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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |