Cargando…

A Single-center Experience Comparing First- Versus Second-generation Insertable Cardiac Monitors in Pediatric Patients

Insertable cardiac monitors (ICMs) have undergone advancements in size and functionality over the past decade, resulting in the introduction of small, easily insertable devices capable of long-term remote monitoring. We define first-generation ICMs as implantable cardiac monitoring devices that requ...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Miller, Nathan, Roelle, Lisa, Lorimer, Dean, Dalal, Aarti S., Orr, William B., Van Hare, George F., Avari Silva, Jennifer N.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MediaSphere Medical 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9221184/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35765585
http://dx.doi.org/10.19102/icrm.2022.130605
_version_ 1784732558161870848
author Miller, Nathan
Roelle, Lisa
Lorimer, Dean
Dalal, Aarti S.
Orr, William B.
Van Hare, George F.
Avari Silva, Jennifer N.
author_facet Miller, Nathan
Roelle, Lisa
Lorimer, Dean
Dalal, Aarti S.
Orr, William B.
Van Hare, George F.
Avari Silva, Jennifer N.
author_sort Miller, Nathan
collection PubMed
description Insertable cardiac monitors (ICMs) have undergone advancements in size and functionality over the past decade, resulting in the introduction of small, easily insertable devices capable of long-term remote monitoring. We define first-generation ICMs as implantable cardiac monitoring devices that require an incision and surgical creation of a subcutaneous pocket and second-generation ICMs as devices implanted using a custom-made tool for subcutaneous insertion, respectively. The aim of this study was to understand the differences between first- and second-generation pediatric ICM implants, implant indications, and time to diagnosis. We performed a retrospective, single-center chart review of patients who underwent ICM implantation from 2009–2019, spanning a 5-year course of first-generation ICM implantations and 5-year course of second-generation ICM implantations. Demographic data, past medical history, implant indication, and time to diagnosis were obtained. A total of 208 patients were identified over the 10-year time period, including 38 (18%) who underwent implantation with a first-generation device and 170 (82%) who underwent implantation with a second-generation device. Implant indications for first-generation ICMs included syncope (71%), palpitations (16%), inherited arrhythmia syndrome (IAS) management (5%), and premature ventricular contractions/ventricular tachycardia (VT) (8%); implant indications for second-generation ICMs included syncope (48%), palpitations (19%), IAS management (40%), premature ventricular contractions/VT (11%), atrial fibrillation (2%), tachycardia (3%), and heart block (0.5%). The average time to diagnosis was 38 weeks for patients with first-generation devices and 55 weeks for those with second-generation devices. With innovations in ICM technologies, there are expanding indications for ICM implantation in pediatric patients for long-term monitoring, specifically regarding the management of IAS patients.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9221184
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher MediaSphere Medical
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-92211842022-06-27 A Single-center Experience Comparing First- Versus Second-generation Insertable Cardiac Monitors in Pediatric Patients Miller, Nathan Roelle, Lisa Lorimer, Dean Dalal, Aarti S. Orr, William B. Van Hare, George F. Avari Silva, Jennifer N. J Innov Card Rhythm Manag Original Research Insertable cardiac monitors (ICMs) have undergone advancements in size and functionality over the past decade, resulting in the introduction of small, easily insertable devices capable of long-term remote monitoring. We define first-generation ICMs as implantable cardiac monitoring devices that require an incision and surgical creation of a subcutaneous pocket and second-generation ICMs as devices implanted using a custom-made tool for subcutaneous insertion, respectively. The aim of this study was to understand the differences between first- and second-generation pediatric ICM implants, implant indications, and time to diagnosis. We performed a retrospective, single-center chart review of patients who underwent ICM implantation from 2009–2019, spanning a 5-year course of first-generation ICM implantations and 5-year course of second-generation ICM implantations. Demographic data, past medical history, implant indication, and time to diagnosis were obtained. A total of 208 patients were identified over the 10-year time period, including 38 (18%) who underwent implantation with a first-generation device and 170 (82%) who underwent implantation with a second-generation device. Implant indications for first-generation ICMs included syncope (71%), palpitations (16%), inherited arrhythmia syndrome (IAS) management (5%), and premature ventricular contractions/ventricular tachycardia (VT) (8%); implant indications for second-generation ICMs included syncope (48%), palpitations (19%), IAS management (40%), premature ventricular contractions/VT (11%), atrial fibrillation (2%), tachycardia (3%), and heart block (0.5%). The average time to diagnosis was 38 weeks for patients with first-generation devices and 55 weeks for those with second-generation devices. With innovations in ICM technologies, there are expanding indications for ICM implantation in pediatric patients for long-term monitoring, specifically regarding the management of IAS patients. MediaSphere Medical 2022-06-15 /pmc/articles/PMC9221184/ /pubmed/35765585 http://dx.doi.org/10.19102/icrm.2022.130605 Text en Copyright: © 2022 Innovations in Cardiac Rhythm Management https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Research
Miller, Nathan
Roelle, Lisa
Lorimer, Dean
Dalal, Aarti S.
Orr, William B.
Van Hare, George F.
Avari Silva, Jennifer N.
A Single-center Experience Comparing First- Versus Second-generation Insertable Cardiac Monitors in Pediatric Patients
title A Single-center Experience Comparing First- Versus Second-generation Insertable Cardiac Monitors in Pediatric Patients
title_full A Single-center Experience Comparing First- Versus Second-generation Insertable Cardiac Monitors in Pediatric Patients
title_fullStr A Single-center Experience Comparing First- Versus Second-generation Insertable Cardiac Monitors in Pediatric Patients
title_full_unstemmed A Single-center Experience Comparing First- Versus Second-generation Insertable Cardiac Monitors in Pediatric Patients
title_short A Single-center Experience Comparing First- Versus Second-generation Insertable Cardiac Monitors in Pediatric Patients
title_sort single-center experience comparing first- versus second-generation insertable cardiac monitors in pediatric patients
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9221184/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35765585
http://dx.doi.org/10.19102/icrm.2022.130605
work_keys_str_mv AT millernathan asinglecenterexperiencecomparingfirstversussecondgenerationinsertablecardiacmonitorsinpediatricpatients
AT roellelisa asinglecenterexperiencecomparingfirstversussecondgenerationinsertablecardiacmonitorsinpediatricpatients
AT lorimerdean asinglecenterexperiencecomparingfirstversussecondgenerationinsertablecardiacmonitorsinpediatricpatients
AT dalalaartis asinglecenterexperiencecomparingfirstversussecondgenerationinsertablecardiacmonitorsinpediatricpatients
AT orrwilliamb asinglecenterexperiencecomparingfirstversussecondgenerationinsertablecardiacmonitorsinpediatricpatients
AT vanharegeorgef asinglecenterexperiencecomparingfirstversussecondgenerationinsertablecardiacmonitorsinpediatricpatients
AT avarisilvajennifern asinglecenterexperiencecomparingfirstversussecondgenerationinsertablecardiacmonitorsinpediatricpatients
AT millernathan singlecenterexperiencecomparingfirstversussecondgenerationinsertablecardiacmonitorsinpediatricpatients
AT roellelisa singlecenterexperiencecomparingfirstversussecondgenerationinsertablecardiacmonitorsinpediatricpatients
AT lorimerdean singlecenterexperiencecomparingfirstversussecondgenerationinsertablecardiacmonitorsinpediatricpatients
AT dalalaartis singlecenterexperiencecomparingfirstversussecondgenerationinsertablecardiacmonitorsinpediatricpatients
AT orrwilliamb singlecenterexperiencecomparingfirstversussecondgenerationinsertablecardiacmonitorsinpediatricpatients
AT vanharegeorgef singlecenterexperiencecomparingfirstversussecondgenerationinsertablecardiacmonitorsinpediatricpatients
AT avarisilvajennifern singlecenterexperiencecomparingfirstversussecondgenerationinsertablecardiacmonitorsinpediatricpatients