomatic patients, thereby preventing unnecessary hospital visits. In addition, early warning systems can aid cardiologists in timely treatment and prevention.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to systematically assess the literature on detecting and predicting outcomes of patients with cardiovascular diseases by using machine learning with data obtained from wearables to gain insights into the current state, challenges, and limitations of this technology.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Scopus, and IEEE Xplore on September 26, 2020, with no restrictions on the publication date and by using keywords such as "wearables," "machine learning," and "cardiovascular disease." Methodologies were categorized and analyzed according to machine learning-based technology readiness levels (TRLs), which score studies on their potential to be deployed in an operational setting from 1 to 9 (most ready).

RESULTS

After the removal of duplicates, application of exclusion criteria, and full-text screening, 55 eligible studies were included in the analysis, covering a variety of cardiovascular diseases. We assessed the quality of the included studies and found that none of the studies were integrated into a health care system (TRL<6), prospective phase 2 and phase 3 trials were absent (TRL<7 and 8), and group cross-validation was rarely used. These issues limited these studies' ability to demonstrate the effectiveness of their methodologies. Furthermore, there seemed to be no agreement on the sample size needed to train these studies' models, the size of the observation window used to make predictions, how long participants should be observed, and the type of machine learning model that is suitable for predicting cardiovascular outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Although current studies show the potential of wearables to monitor cardiovascular events, their deployment as a diagnostic or prognostic cardiovascular clinical tool is hampered by the lack of a realistic data set and proper systematic and prospective evaluation.

2021 PACES expert consensus statement on the indications and management of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices in pediatric patients

In view of the increasing complexity of both cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) and patients in the current era, practice guidelines, by necessity, have become increasingly specific. This document is an expert consensus statement that has been developed to update and further delineate indications and management of CIEDs in pediatric patients, defined as ≤21 years of age, and is intended to focus primarily on the indications for CIEDs in the setting of specific disease categories. The document also highlights variations between previously published adult and pediatric CIED recommendations and provides rationale for underlying important differences. The document addresses some of the deterrents to CIED access in low- and middle-income countries and strategies to circumvent them. The document sections were divided up and drafted by the writing committee members according to their expertise. The recommendations represent the consensus opinion of the entire writing committee, graded by class of recommendation and level of evidence. Several questions addressed in this document either do not lend themselves to clinical trials or are rare disease entities, and in these instances recommendations are based on consensus expert opinion. Furthermore, specific recommendations, even when supported by substantial data, do not replace the need for clinical judgment and patient-specific decision-making. The recommendations were opened for public comment to Pediatric and Congenital Electrophysiology Society (PACES) members and underwent external review by the scientific and clinical document committee of the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), the science advisory and coordinating committee of the American Heart Association (AHA), the American College of Cardiology (ACC), and the Association for European Paediatric and Congenital Cardiology (AEPC). The document received endorsement by all the collaborators and the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), the Indian Heart Rhythm Society (IHRS), and the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS). This document is expected to provide support for clinicians and patients to allow for appropriate CIED use, appropriate CIED management, and appropriate CIED follow-up in pediatric patients.

2021 PACES Expert Consensus Statement on the Indications and Management of Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Devices in Pediatric Patients: Developed in collaboration with and endorsed by the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), the American College of Cardiology (ACC), the American Heart Association (AHA), and the Association for European Paediatric and Congenital Cardiology (AEPC) Endorsed by the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), the Indian Heart Rhythm Society (IHRS), and the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS)

In view of the increasing complexity of both cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) and patients in the current era, practice guidelines, by necessity, have become increasingly specific. This document is an expert consensus statement that has been developed to update and further delineate indications and management of CIEDs in pediatric patients, defined as ≤21 years of age, and is intended to focus primarily on the indications for CIEDs in the setting of specific disease categories. The document also highlights variations between previously published adult and pediatric CIED recommendations and provides rationale for underlying important differences. The document addresses some of the deterrents to CIED access in low- and middle-income countries and strategies to circumvent them. The document sections were divided up and drafted by the writing committee members according to their expertise. The recommendations represent the consensus opinion of the entire writing committee, graded by class of recommendation and level of evidence. Several questions addressed in this document either do not lend themselves to clinical trials or are rare disease entities, and in these instances recommendations are based on consensus expert opinion. Furthermore, specific recommendations, even when supported by substantial data, do not replace the need for clinical judgment and patient-specific decision-making. The recommendations were opened for public comment to Pediatric and Congenital Electrophysiology Society (PACES) members and underwent external review by the scientific and clinical document committee of the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), the science advisory and coordinating committee of the American Heart Association (AHA), the American College of Cardiology (ACC), and the Association for European Paediatric and Congenital Cardiology (AEPC). The document received endorsement by all the collaborators and the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), the Indian Heart Rhythm Society (IHRS), and the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS). This document is expected to provide support for clinicians and patients to allow for appropriate CIED use, appropriate CIED management, and appropriate CIED follow-up in pediatric patients.

2021 PACES expert consensus statement on the indications and management of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices in pediatric patients

In view of the increasing complexity of both cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) and patients in the current era, practice guidelines, by necessity, have become increasingly specific. This document is an expert consensus statement that has been developed to update and further delineate indications and management of CIEDs in pediatric patients, defined as ≤21 years of age, and is intended to focus primarily on the indications for CIEDs in the setting of specific disease categories. The document also highlights variations between previously published adult and pediatric CIED recommendations and provides rationale for underlying important differences. The document addresses some of the deterrents to CIED access in low- and middle-income countries and strategies to circumvent them. The document sections were divided up and drafted by the writing committee members according to their expertise. The recommendations represent the consensus opinion of the entire writing committee, graded by class of recommendation and level of evidence. Several questions addressed in this document either do not lend themselves to clinical trials or are rare disease entities, and in these instances recommendations are based on consensus expert opinion. Furthermore, specific recommendations, even when supported by substantial data, do not replace the need for clinical judgment and patient-specific decision-making. The recommendations were opened for public comment to Pediatric and Congenital Electrophysiology Society (PACES) members and underwent external review by the scientific and clinical document committee of the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), the science advisory and coordinating committee of the American Heart Association (AHA), the American College of Cardiology (ACC), and the Association for European Paediatric and Congenital Cardiology (AEPC). The document received endorsement by all the collaborators and the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), the Indian Heart Rhythm Society (IHRS), and the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS). This document is expected to provide support for clinicians and patients to allow for appropriate CIED use, appropriate CIED management, and appropriate CIED follow-up in pediatric patients.

2021 PACES Expert Consensus Statement on the Indications and Management of Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Devices in Pediatric Patients

In view of the increasing complexity of both cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) and patients in the current era, practice guidelines, by necessity, have become increasingly specific. This document is an expert consensus statement that has been developed to update and further delineate indications and management of CIEDs in pediatric patients, defined as ≤21 years of age, and is intended to focus primarily on the indications for CIEDs in the setting of specific disease categories. The document also highlights variations between previously published adult and pediatric CIED recommendations and provides rationale for underlying important differences. The document addresses some of the deterrents to CIED access in low- and middle-income countries and strategies to circumvent them. The document sections were divided up and drafted by the writing committee members according to their expertise. The recommendations represent the consensus opinion of the entire writing committee, graded by class of recommendation and level of evidence. Several questions addressed in this document either do not lend themselves to clinical trials or are rare disease entities, and in these instances recommendations are based on consenus expert opinion. Furthermore, specific recommendations, even when supported by substantial data, do not replace the need for clinical judgment and patient-specific decision-making. The recommendations were opened for public comment to Pediatric and Congenital Electrophysiology Society (PACES) members and underwent external review by the scientific and clinical document committee of the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), the science advisory and coordinating committee of the American Heart Association (AHA), the American College of Cardiology, (ACC) and the Association for European Paediatric and Congenital Cardiology (AEPC). The document received endorsement by all the collaborators and the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), the Indian Heart Rhythm Society (IHRS), and the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS). This document is expected to provide support for clinicians and patients to allow for appropriate CIED use, appropriate CIED management, and appropriate follow-up in pediatric patients.

Enhanced detection of cardiac arrhythmias utilizing 14-day continuous ECG patch monitoring

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the performance of a single‑lead, 14-day continuous electrocardiogram (ECG) patch for the detection of arrhythmias compared to conventional 24-h monitoring.

METHODS

This prospective clinical trial enrolled patients suspected of arrhythmias but not diagnosed by 12‑lead ECGs. Each patient underwent a 24-h Holter and 14-day ECG patch simultaneously. Seven types of arrhythmias were classified: supraventricular tachycardia (SVT, repetitive atrial beats >4 beats), irregular SVT without P wave (>4 beats), AF/AFL (irregular SVT without P wave ≥30 s), pause ≥3 s, atrioventricular block (AVB; Mobitz type II, third-degree, two to one or high degree AVB), ventricular tachycardia (VT), and polymorphic VT.

RESULTS

A total of 158 patients were recruited (mean wear time:12.3 ± 3.2 days). The overall arrhythmia detection rate was higher with 14-day ECG patches (59.5%) compared to 24-h Holter (19.0%, P < 0.001). Up to 87.2% of arrhythmias recorded with 14-day ECG patches were not associated with symptoms. The 14-day ECG patch was associated with higher detection rates compared to the 24-h Holter in patients with SVT (52.5% versus 15.8%, P < 0.001), irregular SVT without P wave (12.7% versus 4.4%, P = 0.002), AF/AFL (9.5% versus 3.8%, P = 0.042), and critical arrhythmias (pause ≥3 s, AVB, VT, polymorphic VT) (16.5% versus 2.5%, P < 0.001). The 14-day ECG patch detected more than 2 types of arrhythmias in 5.1% of patients. No serious adverse events in patients wearing the 14-day ECG patch were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

The 14-day ECG patch outperformed 24-h Holter to detect overall, asymptomatic, critical and multiple arrhythmias. It is safe and has the potential to identify individuals with hidden arrhythmias, especially those with critical arrhythmias.

Newer Diagnostic and Cost-Effective Ways to Identify Asymptomatic Atrial Fibrillation for the Prevention of Stroke

Atrial fibrillation (Afib) is the most common and underestimated cardiac arrhythmia with a lifetime risk of >35% after the age of 55 years and the risk continues to rise exponentially. Afib leads to stasis of blood within the atria allowing clot formation and increasing the risk for systemic embolization leading to strokes. Outcomes due to Afib can improve significantly with appropriate treatment. Thus, the need for convenient, well-tolerated, cost-effective cardiac monitoring for Afib is needed. The study aims to evaluate the various newer devices and compare them with traditional Holter monitoring, keeping diagnostic yield, cost-effectiveness, and patients' convenience in mind. Though Holter monitoring is simple and non-expensive, it has major limitations including limited recording capacity, inability for real-time recordings, and inconvenience to patients. Zio Patch (iRhythm Technologies, Inc; San Francisco, CA) and other loop recording devices are patient-friendly, inexpensive, and can offer real-time data for longer days. More prospective studies are needed to evaluate the sensitivity, specificity, and the actual number of patients getting benefits from newer devices by diagnosing Afib sooner and start early prevention therapy.

Comparison of Holter With Zio Patch Electrocardiography Monitoring in Children

The standard for ambulatory arrhythmia detection in children is the Holter monitor. The Zio XT (Zio) patch has been FDA-approved for use in adults. However, its utility in children has not been directly compared with the Holter. We studied the ability to detect arrhythmias and patient comfort of the Zio versus the Holter in children. Patients <22 years old were prospectively enrolled to wear the Holter and Zio simultaneously for 48 hours at our institution. Detection of clinically significant arrhythmias was compared using McNemar's test. Wear-time and artifact time was compared using Wilcoxon sign test. Patient satisfaction ratings were analyzed with paired t tests. Two hundred patients (57% male) were included for analysis. The median age was 13.5 years (range 23 days to 21.7 years), and 40% had heart disease. The Zio and Holter had comparable median wear-times, 48.2 hours (interquartile range [IQR] 45.8 to 50.2]) versus 48.0 (48.0 to 48.0), respectively, p = 0.14, but the Zio had less artifact than the Holter, 2.8% (IQR 1.1 to 8.6) versus 5.6% (2.4 to 15.7), respectively, p <0.001. There was no difference in detection of clinically significant arrhythmias for the Zio versus the Holter (p = 0.23), however 75% of patients preferred the Zio over the Holter (p <0.001) due to lack of wires and the ability to shower. In conclusion, the Zio patch is as good as the Holter monitor in detection of clinically significant arrhythmias in children with less artifact. Patients/parents more often preferred the Zio over the Holter.