hig.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard-cite-them-right
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • sv-SE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • de-DE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Outcome of implantable loop recorder evaluation
Cardiology Research Unit, Department of Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, and Centre for Research and Development, Uppsala University/Region Gävleborg, Gävle,.
3Department of Medical Sciences, Uppsala Clinical Research Centre, Uppsala University.
University of Gävle, Faculty of Engineering and Sustainable Development, Department of Building, Energy and Environmental Engineering, Environmental engineering. Division of Environmental Strategies Research, School of Architecture and the Built Environment, Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), Stockholm, Sweden.
Centre for Research and Development, Uppsala University/Region Gävleborg, Gävle and Department of Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm.
2018 (English)In: Cardiology Journal, ISSN 1897-5593, Vol. 25, no 3, p. 363-370Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Background: The aim of this study was to evaluate implantable loop recorders (ILRs) in an unselected cohort in order to determine diagnostic yield, time to pacemaker/implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) implantation, predictors thereof, safety issues, and syncope management including usage of preceding diagnostic tools.

Methods: Patients who underwent ILR evaluation in any of three centers in Region Gävleborg, Sweden, between April 2007 and April 2013 were included and their medical records retrieved. Logistic regression was used to evaluate predictors of pacemaker/ICD outcome expressed as odds ratios (ORs) and Kaplan-Meier estimates for time-dependent analysis.

Results: A total of 173 patients (52.6% females) with a mean age of 56.2 years received an ILR during a mean follow-up of 605 days. In the 146 patients evaluated for syncope/presyncope, 28.1% received a pacemaker (n = 39) or ICD (n = 2). The cumulative incidence at 6, 12, and 18 months were 8.8%, 21.3%, and 26.7%, respectively. Age > 75 years was the only significant predictor for outcome (p = 0.010) and the following variables showed a tendency toward significance: abnormal elevation of the biomarker brain natriuretic peptide (OR 2.05, p = 0.100), a history of trauma (OR 1.71, p = 0.179), and pathologic ECG (OR 1.68, p = 0.231). A computerized tomography of the skull was performed in 52.1% of the syncope cases.

Conclusions: In syncope evaluation in an unselected cohort, 28.1% were diagnosed with an arrhythmia necessitating a pacemaker/ICD. The only significant predictor was advanced age. Time to diagnosis is unpredictable and prolonged ILR monitoring is warranted in addition to optimal use of other diagnostic tools.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2018. Vol. 25, no 3, p. 363-370
Keywords [en]
cardiac arrhythmia, implantable loop recorder, electrocardiography monitoring, pacemaker, syncope
National Category
Clinical Medicine
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:hig:diva-25695DOI: 10.5603/CJ.a2017.0101ISI: 000437122500009Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-85048613313OAI: oai:DiVA.org:hig-25695DiVA, id: diva2:1161381
Available from: 2017-11-29 Created: 2017-11-29 Last updated: 2018-12-05Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textScopus

Authority records BETA

Wallhagen, Marita

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Wallhagen, Marita
By organisation
Environmental engineering
Clinical Medicine

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 47 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard-cite-them-right
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • sv-SE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • de-DE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf