ArticleHeart rhythm O22023
Diagnostic yield of an insertable cardiac monitor in a large patient population.
Article in Heart rhythm O2, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trial
- Safety, performance, and remote programming utilization of an insertable cardiac monitor: The LUX-Dx PERFORM study.Heart rhythm O2 · 2026Article
- Diagnostic and therapeutic impact of implantable cardiac monitors across different clinical indications: a real-world cohort.European heart journal open · 2026Article
- Sudden arrhythmic death in patients with syncope and implantable cardiac monitor.Heart rhythm O2 · 2024Article
- Diagnostic Yield and Clinical Implications of Implantable Loop Recorders in Patients with Syncope in Germany: A National Database Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Implantable cardiac monitors: artificial intelligence and signal processing reduce remote ECG review workload and preserve arrhythmia detection sensitivity.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2024Article
- Evaluation of a novel PVC and PAC detection algorithm in an implantable cardiac monitor for longitudinal risk monitoring.Heart rhythm O2 · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors at 15 institutions in 7 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Insertable cardiac monitors (ICMs) are increasingly used for cardiac rhythm diagnosis with expanding indications. Little has been reported about their use and efficacy. Objective: The study sought to evaluate the clinical utility of a novel ICM (Biotronik BIOMONITOR III) including the time to diagnosis in unselected patients with different ICM indications. Methods: Patients from 2 prospective clinical studies were included to determine the diagnostic yield of the ICM. The primary endpoint was time to clinical diagnosis per implant indication or to the first change in atrial fibrillation (AF) therapy. Results: A total of 632 patients were included with a mean follow-up of 233 ± 168 days. Of 384 patients with (pre)syncope, 34.2% had a diagnosis at 1 year. The most frequent therapy was permanent pacemaker implantation. Of 133 patients with cryptogenic stroke, 16.6% had an AF diagnosis at 1 year, resulting in oral anticoagulation. Of 49 patients with an indication for AF monitoring, 41.0% had a relevant change in AF therapy based on ICM data at 1 year. Of 66 patients with other indications, 35.4% received a rhythm diagnosis at 1 year. Moreover, 6.5% of the cohort had additional diagnoses: 26 of 384 patients with syncope, 8 of 133 patients with cryptogenic stroke, and 7 of 49 patients with AF monitoring. Conclusion: In a large unselected patient population with heterogeneous ICM indications, the primary endpoint of rhythm diagnosis was achieved in ∼1 in 4, and additional clinically relevant findings was achieved in 6.5% of patients at short-term follow-up.
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.