Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T01:20:35.479Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Clinical impact of a novel ambulatory rhythm monitor in children

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2018

Joseph W. May ,
Elizabeth L. Carter ,
J. Ryan Hitt  and
Thomas R. Burklow
Joseph W. May*
Affiliation:
Department of Pediatrics, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, MD, USA Department of Pediatrics, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, MD, USA
Elizabeth L. Carter
Affiliation:
Department of Pediatrics, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, MD, USA
J. Ryan Hitt
Affiliation:
Department of Pediatrics, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, MD, USA
Thomas R. Burklow
Affiliation:
Department of Pediatrics, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, MD, USA Department of Pediatrics, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, MD, USA
*
Author for correspondence: J. W. May, MD, MPH, Department of Pediatrics, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, 8901 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, MD 20889, USA. Tel: 301 295 4959; Fax: 301 295 5069; E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Traditional ambulatory rhythm monitoring in children can have limitations, including cumbersome leads and limited monitoring duration. The ZioTM patch ambulatory monitor is a small, adhesive, single-channel rhythm monitor that can be worn up to 2 weeks. In this study, we present a retrospective cross-sectional analysis of the ZioTM monitor’s impact in clinical practice. Patients aged 0–18 years were included in the study. A total of 373 studies were reviewed in 332 patients. In all, 28.4% had structural heart disease, and 16.9% had a prior surgical, catheterisation, or electrophysiology procedure. The most common indication for monitoring was tachypalpitations (41%); 93.5% of these patients had their symptoms captured during the study window. The median duration of monitoring was 5 days. Overall, 5.1% of ZioTM monitoring identified arrhythmias requiring new intervention or increased medical management; 4.0% identified arrhythmias requiring increased clinical surveillance. The remainder had either normal-variant rhythm or minor rhythm findings requiring no change in management. For patients with tachypalpitations and no structural heart disease, 13.2% had pathological arrhythmias, but 72.9% had normal-variant rhythm during symptoms, allowing discharge from cardiology care. Notably, for patients with findings requiring intervention or increased surveillance, 56% had findings first identified beyond 24 hours, and only 62% were patient-triggered findings. Seven studies (1.9%) were associated with complications or patient intolerance. The ZioTM is a well-tolerated device that may improve what traditional Holter and event monitoring would detect in paediatric cardiology patients. This study shows a positive clinical impact on the management of patients within a paediatric cardiology practice.

Keywords

Zioambulatory rhythm monitorpatch rhythm monitorchildrenarrhythmia
Type
Original Article
Information
Cardiology in the Young , Volume 28 , Issue 10 , October 2018 , pp. 1134 - 1140
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Barrett, PM, Komatireddy, R, Haaser, S, et al. Comparison of 24-hour Holter monitoring with 14-day novel adhesive patch electrocardiographic monitoring. Am J Med 2014; 127: 95.e11–95.e17.Google Scholar
2. Fung, E, Järvelin, MR, Doshi, RN, et al. Electrocardiographic patch devices and contemporary wireless cardiac monitoring. Front Physiol 2015; 6: 149.Google Scholar
3. Solomon, MD, Yang, J, Sung, SH, et al. Incidence and timing of potentially high-risk arrhythmias detected through long term continuous ambulatory electrocardiographic monitoring. BMC Cardiovasc Disord 2016; 16: 35.Google Scholar
4. Turakhia, MP, Hoang, DD, Zimetbaum, P, et al. Diagnostic utility of a novel leadless arrhythmia monitoring device. Am J Cardiol 2013; 112: 520–524.Google Scholar
5. Bolourchi, M, Batra, AS. Diagnostic yield of patch ambulatory electrocardiogram monitoring in children (from a national registry). Am J Cardiol 2015; 115: 630–634.Google Scholar
6. Scott, O, Williams, GJ, Fiddler, GI. Results of 24 hour ambulatory monitoring of electrocardiogram in 131 healthy boys aged 10-13 years. Br Heart J 1980; 44: 304–308.Google Scholar
7. Dagres, N, Kottkamp, H, Piorkowski, C, et al. Influence of the duration of Holter monitoring on the detection of arrhythmia recurrences after catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation: implications for patient follow-up. Int J Cardiol 2010; 139: 305–306.Google Scholar
8. Mulder, AA, Wijffels, MC, Wever, EF, et al. Arrhythmia detection after atrial fibrillation ablation: value of incremental monitoring time. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 2012; 35: 164–169.Google Scholar
9. Sivakumaran, S, Krahn, AD, Klein, GJ, et al. A prospective randomized comparison of loop recorders versus Holter monitors in patients with syncope or presyncope. Am J Med 2003; 115: 1–5.Google Scholar
10. Reiffel, JA, Schwarzberg, R, Murry, M. Comparison of autotriggered memory loop recorders versus standard loop recorders versus 24-hour Holter monitors for arrhythmia detection. Am J Cardiol 2005; 95: 1055–1059.Google Scholar