Real‐World Use of Prophylactic Antibiotics in Insertable Cardiac Monitor Procedures

Patient satisfaction, safety, and efficacy of nurse-led compared to physician-led implantation of cardiac monitors

AIMS

Implantation of an implantable cardiac monitor (ICM) is a simple procedure, but adds significant and increasing workload to the arrhythmia service. In 2020, we established a nurse-led ICM implantation service. We aimed to analyse patient satisfaction, adverse events during implant, and ICM re-interventions with nurse-led ICM implantation (N-Implant) compared to physician-led ICM implantation (P-Implant).

METHODS AND RESULTS

From January 2020 to December 2021, we included all consecutive patients implanted with an ICM in a prospective registry. We collected data on patient characteristics, implant procedure, and follow-up. Patients were interviewed by phone four weeks after ICM implantation.Of 321 patients implanted with an ICM (median age 67 years; 33% women), 189 (59%) were N-Implants. More N-Implants were performed in the outpatient clinic compared to P-Implants (95% vs. 8%; P < 0.001). Two N-Implant patients experienced vaso-vagal reaction during implantation (1%), whereas no adverse events occurred during P-Implant (P = 0.51). A total of 297 patients (93%) completed the questionnaire. Duration of pain was shorter and wound closure after 2 weeks better following N-Implant (P = 0.019 and P = 0.018). A minor bruise or swelling at the implant site was reported more frequently after N-Implant (P = 0.003 and P = 0.041). Patient satisfaction was excellent with both N-Implant and P-Implant (99% and 97%; P = 0.16). After a median follow-up of 242 days (range 7-725 days), five ICMs (2%) were explanted prematurely, without differences among groups. Reasons for premature explants were local discomfort (n = 2), infection, MRI, and ICM malfunction.

CONCLUSION

Nurse-led ICM implantation has excellent patient satisfaction without compromising safety. N-Implant both expands nursing competencies and reduces physician workload.

A comparison of Atrial Fibrillation Detection Strategies After Ischemic Stroke-A Retrospective Study

Objective of this retrospective study was to determine if long-term continuous cardiac monitoring with Implantable loop recorder (ILR) in patients with Cryptogenic strokes or TIA is superior at detecting Atrial Fibrillation (AF) than 30-day Event Monitor (EM) and 48-hour Holter Monitor (HM). Furthermore, we aimed to deduce if uncovering AF leads to lower risk of future ischemic strokes, or reduction in mortality. In 20%-30% cases, the cause of stroke remained unexplained after diagnostic workup which has led to coining of the term, Cryptogenic Stroke (CS). Undiagnosed AF is a prime suspect in CS, but guidelines do not recommend initiation of anticoagulation unless AF has formally been detected. IRB approved retrospective study included patients with at least 1 episode of ischemic stroke or TIA without identifiable cause and was monitored with either HM, EM or ILR to diagnose any undiscovered AF. All patients (n = 531) had at least 1 year, and up to 3 years, of follow-up after device placement. Chi-Squared analysis and Multivariable logistic regression demonstrated no statistically significant difference among 3 devices for detection of AF within 1 month of index stroke but a significant difference in AF detection was observed at 6, 12 and 24 months. Cox proportional hazard model showed device type had no significant impact on secondary outcomes: Subsequent ischemic stroke or TIA, Initiation of anticoagulation, Mortality and Incidence of major bleeding. Despite the superiority of AF detection by ILR, it is not superior to HM or EM in lowering the risk of subsequent stroke or TIA, or in reducing mortality.

Un-LINQed: Spontaneous extrusion of newer generation implantable loop recorders

Background

Insertable cardiac monitors (ICMs) are often used for long-term monitoring of cardiac rhythm. The Medtronic’s LINQ Reveal ™ is a new generation wireless, automated, and patient responsive subcutaneous ECG monitoring device. Despite several advantages to its small size we have noted an unusually high incidence of extrusion at our center.

Methods

& Results: We conducted a retrospective case analysis to review Reveal LINQs implanted at our center. All devices were inserted using the provided insertion tools. Patients with extruded devices were identified and details regarding the site and technique of insertion, incision closure, use of peri-operative antibiotics, and follow-up details were collected. 81 patients underwent 85 Reveal LINQ implants at a tertiary care University Hospital referral center. The most common reason for implant was suspected arrhythmia with or without structural heart disease or unexplained syncope. There were 4 spontaneous extrusions occurring within 7–24 days after insertion with an incidence rate of 4.7%. One extruded device was anchored to subcutaneous tissue, and no pocket/device infections or hematomas were noted.

Conclusions

Device migration and erosion through skin are important potential adverse events for the Reveal LINQ implantable loop recorder. This study reports an unexpectedly high rate of extrusion without infection. The authors suggest that the depth of the incision is the main factor impacting extrusions. Larger studies are recommended, however, and a proposed measure to avoid spontaneous extrusion is the design of a longer manufacturer’s blade in order to increase the depth of the incision and insertion.

BioMonitor 2 in-office setting insertion safety and feasibility evaluation with device functionality assessment: results from the prospective cohort BioInsight study

BACKGROUND

Insertable cardiac monitors are utilized for the diagnosis of arrhythmias and traditionally have been inserted within hospitals. Recent code updates allow for reimbursement of office-based insertions; however, there is limited information regarding the resources and processes required to support in-office insertions. We sought to determine the safety and feasibility of in-office insertion of the BioMonitor 2 and better understand in-office procedures, including patient selection, pre-insertion protocols, resource availability, and staff support.

METHODS

Patients meeting an indication for a rhythm monitor were prospectively enrolled into this single-arm, non-randomized trial. All patients underwent insertion in an office setting. Two follow-up visits at days 7 and 90 were required. Information on adverse events, device performance, office site preparations, and resource utilization were collected.

RESULTS

Eighty-two patients were enrolled at six sites. Insertion was successful in all 77 patients with an attempt. Oral anticoagulation was stopped in 20.8% of patients and continued through insertion in 23.4%, while prophylactic antibiotics were infrequently utilized (37.7% of study participants). On average, the procedure required a surgeon plus two support staff and 35 min in an office room to complete the 8.4 min insertion procedure. The mean R-wave amplitude was 0.77 mV at insertion and 0.67 mV at 90-days with low noise burden (2.7%). There were no procedure related complications. Two adverse events were reported (event rate 2.7% [95% CI 0.3, 9.5%]).

CONCLUSIONS

In-office insertion of the BioMonitor 2 is safe and feasible. Devices performed well with high R-wave amplitudes and low noise burden. These results further support shifting cardiac monitor insertions to office-based locations.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02756338. Registered 29 April 2016.

Real-world comparison of in-hospital Reveal LINQ insertable cardiac monitor insertion inside and outside of the cardiac catheterization or electrophysiology laboratory

BACKGROUND

Traditionally, insertable cardiac monitor (ICM) procedures have been performed in the cardiac catheterization (CATH) or electrophysiology (EP) laboratory. The introduction of the miniaturized Reveal LINQ ICM has led to simplified and less invasive procedures, affording hospitals flexibility in planning where these procedures occur without compromising patient safety or outcomes.

METHODS

The present analysis of the ongoing, prospective, observational, multicenter Reveal LINQ Registry sought to provide real-world feasibility and safety data regarding the ICM procedure performed in the CATH/EP lab or operating room and to compare it with insertions performed outside of these traditional hospital settings. Patients included had at least a 30-day period after the procedure to account for any adverse events.

RESULTS

We analyzed 1222 patients (58.1% male, age 61.0 ± 17.1 years) enrolled at 18 centers in the US, 17 centers in Middle East/Asia, and 15 centers in Europe. Patients were categorized into 2 cohorts according to the location of the procedure: in-lab (CATH lab, EP lab, or operating room) (n = 820, 67.1%) and out-of-lab (n = 402, 32.9%). Several differences were observed regarding baseline and procedure characteristics. However, no significant differences in the occurrence of procedure-related adverse events (AEs) were found; of 19 ICM/procedure-related AEs reported in 17 patients (1.4%), 11 occurred in the in-lab group (1.3%) and 6 in the out-of-lab group (1.5%) (P = .80).

CONCLUSIONS

This real-world analysis demonstrates the feasibility of performing Reveal LINQ ICM insertion procedures outside of the traditional hospital settings without increasing the risk of infection or other adverse events.