Epstein, Andrew E.

Abstract Technological advances have made diagnosis of heart rhythm disturbances much easier, with a wide variety of options, including single-lead portable devices, smartphones/watches to sophisticated implantable cardiac monitors, allowing accurate data to be collected over different time periods depending on symptoms frequency. This review provides an overview of the novel and existing heart rhythm testing options, including a description of the supporting evidence for their use. A description of each of the tests is provided, along with discussion of their advantages and limitations. This is intended to help clinicians towards choosing the most appropriate test, thus improving diagnostic yield management of patients with suspected arrhythmias.

Abstract Recent technological advances have facilitated and diversified the options available for the diagnosis of cardiac arrhythmias. Ranging from simple resting or exercise electrocardiograms to more sophisticated and expensive smartphones and implantable cardiac monitors. These tests and devices may be used for varying periods of time depending on symptom frequency. The choice of the most appropriate heart rhythm test should be guided by clinical evaluation and optimized following accurate characterization of underlying symptoms, ‘red flags’, risk factors, and consideration of cost-effectiveness of the different tests. This review provides evidence-based guidance for assessing suspected arrhythmia in patients who present with symptoms or in the context of screening, such as atrial fibrillation or advanced conduction disturbances following transcatheter aortic valve implantation in high-risk groups. This is intended to help clinicians choose the most appropriate diagnostic tool to facilitate the management of patients with suspected arrhythmias.

Knowledge of major adverse clinical events (MACE) associated with ICD and pacemaker (PM) pulse generator (PG) and lead performance may be important for managing patients who have these devices. The aim of our study was to assess MACE in our Multicenter Registry. Participating centers prospectively reported ICD and PM PG and lead failures, and PG replaced for normal battery depletion (NBD). Data included dates of implant and removal, failure signs including the elective replacement indicator (ERI), clinical consequences, and reason for removal. MACE were death, inappropriate shocks (IAS), syncope, heart failure, ischemia, sustained tachyarrhythmias, and replacement of a normally functioning PG or lead due to a manufacturers recall. Since 1998, 6,291 ICD and PM PG and leads were removed from service. Of 5,212 ICD and PM PGs, 4,562 (88%) were removed for NBD, 346 (7%) for a recall, and 304 (5%) for component defects. MACE are shown in the Table . The deaths (n=2) were due to component defects causing an ICD PG to short-circuit and a PM PG to deliver high rate pacing. Thus, of the 304 component defects in our database, 2 resulted in death (0.7%). No deaths were associated with ICD or PM lead failure, but 2 deaths occurred following PM lead extraction. The ERI, signifying NBD, resulted in 48 MACE, primarily syncope (67%). Most MACE are due to replacement of normally functioning recalled devices. However, our experience suggests that death due to ICD and PM PG component or lead failure is rare; this finding may be important for managing patients who have recalled devices. Overall, MACE may be substantially reduced by improving high voltage lead reliability, and by providing physiologic ERIs.