Implantable loop recorders in patients with heart disease: comparison between patients with and without syncope

Objective Patients with heart disease are at increased risk for sudden cardiac death. Guidelines recommend an implantable loop recorder (ILR) for symptomatic patients when symptoms are sporadic and possibly arrhythmia-related. In clinical practice, an ILR is mainly used in patients with unexplained...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Jolien W Roos-Hesselink, Michelle Michels, Tamas Szili-torok, Judith M A Verhagen, Rohit E Bhagwandien, Sing-Chien Yap, DOMINIC THEUNS, Amira Assaf, Rafi Sakhi
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: BMJ Publishing Group 2021-12-01
Series:Open Heart
Online Access:https://openheart.bmj.com/content/8/2/e001748.full
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1850194900595769344
author Jolien W Roos-Hesselink
Michelle Michels
Tamas Szili-torok
Judith M A Verhagen
Rohit E Bhagwandien
Sing-Chien Yap
DOMINIC THEUNS
Amira Assaf
Rafi Sakhi
author_facet Jolien W Roos-Hesselink
Michelle Michels
Tamas Szili-torok
Judith M A Verhagen
Rohit E Bhagwandien
Sing-Chien Yap
DOMINIC THEUNS
Amira Assaf
Rafi Sakhi
author_sort Jolien W Roos-Hesselink
collection DOAJ
description Objective Patients with heart disease are at increased risk for sudden cardiac death. Guidelines recommend an implantable loop recorder (ILR) for symptomatic patients when symptoms are sporadic and possibly arrhythmia-related. In clinical practice, an ILR is mainly used in patients with unexplained syncope. We aimed to compare the clinical value of an ILR in patients with heart disease and a history of syncope versus those with non-syncopal symptoms.Methods In this observational single-centre study, we included symptomatic patients with heart disease who received an ILR. The primary endpoint was an actionable event which was defined as an arrhythmic event leading to a change in clinical management. The secondary endpoint was an event leading to device implantation.Results One hundred and twenty patients (mean age 47±17 years, 49% men) were included. The underlying disease substrate was inherited cardiomyopathy (31%), congenital heart disease (28%), channelopathy (23%) and other (18%). Group A consisted of 43 patients with prior syncope and group B consisted of 77 patients with palpitations and/or near-syncope. The median follow-up duration was 19 months (IQR 8–36). The 3-year cumulative event rate was similar between groups with regard to the primary endpoint (38% vs 39% for group A and B, respectively, logrank p=0.54). There was also no difference in the 3-year cumulative rate of device implantation (21% vs 13% for group A and B, respectively, logrank p=0.65).Conclusion In symptomatic patients with heart disease, there is no difference in the yield of an ILR in patients presenting with or without syncope.
format Article
id doaj-art-fd2c37e41fd4467eb9ef5494a3b0b12e
institution OA Journals
issn 2053-3624
language English
publishDate 2021-12-01
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format Article
series Open Heart
spelling doaj-art-fd2c37e41fd4467eb9ef5494a3b0b12e2025-08-20T02:13:53ZengBMJ Publishing GroupOpen Heart2053-36242021-12-018210.1136/openhrt-2021-001748Implantable loop recorders in patients with heart disease: comparison between patients with and without syncopeJolien W Roos-Hesselink0Michelle Michels1Tamas Szili-torok2Judith M A Verhagen3Rohit E Bhagwandien4Sing-Chien Yap5DOMINIC THEUNS6Amira Assaf7Rafi Sakhi8Department of Cardiology, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The NetherlandsDepartment of Cardiology, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The NetherlandsDepartment of Cardiology, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The NetherlandsDepartment of Clinical Genetics, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The NetherlandsDepartment of Cardiology, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The NetherlandsDepartment of Cardiology, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The NetherlandsDepartment of Cardiology, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The NetherlandsDepartment of Cardiology, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The NetherlandsDepartment of Cardiology, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The NetherlandsObjective Patients with heart disease are at increased risk for sudden cardiac death. Guidelines recommend an implantable loop recorder (ILR) for symptomatic patients when symptoms are sporadic and possibly arrhythmia-related. In clinical practice, an ILR is mainly used in patients with unexplained syncope. We aimed to compare the clinical value of an ILR in patients with heart disease and a history of syncope versus those with non-syncopal symptoms.Methods In this observational single-centre study, we included symptomatic patients with heart disease who received an ILR. The primary endpoint was an actionable event which was defined as an arrhythmic event leading to a change in clinical management. The secondary endpoint was an event leading to device implantation.Results One hundred and twenty patients (mean age 47±17 years, 49% men) were included. The underlying disease substrate was inherited cardiomyopathy (31%), congenital heart disease (28%), channelopathy (23%) and other (18%). Group A consisted of 43 patients with prior syncope and group B consisted of 77 patients with palpitations and/or near-syncope. The median follow-up duration was 19 months (IQR 8–36). The 3-year cumulative event rate was similar between groups with regard to the primary endpoint (38% vs 39% for group A and B, respectively, logrank p=0.54). There was also no difference in the 3-year cumulative rate of device implantation (21% vs 13% for group A and B, respectively, logrank p=0.65).Conclusion In symptomatic patients with heart disease, there is no difference in the yield of an ILR in patients presenting with or without syncope.https://openheart.bmj.com/content/8/2/e001748.full
spellingShingle Jolien W Roos-Hesselink
Michelle Michels
Tamas Szili-torok
Judith M A Verhagen
Rohit E Bhagwandien
Sing-Chien Yap
DOMINIC THEUNS
Amira Assaf
Rafi Sakhi
Implantable loop recorders in patients with heart disease: comparison between patients with and without syncope
Open Heart
title Implantable loop recorders in patients with heart disease: comparison between patients with and without syncope
title_full Implantable loop recorders in patients with heart disease: comparison between patients with and without syncope
title_fullStr Implantable loop recorders in patients with heart disease: comparison between patients with and without syncope
title_full_unstemmed Implantable loop recorders in patients with heart disease: comparison between patients with and without syncope
title_short Implantable loop recorders in patients with heart disease: comparison between patients with and without syncope
title_sort implantable loop recorders in patients with heart disease comparison between patients with and without syncope
url https://openheart.bmj.com/content/8/2/e001748.full
work_keys_str_mv AT jolienwrooshesselink implantablelooprecordersinpatientswithheartdiseasecomparisonbetweenpatientswithandwithoutsyncope
AT michellemichels implantablelooprecordersinpatientswithheartdiseasecomparisonbetweenpatientswithandwithoutsyncope
AT tamasszilitorok implantablelooprecordersinpatientswithheartdiseasecomparisonbetweenpatientswithandwithoutsyncope
AT judithmaverhagen implantablelooprecordersinpatientswithheartdiseasecomparisonbetweenpatientswithandwithoutsyncope
AT rohitebhagwandien implantablelooprecordersinpatientswithheartdiseasecomparisonbetweenpatientswithandwithoutsyncope
AT singchienyap implantablelooprecordersinpatientswithheartdiseasecomparisonbetweenpatientswithandwithoutsyncope
AT dominictheuns implantablelooprecordersinpatientswithheartdiseasecomparisonbetweenpatientswithandwithoutsyncope
AT amiraassaf implantablelooprecordersinpatientswithheartdiseasecomparisonbetweenpatientswithandwithoutsyncope
AT rafisakhi implantablelooprecordersinpatientswithheartdiseasecomparisonbetweenpatientswithandwithoutsyncope