Home > Journals > Minerva Medica > Past Issues > Minerva Medica 2013 August;104(4) > Minerva Medica 2013 August;104(4):421-9

CURRENT ISSUE
 

ARTICLE TOOLS

Reprints

MINERVA MEDICA

A Journal on Internal Medicine


Indexed/Abstracted in: Current Contents/Clinical Medicine, EMBASE, PubMed/MEDLINE, Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch), Scopus
Impact Factor 1,878


eTOC

 

ORIGINAL ARTICLES  


Minerva Medica 2013 August;104(4):421-9

Copyright © 2013 EDIZIONI MINERVA MEDICA

language: English

Implantable loop recorders for assessment of syncope: increased diagnostic yield and less adverse outcomes with the latest generation devices

Bartoletti A. 1, Bocconcelli P. 2, De Santo T. 3, Ghidini Ottonelli A. 4, Giuli S. 3, Massa R. 4, Svetlich C. 5, Tarsi G. 2, Corbucci G. 6, Tronconi F. 3, Vitale E. 4

1 Cardiology Division S. Giovanni di Dio Hospital, Florence, Italy; 2 Cardiology Division San Salvatore Hospital, Pesaro, Italy; 3 Medtronic Italia SpA, Rome, Italy; 4 Cardiology Division, Antonio Biagio e Cesare Arrigo Hospital, Alessandria, Italy; 5 Cardiology Division Ospedale Unico della Versilia Lido di Camaiore, Lucca, Italy; 6 Medtronic BRC, The Netherlands


PDF  


Aim: Aim of the study was to compare the diagnostic yield of implantable loop recorders (ILR) of two successive generations for the assessment of syncope.
Methods: Data on patients who had undergone ILR implantation for unexplained syncope in four Italian public hospitals were retrospectively acquired from the Medtronic Clinical Service database. After implantation, routine follow-up examinations were performed every 90 days, while urgent examinations were carried out in the event of syncope recurrence.
Results: The following findings were regarded as diagnostic: ECG documentation of a syncope recurrence; documentation of any of the arrhythmias listed by the current guidelines as diagnostic findings even if asymptomatic. Between November 2002 and March 2010, 107 patients received an ILR (40 Medtronic Reveal® Plus; 67 Medtronic Reveal® DX/XT) and underwent at least one follow-up examination. Diagnoses were made in 7 (17.5%) and 24 (35.8%) (P=0.043) patients, with a median time of 228 and 65 days, respectively. Three (42.9%) and 21 (87.5%) (P=0.029) diagnoses were based on automatically detected events, while adverse outcomes occurred in 6 and in 1 (P=0.01) patients, respectively.
Conclusion: Our results show that the new-generation device offer a higher diagnostic yield, mainly as a result of its improved automatic detection function, and is associated with fewer adverse outcomes.

top of page

Publication History

Cite this article as

Corresponding author e-mail

angelobartoletti@alice.it