A randomized trial evaluating the accuracy of AF detection by four external ambulatory ECG monitors compared to permanent pacemaker AF detection

• Published in: Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology Vol. 57; no. 3; pp. 361 - 369
• Main Authors: Eysenck, Will, Freemantle, Nick, Sulke, Neil
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: New York Springer US 01.04.2020; Springer Nature B.V
• Subjects: Acceptability; Aged; Atrial Fibrillation - diagnosis; Cardiology; EKG; Electrocardiography, Ambulatory - economics; Electrocardiography, Ambulatory - instrumentation; Female; Humans; Male; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Monitors; Pacemaker, Artificial - economics; Pacemakers; Patient Acceptance of Health Care; Sensitivity and Specificity; Surgical implants; Wear; Permanent pacemaker; Atrial fibrillation detection; External cardiac monitoring
• ISSN: 1383-875X; 1572-8595; 1572-8595
• DOI: 10.1007/s10840-019-00515-0

Purpose Several external cardiac monitors (ECMs) have recently been developed. These have never been compared to ‘gold standard’ monitoring with concurrently implanted DDDRP pacemakers. The accuracy of AF detection of Zio XT Monitor (ZM), NUUBO Vest (NV) and Carnation Ambulatory Monitor (CAM) compared with Novacor ‘R’ Test 4 (RT) in patients (pts) with DDDRP PPM advanced Holters as the comparator, was evaluated. Methods Twenty-one pts. with AF and a DDDRP PPM, each acting as their own control subject, wore every ECM for 2 weeks in randomized order. PPM downloads were performed at application and removal. Device ECGs were compared for AF burden and individual AF episodes with PPM Holters. Pt acceptability, wear time, costs and time expenditure were evaluated. Results RT AF burden was less accurate than the ZM, NV or CAM ( p  < 0.05). Probability of inaccurate AF diagnosis was higher for RT than ZM or CAM OR 12.31 and 5.85, respectively ( p  = 0.025 and p  = 0.042). ZM wear time was longer than the RT: 307 h vs. 224 h; p  = 0.02. Acceptability was greater for CAM than RT (1.86 ± 2.63 compared with 0.57 ± 1.17 for CAM; p  = 0.024). All ECMs were more expensive than RT ( p  < 0.00001). Conclusions All new ECMs were more expensive than the RT system; however, the ZM, NV and CAM are all more accurate than current standard practice RT device in AF burden assessment. The RT is more likely to give inaccurate diagnoses than ZM or CAM. This may have clinical implications.