Next Article in Journal
What Factors Predict Adaptive Functioning in Preschool Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder? A Longitudinal Study
Previous Article in Journal
Relationship between Permanent Catheter Patency and Nutrient Score in Patients Aged >75 Years Requiring Renal Replacement Therapy
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JCM
Volume 13
Issue 6
10.3390/jcm13061564
jcm-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Brief Report

Diagnostic Yield and Clinical Implications of Implantable Loop Recorders in Patients with Syncope in Germany: A National Database Analysis

by
Johanna Mueller-Leisse
1,†,
Henrike Aenne Katrin Hillmann
1,†,
Laura Iserloh
2,
Bjoern Fruehauf
2 and
David Duncker
1,*
1
Hannover Heart Rhythm Center, Department of Cardiology and Angiology, Hannover Medical School, 30625 Hannover, Germany
2
Medtronic GmbH, 40670 Meerbusch, Germany
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
J. Clin. Med. 2024, 13(6), 1564; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13061564
Submission received: 2 February 2024 / Revised: 27 February 2024 / Accepted: 5 March 2024 / Published: 8 March 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Cardiology)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
In patients with unexplained syncope, implantable loop recorders (ILR) are used to detect arrhythmias as a cause of syncope. This study aimed to assess the diagnostic yield and clinical implications arising from ILR implantation in patients with syncope in Germany. Secondary longitudinal data were obtained from a large German research database including anonymized data from nationwide statutory health insurances, representative for the German population. Patients ≥ 18 years with a diagnosis of syncope and ILR implantation between 2017 and 2018 were analyzed, and cardiac diagnoses and therapies during a follow-up period of two years assessed. Of 2,403,301 continuously insured persons in 2017–2018, 1360 (0.1%) received an ILR and 675 patients (45.6% female) were included. During follow-up, arrhythmias were diagnosed in 65.0%. The following antiarrhythmic therapies were established: pacemaker and defibrillator implantations in 20% and 1.5%, respectively, ablation therapy in 3.0%, and antiarrhythmic drug therapy in 4.7%. Aside from the diagnoses typically associated with syncope, atrial fibrillation or flutter was diagnosed in 37.0%, and anticoagulation therapy was initiated in 21.5%. There was a high diagnostic yield of arrhythmias following ILR implantation, leading to a relevant number of syncope-specific treatment. Arrhythmias not necessarily related to syncope were also diagnosed, leading to a high rate of anticoagulation therapy.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

Syncope is a common clinical issue with an approximate incidence of 6.2 per 1000 person-years and is associated with increased morbidity and mortality including sudden cardiac death for patients suffering from cardiac or unexplained syncope [1]. Establishment of a diagnosis is crucial for adequate treatment and prevention of future events [2,3,4,5]. However, the cause of syncope remains unknown in up to one third of patients [5,6]. As cardiac arrhythmias can be a cause for unexplained syncope, close rhythm monitoring is crucial. Holter monitoring and external loop recorders serve as main noninvasive monitoring strategies, but the diagnostic yield is low, especially in cases of infrequent symptoms [5,7]. Digital mobile or wearable devices are also increasingly used in the detection of arrhythmias [8,9,10]. However, recordings usually require patient activation at the time of symptoms. The use of such devices in the context of syncope is, therefore, limited. Moreover, reimbursement in daily clinical practice is lacking [11]. Next to noninvasive monitoring strategies, implantable loop recorders (ILR) are used to confirm the etiology of syncope [2,12,13,14,15,16,17,18], with a shorter time to diagnosis, more frequent treatment initiation, and a positive impact on survival compared to a conventional diagnostic workup [13,17,19]. These devices were first introduced in the 1990s [20] and have since been improved and miniaturized. They are inserted subcutaneously in the left pectoral region under local anesthesia, and they allow long-term continuous single-lead ECG monitoring. The availability of remote monitoring has further improved the diagnostic timing and follow-up with a potential economization of health care resources. The application of different ECG technologies in the workup of patients with syncope seems to be similar among Western countries [21]. While international guidelines recommend ILR implantation in patients with unexplained recurrent syncope after a standard workup [5,22,23,24], implementation in daily clinical practice is lagging behind, partly due to reimbursement issues [25,26,27,28,29,30]. In Germany, ILR implantation in the outpatients’ sector is usually associated with a high bureaucratic effort that includes writing individual reimbursement requests to health insurances attesting a proper diagnostic workup and indication according to guidelines [31]. Data on the diagnostic yield as well as clinical implications arising from ILR implantation following syncope in a real-world setting of the German population are scarce. The aim of this study was, therefore, to address this question, acquiring and analyzing national representative real-world data on current ILR implantations including follow-up data in Germany.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Design and Data Source

This is an observational study with a retrospective, longitudinal design using secondary data. The study was conducted following the guideline of “Good Practice Secondary Data” [32]. Data were obtained using the research database of the German Scientific Institute for Health Economics and Health System Research (WIG2). The WIG2 research database provides data representative of the German population with respect to age and gender distribution and includes anonymized data on the healthcare use and resource consumption of 4.5 million member records from nationwide statutory health insurances (SHIs) [33,34]. For analysis, SHI claims data of company health insurance funds (BKK) were used.

2.2. Patient Population

Patients ≥ 18 years with a diagnosis of syncope according to ICD-10-GM code R55 and an ILR implantation according to operation and procedure (OPS) code 5-377.8 between 2017 and 2018, who were continuously insured during a follow-up period of 24 months following the index day, were included in the analysis. The date of ILR implantation was referred to as the index day.
To further refine the study population, the following exclusion criteria were applied: individuals with a primary diagnosis of stroke (ICD-10-GM 163) and/or ablation (OPS 8-835) at inclusion as well as patients with OPS-coding of ILR implantation (OPS 5-377.8), explantation (5-378.07), exchange (5-378.67), or revision (OPS, 5-378.57, 5-378.47, 5-378.87) and/or presence of a cardiac electronic device (ICD-10-GM Z95.0) within the year prior to the study initiation (2016). Patients who died during the follow-up period were included in the analysis and observed until their date of death.
Analyzed data included demographics, mortality, ILR-related cardiac diagnoses, mean time to first diagnosis, specific treatment initiation, and mean time to such treatment. Diagnoses were classified based on the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th Revision, German Modification (ICD-10-GM). Procedures were classified based on the OPS codes. Medication is documented according to the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) classification system. All codes were checked for catalog changes.
ILR-related cardiac diagnoses analyzed included atrial fibrillation or flutter (I48), atrioventricular block or other cardiac conduction disease (I44, I45), and other cardiac arrhythmias including ventricular tachycardia, ventricular fibrillation, supraventricular tachycardia, and sick sinus syndrome (I49). Specific treatments analyzed included pacemaker implantations (OPS 5-377.1, 5-377.2, 5-377.3, 5-377.30, 5-377.31, 5-377.4, 5-377.40, 5-377.41, 5-377.k, 8-83d.3), defibrillator implantations (OPS 5-377.5, 5-377.50, 5-377.51, 5-377.6, 5-377.7, 5-377.70, 5-377.71, 5-377.j), ablation therapy (OPS 8-835), new treatment with anticoagulants (ATC B01 excluding B01AC, B01AD, and B01AY), and/or antiarrhythmic drugs (ATC C01 excluding C01E, C01D).

2.3. Statistics

The statistical analysis was performed using SAS® (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA). The categorical variables are presented as numbers and percentages. The continuous data are presented as mean and standard deviation (SD).

3. Results

3.1. Study Population and Baseline Characteristics

Of 2,403,301 continuously insured persons in the database in 2017–2018, 1360 (0.06%) received an ILR during the index period, and of these, 733 (53.9%) had a diagnosis of syncope. 58 patients met at least one of the exclusion criteria (prior cardiac device implantation code in 41 patients, ILR implantation or revision code in 8 patients, ablation code in 9 patients, and stroke in 7 patients). Thus, 675 patients were included in the analysis (Figure 1): 348 with implantation in 2017 and 327 patients with implantation in 2018. Projected to the German population, these numbers would correspond to 18,016 patients with syncope and ILR implantation in Germany within 2 years [34].
Of the included patients, 367 (54.4%) were male. Age at baseline was 66 ± 16 years (male patients 65 ± 16 years, female patients 68 ± 16 years; range 19–90 years). In total, 122 patients (18.1%) were on anticoagulants at baseline. A total of 20 patients (3.0%) were on antiarrhythmic drugs.

3.2. Follow-Up

During the two-year follow-up period, 47 patients (7.0%) died (26 patients within the first year and 21 patients within the second year). The most common primary inpatient diagnosis at their time of death was heart failure, in five patients (17.2%), followed by unspecific other diagnoses.
Cardiac diagnoses during follow-up were established in 566 patients (83.9%), after 116 ± 162 days. In total, 439 patients (65.0%) received at least one of the predefined ILR-related diagnoses: An atrioventricular block or left bundle branch block was diagnosed in 59 patients (8.7%) after 206 ± 197 days, other cardiac conduction disease was diagnosed in 135 patients (20.0%) after 212 ± 213 days, and other arrhythmias were diagnosed in 275 patients (40.7%) after 176 ± 184 days. Atrial fibrillation or flutter was diagnosed in 250 patients (37.0%) after 212 ± 213 days. ILR-related cardiac diagnoses are presented in detail in Table 1.
In total, 159 patients (23.6%) underwent at least one predefined interventional therapy: 135 patients (20.0%) received a pacemaker, 10 patients (1.5%) were implanted with a defibrillator, and 20 patients (3.0%) received ablation therapy. A total of 167 patients (24.7%) were started on at least one predefined drug therapy: 145 patients (21.5%) were started on anticoagulation therapy and 32 patients (4.7%) were started on antiarrhythmic medication. The mean time to therapy was 225 ± 185 days for pacemaker therapy, 160 ± 136 days for defibrillator therapy, 338 ± 238 days for ablation therapy, 262 ± 228 days for anticoagulation therapy, and 227 ± 180 days for medical antiarrhythmic therapy, respectively (Table 2).

4. Discussion

This database analysis evaluated the diagnostic yield as well as the therapeutic consequences arising from current ILR implantations in patients with syncope in Germany using national representative real-world secondary data. The patient population was derived from a nationwide database representative of the German population. Most patients receiving an ILR within this population had a diagnosis of syncope (53.9%), which is in line with previous data from an international ILR registry [35].
The main findings of the present study are
  • Overall yield of cardiac arrhythmia diagnoses in patients with syncope and ILR was high at 65% during a follow-up period of two years.
  • Interventional antiarrhythmic therapies were established in 23.6%, including pacemaker implantations in 20.0%.
  • Aside from therapies for the prevention of syncope, new anticoagulation therapy was also initiated in 21.5%.

4.1. Diagnostic Yield after ILR Implantation

Following ILR implantation in patients with syncope, most patients (65%) were diagnosed with arrhythmias within two years of follow-up. These included diagnoses leading to pacing indication, such as conduction system disorders, but also atrial fibrillation or flutter, diagnosed in 37% of the population. Hence, the ILR provided a high diagnostic yield in terms of cardiac arrhythmias in patients with syncope, not restricted to arrhythmias directly related to syncope [12,13,14,15,17,19,35,36] but including other diagnoses with therapeutic implications such as atrial fibrillation. These findings are in line with other studies showing a high prevalence of atrial fibrillation in patients receiving an ILR. These studies not only included patients with cryptogenic stroke [37,38,39,40], but also patients with other indications such as syncope [19,35,41].
As the mean number of days to diagnosis in this analysis was more than 200 days, short-term monitoring using telemetric devices or Holter-monitoring in comparison to long-term monitoring using an ILR would not have been a sufficient diagnostic approach for the establishment of a diagnosis in these patients.

4.2. Therapeutic Implications

A relevant number of patients in this analysis underwent pacemaker or defibrillator implantation within two years of follow-up (20.0% and 1.5%). Results of previous studies from Germany showed a similar [19] or even higher number in data from the PICTURE registry [13] of device implantations following ILR insertion after unexplained syncope. Again, most device implantations occurred only after several months following ILR insertion. Together with other data, this study emphasizes the role of long-term monitoring using the ILR in the establishment of causal therapies to prevent recurrent events in patients with syncope.
Next to device implantations as a therapy preventing syncope, a relevant number of patients in this cohort received other new treatments, mainly anticoagulation therapy (21.5%). A smaller number of patients received new antiarrhythmic treatment such as ablation therapy (3.0%) or antiarrhythmic medication (4.7%). Previous studies analyzing the use of an ILR after syncope have also reported small numbers of patients receiving treatments not directly related to syncope during follow-up [13,19]. Our representative real-world data show that this is an unexpectedly common finding and, therefore, of relevant clinical significance. While in many cases these treatments may not directly prevent recurrent syncope, they have the potential to prevent other adverse events such as ischemic strokes, cardiac remodeling, and heart failure, and may reduce morbidity and mortality [42]. However, the LOOP trial has shown that in a population at risk of stroke, an ILR resulted in an increased detection of atrial fibrillation and initiation of anticoagulant therapy without significantly reducing the incidence of ischemic stroke [43]. It remains unclear whether patients with a history of syncope and diagnosed atrial fibrillation via an ILR benefit from specific treatment. Randomized data should, therefore, be acquired from a larger population of patients diagnosed with atrial fibrillation after syncope, to investigate the morbidity and mortality benefit of putting them on certain treatments, especially oral anticoagulation.

4.3. Limitations

This study has several limitations. As the data were obtained using a research database and diagnoses/procedures were classified based on the ICD-10-GM/OPS codes which were required for billing purposes only, this may have led to over- and under-diagnoses of disorders. Moreover, ICD-10-GM codes only included grouped diagnoses not allowing for a detailed analysis. Formally, the ICD-10-GM code R55 includes syncope as well as collapse, which may have led to the inclusion of patients without actual syncope. However, as ILR reimbursement in Germany requires evidence of indication beyond ICD-coding, it is unlikely that a relevant number of patients without syncope were included. Patients with a history of stroke were excluded from the analysis. Another limitation of the study is that no detailed data on diagnostic workup before ILR implantation are available. Finally, data analyzed only include a two-year follow-up, and no further follow-up beyond pacemaker/defibrillator implantation, ablation therapy or initiation of oral anticoagulation or antiarrhythmic medication. Hence, other relevant findings may be missed.

5. Conclusions

Patients being implanted with an ILR for the indication of syncope in Germany show a high overall yield of cardiac diagnoses during follow-up. Diagnoses do not only include those that lead to syncope, but also others such as atrial fibrillation. Establishment of diagnoses lead to therapeutic consequences in many cases, including not only the implantation of a pacemaker or defibrillator, but also other treatments such as the beginning of anticoagulation therapy in a relevant number of patients.

Author Contributions

J.M.-L. and H.A.K.H. contributed equally to designing the study, conducting the analysis, and drafting the manuscript. L.I. and B.F. led the communication to the data provider, supported drafting, and critically revised the manuscript. D.D. designed the study, supervised this project, conducted the analyses, and revised the manuscript. All authors made substantial contributions to the manuscript, revised it critically for important intellectual content, approved the final version, and are accountable for all aspects of the work. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

Funding of this study was provided by Medtronic.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study is not subject to institutional review board approval as data were obtained using the publicly available research database of the German Scientific Institute for Health Economics and Health System Research (WIG2).

Informed Consent Statement

Patient consent was waived as anonymized data were obtained using the publicly available research database of the German Scientific Institute for Health Economics and Health System Research (WIG2).

Data Availability Statement

Upon reasonable request, data are available from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

J.M.-L. received a modest lecture honorary, travel grants, and/or a fellowship grant from Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Zoll and Abbott. H.A.K.H. received a modest lecture honorary and/or a fellowship grant from AstraZeneca, Zoll and Boston Scientific. D.D. received a modest lecture honorary, travel grants, and/or a fellowship grant from Abbott, Astra Zeneca, Biotronik, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Bristol Myers Squibb, CVRx, Medtronic, Microport, Pfizer, Sanofi, Zoll. L.I. and B.F. are Medtronic employees.

References

  1. Soteriades, E.S.; Evans, J.C.; Larson, M.G.; Chen, M.H.; Chen, L.; Benjamin, E.J.; Levy, D. Incidence and Prognosis of Syncope. N. Engl. J. Med. 2002, 347, 878–885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Farwell, D.J.; Freemantle, N.; Sulke, N. The Clinical Impact of Implantable Loop Recorders in Patients with Syncope. Eur. Heart J. 2006, 27, 351–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Brignole, M.; Ammirati, F.; Arabia, F.; Quartieri, F.; Tomaino, M.; Ungar, A.; Lunati, M.; Russo, V.; Rosso, A.D.; Gaggioli, G.; et al. Assessment of a Standardized Algorithm for Cardiac Pacing in Older Patients Affected by Severe Unpredictable Reflex Syncopes. Eur. Heart J. 2015, 36, 1529–1535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Brignole, M.; Menozzi, C.; Moya, A.; Andresen, D.; Blanc, J.J.; Krahn, A.D.; Wieling, W.; Beiras, X.; Deharo, J.C.; Russo, V.; et al. Pacemaker Therapy in Patients with Neurally Mediated Syncope and Documented Asystole. Circulation 2012, 125, 2566–2571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Brignole, M.; Moya, A.; de Lange, F.J.; Deharo, J.-C.; Elliott, P.M.; Fanciulli, A.; Fedorowski, A.; Furlan, R.; Kenny, R.A.; Martín, A.; et al. 2018 ESC Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Syncope. Eur. Heart J. 2018, 39, 1883–1948. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. D’Ascenzo, F.; Biondi-Zoccai, G.; Reed, M.J.; Gabayan, G.Z.; Suzuki, M.; Costantino, G.; Furlan, R.; Rosso, A.D.; Sarasin, F.P.; Sun, B.C.; et al. Incidence, Etiology and Predictors of Adverse Outcomes in 43,315 Patients Presenting to the Emergency Department with Syncope: An International Meta-Analysis. Int. J. Cardiol. 2013, 167, 57–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Bass, E.B.; Curtiss, E.I.; Arena, V.C.; Hanusa, B.H.; Cecchetti, A.; Karpf, M.; Kapoor, W.N. The Duration of Holter Monitoring in Patients with Syncope. Is 24 Hours Enough? Arch. Intern. Med. 1990, 150, 1073–1078. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Svennberg, E.; Tjong, F.; Goette, A.; Akoum, N.; Biase, L.D.; Bordachar, P.; Boriani, G.; Burri, H.; Conte, G.; Deharo, J.C.; et al. How to Use Digital Devices to Detect and Manage Arrhythmias: An EHRA Practical Guide. Europace 2022, 24, 979–1005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Svennberg, E.; Caiani, E.G.; Bruining, N.; Desteghe, L.; Han, J.K.; Narayan, S.M.; Rademakers, F.E.; Sanders, P.; Duncker, D. The Digital Journey: 25 Years of Digital Development in Electrophysiology from an Europace Perspective. Europace 2023, 25, euad176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Bogossian, H.; Duncker, D. Unaufhaltsame Innovationen in Der Elektrophysiologie. Herzschrittmachertherapie Elektrophysiologie 2022, 33, 1–2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Boriani, G.; Svennberg, E.; Guerra, F.; Linz, D.; Casado-Arroyo, R.; Malaczynska-Rajpold, K.; Duncker, D.; Boveda, S.; Merino, J.L.; Leclercq, C. Reimbursement Practices for Use of Digital Devices in Atrial Fibrillation and Other Arrhythmias: A European Heart Rhythm Association Survey. Europace 2022, 24, 1834–1843. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Lombardi, F.; Calosso, E.; Mascioli, G.; Marangoni, E.; Donato, A.; Rossi, S.; Pala, M.; Foti, F.; Lunati, M. Utility of Implantable Loop Recorder (Reveal Plus®) in the Diagnosis of Unexplained Syncope. Europace 2005, 7, 19–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Edvardsson, N.; Frykman, V.; van Mechelen, R.; Mitro, P.; Mohii-Oskarsson, A.; Pasquié, J.-L.; Ramanna, H.; Schwertfeger, F.; Ventura, R.; Voulgaraki, D.; et al. Use of an Implantable Loop Recorder to Increase the Diagnostic Yield in Unexplained Syncope: Results from the PICTURE Registry. Europace 2011, 13, 262–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Krahn, A.D.; Klein, G.J.; Yee, R.; Skanes, A.C. Randomized Assessment of Syncope Trial. Circulation 2001, 104, 46–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Costa, A.D.; Defaye, P.; Romeyer-Bouchard, C.; Roche, F.; Dauphinot, V.; Deharo, J.-C.; Jacon, P.; Lamaison, D.; Bathélemy, J.-C.; Isaaz, K.; et al. Clinical Impact of the Implantable Loop Recorder in Patients with Isolated Syncope, Bundle Branch Block and Negative Workup: A Randomized Multicentre Prospective Study. Arch. Cardiovasc. Dis. 2013, 106, 146–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Podoleanu, C.; DaCosta, A.; Defaye, P.; Taieb, J.; Galley, D.; Bru, P.; Maury, P.; Mabo, P.; Boveda, S.; Cellarier, G.; et al. Early Use of an Implantable Loop Recorder in Syncope Evaluation: A Randomized Study in the Context of the French Healthcare System (FRESH Study). Arch. Cardiovasc. Dis. 2014, 107, 546–552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Sulke, N.; Sugihara, C.; Hong, P.; Patel, N.; Freemantle, N. The Benefit of a Remotely Monitored Implantable Loop Recorder as a First Line Investigation in Unexplained Syncope: The EaSyAS II Trial. Europace 2016, 18, 912–918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Schuchert, A. Indikationen Zur Loop-Rekorder-Implantation Bei Synkope. Herzschrittmachertherapie Elektrophysiologie 2018, 29, 193–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Perings, C.; Wolff, C.; Wilk, A.; Witthohn, A.; Voss, R.; Rybak, K. Do Implantable Loop Recorders Impact the Survival of Patients with Recurrent Unexplained Syncope? J. Comp. Eff. Res. 2021, 10, 285–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Kapoor, W.N. Evaluation and Outcome of Patients with Syncope. Medicine 1990, 69, 160–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Altinsoy, M.; Sutton, R.; Kohno, R.; Sakaguchi, S.; Mears, R.K.; Benditt, D.G. Ambulatory ECG Monitoring for Syncope and Collapse in United States, Europe, and Japan: The Patients’ Viewpoint. J. Arrhythmia 2021, 37, 1023–1030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Shen, W.-K.; Sheldon, R.S.; Benditt, D.G.; Cohen, M.I.; Forman, D.E.; Goldberger, Z.D.; Grubb, B.P.; Hamdan, M.H.; Krahn, A.D.; Link, M.S.; et al. 2017 ACC/AHA/HRS Guideline for the Evaluation and Management of Patients with Syncope: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines and the Heart Rhythm Society. Circulation 2017, 136, e60–e122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Goldberger, Z.D.; Petek, B.J.; Brignole, M.; Shen, W.-K.; Sheldon, R.S.; Solbiati, M.; Deharo, J.-C.; Moya, A.; Hamdan, M.H. ACC/AHA/HRS Versus ESC Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Syncope JACC Guideline Comparison. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2019, 74, 2410–2423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Von Scheid, W.; Bosch, R.; Klingenheben, T.; Schuchert, A.; Stellbrink, C.; Stockburger, M. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Kardiologie—Herz-und Kreislaufforschung e.V. ESC Pocket Guidelines. Diagnose und Management von Synkopen, Version 2018; Börm Bruckmeier Verlag GmbH: Grünwald, Germany, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  25. Dan, G.-A.; Scherr, D.; Jubele, K.; Farkowski, M.M.; Iliodromitis, K.; Conte, G.; Jędrzejczyk-Patej, E.; Vitali-Serdoz, L.; Potpara, T.S. Contemporary Management of Patients with Syncope in Clinical Practice: An EHRA Physician-Based Survey. Europace 2020, 22, 980–987. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Sciaraffia, E.; Chen, J.; Hocini, M.; Larsen, T.B.; Potpara, T.; Blomström-Lundqvist, C. Use of Event Recorders and Loop Recorders in Clinical Practice: Results of the European Heart Rhythm Association Survey. Europace 2014, 16, 1384–1386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Boriani, G.; Burri, H.; Svennberg, E.; Imberti, J.F.; Merino, J.L.; Leclercq, C. Current Status of Reimbursement Practices for Remote Monitoring of Cardiac Implantable Electrical Devices across Europe. Europace 2022, 24, euac118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Boriani, G.; Imberti, J.F.; Leyva, F.; Casado-Arroyo, R.; Chun, J.; Braunschweig, F.; Zylla, M.M.; Duncker, D.; Farkowski, M.M.; Pürerfellner, H.; et al. Length of Hospital Stay for Elective Electrophysiological Procedures: A Survey from the European Heart Rhythm Association. Europace 2023, 25, euad297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Kommata, V.; Deharo, J.-C.; Drossart, I.; Foldager, D.; Svennberg, E.; Vernooy, K.; Verstrael, A.; Duncker, D. The ‘Myrhythmdevice.Org’ Educational Website for Patients with Implanted Cardiac Devices from the European Heart Rhythm Association. Europace 2022, 24, 1713–1715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Jilek, C.; Lewalter, T. Implantierbare EKG-Monitore. Herzschrittmachertherapie Elektrophysiologie 2020, 31, 254–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Veltmann, C.; Bosch, R.; Boer, J.; Endres, M.; Frankenstein, L.; Gröschel, K.; Hansen, C.; Straube, F. Empfehlung Zur Indikationsstellung Implantierbarer Ereignisrecorder. Kardiologie 2023, 17, 389–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Swart, E.; Gothe, H.; Geyer, S.; Jaunzeme, J.; Maier, B.; Grobe, T.G.; Ihle, P. Gute Praxis Sekundärdatenanalyse (GPS): Leitlinien Und Empfehlungen. Gesundheitswesen 2015, 77, 120–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Andersohn, F.; Walker, J. Characteristics and External Validity of the German Health Risk Institute (HRI) Database. Pharmacoepidemiol. Drug Saf. 2016, 25, 106–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Research Database of the German Scientific Institute of Health Economics and Health System Research (WIG2). Available online: https://www.wig2.de/analysetools/wig2-forschungsdatenbank.html (accessed on 6 January 2024).
  35. Lau, D.H.; Pierre, B.; Cabanas, P.; Martens, E.; Bisignani, G.; Hofer, D.; Berruezo, A.; Eschalier, R.; Mansourati, J.; Gaspar, T.; et al. Diagnostic Yield of an Insertable Cardiac Monitor in a Large Patient Population. Heart Rhythm. O2 2023, 4, 97–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Lee, S.H.; Kim, T.-H.; Oh, Y.-S.; Oh, S.; Choi, J.-I.; Kim, J.-B.; Nah, J.-C.; Im, S.I.; Kang, K.-W.; Han, S.; et al. Usefulness of an Implantable Loop Recorder in Diagnosing Unexplained Syncope and Predictors for Pacemaker Implantation. J. Korean Med. Sci. 2019, 35, e11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Boriani, G.; Auricchio, A.; Botto, G.L.; Joseph, J.M.; Roberts, G.J.; Grammatico, A.; Nabutovsky, Y.; Piccini, J.P. Insertable Cardiac Monitoring Results in Higher Rates of Atrial Fibrillation Diagnosis and Oral Anticoagulation Prescription after Ischaemic Stroke. Europace 2023, 25, euad212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Ko, D.; Dai, Q.; Flynn, D.B.; Bosch, N.A.; Helm, R.H.; Monahan, K.M.; Andersson, C.; Anderson, C.D.; Walkey, A.J. Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials Comparing the Impact of Implantable Loop Recorder versus Usual Care After Ischemic Stroke for Detection of Atrial Fibrillation and Stroke Risk. Am. J. Cardiol. 2022, 162, 100–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Buck, B.H.; Hill, M.D.; Quinn, F.R.; Butcher, K.S.; Menon, B.K.; Gulamhusein, S.; Siddiqui, M.; Coutts, S.B.; Jeerakathil, T.; Smith, E.E.; et al. Effect of Implantable vs. Prolonged External Electrocardiographic Monitoring on Atrial Fibrillation Detection in Patients with Ischemic Stroke. JAMA 2021, 325, 2160–2168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Milstein, N.S.; Musat, D.L.; Allred, J.; Seiler, A.; Pimienta, J.; Oliveros, S.; Bhatt, A.G.; Preminger, M.; Sichrovsky, T.; Shaw, R.E.; et al. Detection of Atrial Fibrillation Using an Implantable Loop Recorder Following Cryptogenic Stroke: Implications for Post-Stroke Electrocardiographic Monitoring. J. Interv. Card. Electrophysiol. 2020, 57, 141–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Arcinas, L.A.; McIntyre, W.F.; Hayes, C.J.; Ibrahim, O.A.; Baranchuk, A.M.; Seifer, C.M. Atrial Fibrillation in Elderly Patients with Implantable Loop Recorders for Unexplained Syncope. Ann. Noninvasive Electrocardiol. 2019, 24, e12630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Schnabel, R.B.; Marinelli, E.A.; Arbelo, E.; Boriani, G.; Boveda, S.; Buckley, C.M.; Camm, A.J.; Casadei, B.; Chua, W.; Dagres, N.; et al. Early Diagnosis and Better Rhythm Management to Improve Outcomes in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation: The 8th AFNET/EHRA Consensus Conference. Europace 2022, 25, 6–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Svendsen, J.H.; Diederichsen, S.Z.; Højberg, S.; Krieger, D.W.; Graff, C.; Kronborg, C.; Olesen, M.S.; Nielsen, J.B.; Holst, A.G.; Brandes, A.; et al. Implantable Loop Recorder Detection of Atrial Fibrillation to Prevent Stroke (The LOOP Study): A Randomised Controlled Trial. Lancet 2021, 398, 1507–1516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Jcm 13 01564 g001
Figure 1. Study population. WIG2, research database of the German Scientific Institute for Health Economics and Health System Research; ILR, implantable loop recorder.
Figure 1. Study population. WIG2, research database of the German Scientific Institute for Health Economics and Health System Research; ILR, implantable loop recorder.
Jcm 13 01564 g001
Table 1. New cardiac diagnoses during follow-up. AV—atrioventricular.
Table 1. New cardiac diagnoses during follow-up. AV—atrioventricular.
Diagnosisn (%)Mean Time to Diagnosis (Days)
Any cardiac diagnosis566 (83.9)116 ± 162
AV block 159 (8.7)206 ± 197
Cardiac conduction disease 2135 (20)212 ± 213
Other arrhythmias 3275 (40.7)176 ± 184
Atrial fibrillation 4250 (37.0)212 ± 213
1 I44, 2 I45, 3 I49, 4 I48: according to the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th Revision, German Modification (ICD-10-GM).
Table 2. New anti-arrhythmic therapies during follow-up.
Table 2. New anti-arrhythmic therapies during follow-up.
Therapyn (%)Mean Time to Diagnosis (Days)
Pacemaker135 (20.0)225 ± 185
Defibrillator10 (1.5)160 ± 136
Ablation20 (3)338 ± 238
Anticoagulation145 (21.5)160 ± 136
Antiarrhythmic therapy32 (4.7)227 ± 180
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Mueller-Leisse, J.; Hillmann, H.A.K.; Iserloh, L.; Fruehauf, B.; Duncker, D. Diagnostic Yield and Clinical Implications of Implantable Loop Recorders in Patients with Syncope in Germany: A National Database Analysis. J. Clin. Med. 2024, 13, 1564. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13061564

AMA Style

Mueller-Leisse J, Hillmann HAK, Iserloh L, Fruehauf B, Duncker D. Diagnostic Yield and Clinical Implications of Implantable Loop Recorders in Patients with Syncope in Germany: A National Database Analysis. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2024; 13(6):1564. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13061564

Chicago/Turabian Style

Mueller-Leisse, Johanna, Henrike Aenne Katrin Hillmann, Laura Iserloh, Bjoern Fruehauf, and David Duncker. 2024. "Diagnostic Yield and Clinical Implications of Implantable Loop Recorders in Patients with Syncope in Germany: A National Database Analysis" Journal of Clinical Medicine 13, no. 6: 1564. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13061564

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop