Usefulness of insertable cardiac monitors for risk stratification: current indications and clinical evidence

INTRODUCTION

The 2018 ESC Syncope guidelines expanded the indications for an insertable cardiac monitor (ICM) to patients with unexplained syncope and primary cardiomyopathy or inheritable arrhythmogenic disorders.

AREAS COVERED

This review article discusses the clinical evidence for using an ICM for risk stratification in different patient populations including Brugada syndrome, long QT syndrome, hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy, cardiac sarcoidosis, and congenital heart disease.

EXPERT OPINION

Clinical data on the usefulness of ICMs in different patient populations is limited but most studies demonstrate early detection of clinically relevant arrhythmias, such as nonsustained ventricular tachycardia or atrial fibrillation. It is important to emphasize that the study populations usually comprise selected populations where conventional diagnostic methods fail to clarify the mechanism of symptoms. The effect of an ICM on prognosis by earlier detection of arrhythmias is difficult to demonstrate in populations with rare disease. Risk stratification in patients with cardiomyopathy or inheritable arrhythmogenic disorders remains a niche indication for ICMs. The most important indication for an ICM remains unexplained syncope in patients at low risk of SCD. Given the device costs and uncertain clinical value of device-detected arrhythmias, it is unclear whether it is also useful in non-syncopal 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.

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.

Early detection of ventricular arrhythmias in adults with congenital heart disease using an insertable cardiac monitor (EDVA-CHD study)

BACKGROUND

Sudden cardiac death (SCD) due to ventricular arrhythmias (VA) is an important mode of death in adults with congenital heart disease (CHD). Risk stratification is difficult in this heterogeneous population. Insertable cardiac monitors (ICM) may be useful for risk stratification. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the use of ICM for the detection of VA in adults with CHD.

METHODS

In this prospective single-center observational study we included consecutive adults with CHD deemed at risk of VA who received an ICM between March 2013 and February 2019. The decision to implant an ICM was made in a Heart Team consisting of a cardiac electrophysiologist and a cardiologist specialized in CHD.

RESULTS

A total of 30 patients (mean age, 38 ± 15 years; 50% male) received an ICM. During a median follow-up of 16 months, 8 patients (27%) had documented nonsustained VA. Of these 8 patients, 3 (10%) received a prophylactic ICD. Furthermore, ICM-detected arrhythmias were present in 22 patients (73%) leading to a change in clinical management in 16 patients (53%). Besides the patients receiving an ICD, 10 patients (33%) had a change in their antiarrhythmic drugs, 6 patients (20%) underwent an electrophysiology study, and 1 patient (3%) received a pacemaker.

CONCLUSIONS

The detection of VA by the ICM contributed to the clinical decision to implant a prophylactic ICD. Furthermore, ICM-detected arrhythmias led to important changes in the clinical management. Therefore, long-term arrhythmia monitoring by an ICM seems valuable for risk stratification in adults with CHD.

Detection of arrhythmias in adult congenital heart disease patients with LINQTM implantable loop recorder

BACKGROUND

Rhythm disorders are the leading cause of morbidity and mortality in adults with congenital heart disease (ACHD). Infrequent or asymptomatic arrhythmias may not be detected by routine monitoring. Implantable loop recorders (ILRs), such as the Reveal LINQ^TM , have been useful in long-term monitoring for arrhythmias in adults with cryptogenic stroke.

OBJECTIVE

We propose the Reveal LINQ^TM will detect arrhythmias, not documented by other monitoring modalities, resulting in change in management in ACHD patients.

METHODS

This is a single center retrospective review of Reveal LINQ^TM use in ACHD patients from 2014-2017. Medical records were reviewed to determine cardiac diagnosis, indication for implant, ILR findings, and changes in management.

RESULTS

Twenty-two patients, median age 25 years, underwent ILR implantation. ILR findings resulted in change in management in nine (41%) patients. One-third (3/9) of the patients with clinically relevant events were asymptomatic. Patients with Fontan palliation had the highest number of pertinent positive events (57%). ACHD physiologic class D patients were more likely to have a positive finding (P = .034) compared to other physiologic classes. Majority (75%) of patients with positive events had arrhythmias documented on ILR which were not demonstrated on prior Holter/event monitors. Pertinent negative event occurred in one patient with Fontan palliation (5%) who had syncope corresponding to sinus rhythm.

CONCLUSION

ILRs are a useful adjunct for arrhythmia monitoring in the ACHD population with clinically relevant events in 41% of patients. A special consideration for ILRs could be made for high-risk asymptomatic patients.

Value of implantable loop recorders in patients with structural or electrical heart disease

Purpose

In patients with structural heart disease (SHD) or inherited primary arrhythmia syndrome (IPAS), the occurrence of unexplained syncope or palpitations can be worrisome as they are at increased risk of sudden cardiac death. An implantable loop recorder (ILR) can be a useful diagnostic tool. Our purpose was to compare the diagnostic yield, arrhythmia mechanism, and management in patients with SHD, patients with IPAS, and those without heart disease.

Methods

Retrospective single-center study in consecutive patients who underwent an ILR implantation.

Results

Between March 2013 and December 2016, a total of 94 patients received an ILR (SHD, n = 20; IPAS, n = 14; no SHD/IPAS, n = 60). The type of symptoms at the time of implantation was similar between groups. During a median follow-up of 10 months, 45% had an ILR-guided diagnosis. Patients with IPAS had a lower diagnostic yield (14%) in comparison to the other groups (no SHD/IPAS 47%, P = 0.03; SHD 60%, P = 0.01, respectively). Furthermore, patients with SHD had a higher incidence of nonsustained VT in comparison to patients without SHD/IPAS (30 versus 3%, P < 0.01). ILR-guided therapy was comparable between groups. In the SHD group, a high proportion (10%) received an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator; however, this was not statistically significantly higher than the other groups (no SHD/IPAS 3%, IPAS 0%, P = 0.08).

Conclusions

In comparison to patients without heart disease, the diagnostic yield of an ILR was lower in patients with IPAS and the prevalence of ILR-diagnosed nonsustained VT was higher in patients with SHD.

Changing Landscape of Congenital Heart Disease

Congenital heart disease is the most frequently occurring congenital disorder affecting ≈0.8% of live births. Thanks to great efforts and technical improvements, including the development of cardiopulmonary bypass in the 1950s, large-scale repair in these patients became possible, with subsequent dramatic reduction in morbidity and mortality. The ongoing search for progress and the growing understanding of the cardiovascular system and its pathophysiology refined all aspects of care for these patients. As a consequence, survival further increased over the past decades, and a new group of patients, those who survived congenital heart disease into adulthood, emerged. However, a large range of complications raised at the horizon as arrhythmias, endocarditis, pulmonary hypertension, and heart failure, and the need for additional treatment became clear. Technical solutions were sought in perfection and creation of new surgical techniques by developing catheter-based interventions, with elimination of open heart surgery and new electronic devices enabling, for example, multisite pacing and implantation of internal cardiac defibrillators to prevent sudden death. Over time, many pharmaceutical studies were conducted, changing clinical treatment slowly toward evidence-based care, although results were often limited by low numbers and clinical heterogeneity. More attention has been given to secondary issues like sports participation, pregnancy, work, and social-related difficulties. The relevance of these issues was already recognized in the 1970s when the need for specialized centers with multidisciplinary teams was proclaimed. Finally, research has become incorporated in care. Results of intervention studies and registries increased the knowledge on epidemiology of adults with congenital heart disease and their complications during life, and at the end, several guidelines became easily accessible, guiding physicians to deliver care appropriately. Over the past decades, the landscape of adult congenital heart disease has changed dramatically, which has to be continued in the future.

[Indications for implantable loop recorders in patients with channelopathies and ventricular tachycardias]

Implantable loop recorders (ILR) do not play a pivotal role in the current guidelines on ventricular arrhythmias except in identifying rhythm-symptom correlations if ventricular arrhythmias are assumed. Before a decision for a pure diagnostic implantable device is made, a thorough arrhythmic risk assessment is of major importance due to the potential lethal outcome of ventricular arrhythmias. Nevertheless, some clinical circumstances exist where long-term monitoring by an ILR may add significant information in electrical heart diseases, in patients with ventricular arrhythmias, or structural heart diseases and a potential risk of ventricular arrhythmias. As medical therapy (β-blocker therapy) plays an important role in long QT syndrome (LQTS) and catecholaminergic polymorphic ventricular tachycardias (cpVT), the ILR can be used to control therapy in patients at risk. In electrical diseases without pharmacologic therapeutic options (e. g., Brugada syndrome), the ILR may be used in low-risk patients with atypical syncope as benign faints may occur without association to the underlying disease. Evidence on cardiomyopathies with preserved left ventricular function and nonsustained VT or premature ventricular complexes is scarce. The ILR may also add long-term information on the individual risk in these circumstances. In very rare diseases like infiltrative disease or muscular dystrophies, the ILR may also provide evidence on risk stratification. In summary, ILR in electrical heart diseases and in patients with ventricular tachycardia remains a very individual decision taking into account various clinical, electrocardiographic, and genetic parameters. The following review aims at highlighting possible indications and clinical scenarios for ILR in ventricular tachycardias and electrical heart diseases with-probably debatable-case presentations.

Maximizing the Effectiveness of Ablation for Arrhythmias in the Congenital Heart Patients

Arrhythmias are common in adults with congenital heart disease and account for a large proportion of hospitalizations. The complex anatomical heterogeneity, often in the presence of a delicate hemodynamic system, presents a significant electrophysiological challenge. This review outlines current clinical practice and advances in maximizing the effectiveness of ablation for arrhythmias in congenital heart patients.

Financial impact of adopting implantable loop recorder diagnostic for unexplained syncope compared with conventional diagnostic pathway in Portugal

Background

To estimate the short- and long-term financial impact of early referral for implantable loop recorder diagnostic (ILR) versus conventional diagnostic pathway (CDP) in the management of unexplained syncope (US) in the Portuguese National Health Service (PNHS).

Methods

A Markov model was developed to estimate the expected number of hospital admissions due to US and its respective financial impact in patients implanted with ILR versus CDP. The average cost of a syncope episode admission was estimated based on Portuguese cost data and landmark papers. The financial impact of ILR adoption was estimated for a total of 197 patients with US, based on the number of syncope admissions per year in the PNHS. Sensitivity analysis was performed to take into account the effect of uncertainty in the input parameters (hazard ratio of death; number of syncope events per year; probabilities and unit costs of each diagnostic test; probability of trauma and yield of diagnosis) over three-year and lifetime horizons.

Results

The average cost of a syncope event was estimated to be between 1,760€ and 2,800€. Over a lifetime horizon, the total discounted costs of hospital admissions and syncope diagnosis for the entire cohort were 23% lower amongst patients in the ILR group compared with the CDP group (1,204,621€ for ILR, versus 1,571,332€ for CDP).

Conclusion

The utilization of ILR leads to an earlier diagnosis and lower number of syncope hospital admissions and investigations, thus allowing significant cost offsets in the Portuguese setting. The result is robust to changes in the input parameter values, and cost savings become more pronounced over time.