ArticlePloS one2024
Clinical practice of continuous rhythm monitoring after embolic stroke of undetermined source.
Article in PloS one, 2024. 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
12 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsEmbolic stroke of undetermined source (ESUS) accounts for up to 20% of ischemic strokes annually. Undetected atrial fibrillation (AF) is one important potential underlying cause. For AF, oral anticoagulation has evolved as the most preferable means of secondary stroke prevention. To detect unrecognized paroxysmal AF, long-term ECG monitoring is required, and implantable cardiac monitors (ICM) appear most suitable. Yet, ICMs are particularly costly, implantation is invasive, and remote monitoring places a personnel burden on health care providers. Here, we use data from a large cohort of ESUS patients to systematically analyze the effort of ICM remote monitoring for AF diagnosis and the strain on health care providers. METHODS AND
resultsFrom a prospective, single-center, observational ESUS registry, we analyzed all ICM-equipped patients post-ESUS (n = 172) between January 1st, 2018, and December 31st, 2019. Through January 2nd, 2023, 48 patients (27.9%) were diagnosed with AF by ICM remote monitoring. During follow-up, a total of 29,180 remote monitoring episodes were transmitted, of which 17,742 were alarms for AF. A systematic estimation of workload revealed that on average, 20.3 trained physician workhours are required to diagnose one patient with AF.
conclusionICM remote monitoring is useful to diagnose AF in cohort of post-ESUS patients. However, the number of ICM alarms is high, even in a cohort at known high risk of AF and in whom AF detection is therapeutically consequential. Improved automated event classification, clear recommendations for ICM interrogation after AF diagnosis, and a careful patient selection for ICM monitoring are warranted.
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.