ArticleThe Journal of innovations in cardiac rhythm management2025
Comparison of Electrocardiogram Characteristics of Two Commercially Available Implantable Loop Monitors: Impact of These Characteristics in the Correct Adjudication of Recorded Events and Minimized Undersensing and Oversensing of Events.
Article in The Journal of innovations in cardiac rhythm management, 2025. 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.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Implantable cardiac monitors (ICMs) are useful in the detection of tachycardias, bradycardias, and atrial fibrillation. Undersensing and oversensing of events occur despite complex algorithms. The devices available have subtle differences, which may account for a difference in recorded characteristics. The electrocardiogram (ECG) characteristics of different monitors may influence their ability to correctly identify the events recorded. The objective is to compare the ECG characteristics of two commercially available implantable loop monitors and the ability to improve diagnostic accuracy. Two cohorts of patients were examined. Cohort 1 consisted of 30 patients with a Reveal LINQ I (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN, USA) implanted, which was replaced with a BIOMONITOR III (Biotronik, Berlin, Germany) when the former had reached end of life. The new monitor was implanted at the same site in all patients. This provided a unique opportunity to compare ECGs obtained by both devices with no other confounding variable. Cohort 2 consisted of patients who had undergone implantation of either device at the discretion of the physician. This was therefore a retrospective analysis of 106 patients who had been implanted with one of the devices within a 2-year period. In both cohorts, we compared R-wave amplitude, the ability to accurately detect P-waves, and the frequency of undersensing and oversensing of events. In cohort 1, the mean R-wave was 0.35 ± 0.2 mV with the LINQ I as compared to 0.98 ± 0.4 with the BIOMONITOR III (
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.