4.7 Article

The clinical impact of implantable loop recorders in patients with syncope

期刊

EUROPEAN HEART JOURNAL
卷 27, 期 3, 页码 351-356

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehi602

关键词

syncope; implantable loop recorder; cost effectiveness

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims Implantable loop recorders (ILR) provide an opportunity to record ECG data from a spontaneous syncopal event. We conducted a randomized study to investigate the impact of the Reveal Plus ILR on an unselected population of patients with recurrent syncope. Initial follow-up (at least 6 months) did not demonstrate a reduction in syncopal events or an improvement in quality of life. We report the planned extension of follow-up to 18 months. Methods and results All patients presenting acutely with recurrent unexplained syncope over a 16-month period, following a basic clinical work-up, were randomized to receive the ILR or conventional investigation and management. A total of 421 patients presented, 201 were eligible, median age 74, (IQ range 61-81) 54% female, with median syncopes 3 (IQ range 2-6). Median follow-up 17 months (IQ range 9-23). 42 (43%) of ILR patients and 8 (6%) of conventional patients received an ECG diagnosis (hazard ratio 6.53, 95% CI 3.73-11.4, P < 0.001). Time to second syncope was significantly longer for ILR patients, although of borderline significance (P=0.04). A greater variety of diagnoses and treatments were seen in ILR patients. ILR patients had fewer post-randomization investigations and fewer days in hospital; however, cost savings were not statistically significant. There was improved quality of life in the ILR group (visual analogue scales, P=0.03) for general wellbeing. Overall mortality was 12% with no difference between the two groups. Conclusion Investigation by the ILR significantly increases the diagnostic rate and ECG directed treatments in a typical unselected syncopal population. Long-term follow-up has demonstrated a significant subsequent reduction in syncopal events with improved quality of life.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据