Cargando…

Clinical evaluation of a small implantable cardiac monitor with a long sensing vector

INTRODUCTION: We conducted this study to show the safety and efficacy of a new implantable cardiac monitor (ICM), the BioMonitor 2 (Biotronik SE & Co. KG; Berlin, Germany), and to describe the arrhythmia detection performance. METHODS: The BioMonitor 2 has an extended sensing vector and is impla...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Piorkowski, Christopher, Busch, Mathias, Nölker, Georg, Schmitt, Jörn, Roithinger, Franz Xaver, Young, Glenn, Táborský, Miloš, Herrmann, Gundula, Schmitz, Dietmar
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6851891/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31119745
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/pace.13728
_version_ 1783469710662172672
author Piorkowski, Christopher
Busch, Mathias
Nölker, Georg
Schmitt, Jörn
Roithinger, Franz Xaver
Young, Glenn
Táborský, Miloš
Herrmann, Gundula
Schmitz, Dietmar
author_facet Piorkowski, Christopher
Busch, Mathias
Nölker, Georg
Schmitt, Jörn
Roithinger, Franz Xaver
Young, Glenn
Táborský, Miloš
Herrmann, Gundula
Schmitz, Dietmar
author_sort Piorkowski, Christopher
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: We conducted this study to show the safety and efficacy of a new implantable cardiac monitor (ICM), the BioMonitor 2 (Biotronik SE & Co. KG; Berlin, Germany), and to describe the arrhythmia detection performance. METHODS: The BioMonitor 2 has an extended sensing vector and is implanted close to the heart. It can transmit up to six subcutaneous electrocardiogram strips by Home Monitoring each day. We enrolled 92 patients with a standard device indication for an ICM in a single‐arm, multicenter prospective trial. Patients were followed for 3 months, and 48‐h Holter recordings were used to evaluate the arrhythmia detection performance. RESULTS: One patient withdrew consent and in one patient, the implantation failed. Two study device‐related serious adverse events were reported, satisfying the primary safety hypothesis. Implantations took 7.4 ± 4.4 min from skin cut to suture. At 1 week, the R‐wave amplitude was 0.75 ± 0.53 mV. In the 82 patients with completed Holter recordings, all patients with arrhythmias were correctly identified. False positive detections of arrhythmia were mostly irregular rhythms wrongly detected as atrial fibrillation (episode‐based positive predictive value 72.5%). Daily Home Monitoring transmission was 94.9% successful. CONCLUSION: Safety and efficacy of the new device has been demonstrated. The detected R‐wave amplitudes are large, leading to a low level of inappropriate detections due to over‐ or undersensing.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6851891
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-68518912019-11-18 Clinical evaluation of a small implantable cardiac monitor with a long sensing vector Piorkowski, Christopher Busch, Mathias Nölker, Georg Schmitt, Jörn Roithinger, Franz Xaver Young, Glenn Táborský, Miloš Herrmann, Gundula Schmitz, Dietmar Pacing Clin Electrophysiol Devices INTRODUCTION: We conducted this study to show the safety and efficacy of a new implantable cardiac monitor (ICM), the BioMonitor 2 (Biotronik SE & Co. KG; Berlin, Germany), and to describe the arrhythmia detection performance. METHODS: The BioMonitor 2 has an extended sensing vector and is implanted close to the heart. It can transmit up to six subcutaneous electrocardiogram strips by Home Monitoring each day. We enrolled 92 patients with a standard device indication for an ICM in a single‐arm, multicenter prospective trial. Patients were followed for 3 months, and 48‐h Holter recordings were used to evaluate the arrhythmia detection performance. RESULTS: One patient withdrew consent and in one patient, the implantation failed. Two study device‐related serious adverse events were reported, satisfying the primary safety hypothesis. Implantations took 7.4 ± 4.4 min from skin cut to suture. At 1 week, the R‐wave amplitude was 0.75 ± 0.53 mV. In the 82 patients with completed Holter recordings, all patients with arrhythmias were correctly identified. False positive detections of arrhythmia were mostly irregular rhythms wrongly detected as atrial fibrillation (episode‐based positive predictive value 72.5%). Daily Home Monitoring transmission was 94.9% successful. CONCLUSION: Safety and efficacy of the new device has been demonstrated. The detected R‐wave amplitudes are large, leading to a low level of inappropriate detections due to over‐ or undersensing. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2019-06-05 2019-07 /pmc/articles/PMC6851891/ /pubmed/31119745 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/pace.13728 Text en © 2019 The Authors Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Devices
Piorkowski, Christopher
Busch, Mathias
Nölker, Georg
Schmitt, Jörn
Roithinger, Franz Xaver
Young, Glenn
Táborský, Miloš
Herrmann, Gundula
Schmitz, Dietmar
Clinical evaluation of a small implantable cardiac monitor with a long sensing vector
title Clinical evaluation of a small implantable cardiac monitor with a long sensing vector
title_full Clinical evaluation of a small implantable cardiac monitor with a long sensing vector
title_fullStr Clinical evaluation of a small implantable cardiac monitor with a long sensing vector
title_full_unstemmed Clinical evaluation of a small implantable cardiac monitor with a long sensing vector
title_short Clinical evaluation of a small implantable cardiac monitor with a long sensing vector
title_sort clinical evaluation of a small implantable cardiac monitor with a long sensing vector
topic Devices
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6851891/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31119745
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/pace.13728
work_keys_str_mv AT piorkowskichristopher clinicalevaluationofasmallimplantablecardiacmonitorwithalongsensingvector
AT buschmathias clinicalevaluationofasmallimplantablecardiacmonitorwithalongsensingvector
AT nolkergeorg clinicalevaluationofasmallimplantablecardiacmonitorwithalongsensingvector
AT schmittjorn clinicalevaluationofasmallimplantablecardiacmonitorwithalongsensingvector
AT roithingerfranzxaver clinicalevaluationofasmallimplantablecardiacmonitorwithalongsensingvector
AT youngglenn clinicalevaluationofasmallimplantablecardiacmonitorwithalongsensingvector
AT taborskymilos clinicalevaluationofasmallimplantablecardiacmonitorwithalongsensingvector
AT herrmanngundula clinicalevaluationofasmallimplantablecardiacmonitorwithalongsensingvector
AT schmitzdietmar clinicalevaluationofasmallimplantablecardiacmonitorwithalongsensingvector