Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Artículo Open Access |
| Published: |
Wiley
2024
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/pace.15087 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
Table of Contents:
- Caught in the Act: A Detailed Analysis of Cardiac Event Monitoring in a Cohort of Pediatric and ACHD Patients Ashwin Srivatsav Zachery J. Thompson Michael A. Bruno Sara B. Stephens Maria Elena Gutierrez Christina Y. Miyake Shaine A. Morris Tam Dan Pham Santiago O. Valdes Jeffrey J. Kim Taylor S. Howard Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology ABSTRACTBackgroundEvent monitors are being increasingly used in pediatric and adult congenital heart disease (ACHD) patients for arrhythmia evaluation. Data on their diagnostic yield are limited.ObjectivesTo evaluate the diagnostic yield of event monitors, patient characteristics associated with critical events, and clinical response to events.MethodsWe retrospectively assessed event monitors prescribed to patients at our institution's Heart Center from 2017 to 2020. Thirty‐day event monitor tracings were reviewed by an electrophysiologist (EP) to identify critical events defined as supraventricular tachycardia (SVT, re‐entrant, atrial tachycardia, atrial flutter, and atrial fibrillation), ventricular tachycardia (VT), atrioventricular block, and pauses greater than 3 s. Patient characteristics and treatment data were collected. Characteristics associated with events were assessed using multivariable logistic regression. Trends in monitor prescription over time, diagnostic yield, and clinical response to events were analyzed.Results204/2330 (8.8%) event monitors had EP‐confirmed critical events. Critical events included SVT (51.5%), VT (38.5%), atrioventricular block (4%), and pauses (6%). 129/198 (65%) patients with critical events underwent treatment. Event monitoring usage increased by 52% between 2017 and 2020 (p < 0.0001). Complex CHD (OR 2.1, 95% CI 1.3–3.4, p = 0.004), cardiomyopathy (OR 2.9, 95% CI 1.5–4.8, p < 0.001), and EP‐ordered monitors (OR 1.6, 95% CI 1.2–2.1, p = 0.001) were more highly associated with critical events.ConclusionEvent monitor use is common, and critical events were captured in 8.8% of patients. The majority of patients with critical events underwent treatment. Factors associated with critical events include EPs as ordering providers, complex CHD, and cardiomyopathy. 10.1111/pace.15087 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor