ArticleJournal of cardiovascular development and disease2023
Removal of Insertable Cardiac Monitor for Cryptogenic Stroke: A Technical Note.
Article in Journal of cardiovascular development and disease, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesInsertable cardiac monitors (ICM) allow continuous long-term electrocardiogram monitoring and the detection of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PAF) in patients with cryptogenic stroke (CS). Several years have passed since ICM was indicated for CS, and many stroke neurologists will experience cases in which ICM removal is required. As a standard protocol, reincision of the wound at the time of implantation has been proposed by ICM brands. However, it may be difficult due to adhesions of subcutaneous tissue, migration of the device from its original position, and the capsule formed around the device. Our objective is to describe simple alternative techniques for successful ICM removal. MATERIALS AND
methodsFrom December 2016 to September 2021, 37 patients with CS underwent ICM removal at our institution. The device was removed through an incision directly above the proximal end of the device, perpendicular to the wound at the time of ICM implantation. The subcutaneous tissue was removed bluntly using forceps along the edges of the proximal end of the device. When a capsule was attached to the device, we cut the capsule with the blade to release the device. Once the device was visible, the proximal end of the device was grasped with forceps, and the device was pulled from the pocket with gentle traction. All patients undergoing ICM removal received a systematic check for wound dehiscence, wound infection, bleeding, and tissue ischemia at an outpatient examination of 1 week. The 37 patients who underwent removal of ICM were retrospectively reviewed in the medical record and analyzed for procedural success, intraoperative complications, and wound course at one week.
resultsAll patients achieved procedural success. There were no intraoperative complications, wound dehiscence, bleeding, or skin ischemia at one week postoperatively. The reasons for removal were battery depletion in 65%, early removal before battery life after PAF detection in 32%, and exposure to the body surface in 3%. The devices removed were 62% Reveal LINQ (Medtronic, Minneapolis), 30% Confirm Rx (Abbott, Illinois), and 8% BioMonitor 2 (BIOTRONIK, Berlin), indicating that our method is effective regardless of model.
conclusionWe describe a simple technique for ICM removal for CS that is safe, reliable, and potentially effective in wound healing.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.