Factors affecting signal quality in implantable cardiac monitors with long sensing vector.
P‐wave visibility
R‐wave amplitude
implantable cardiac monitor
implantable loop recorder
long sensing vector
Journal
Journal of arrhythmia
ISSN: 1880-4276
Titre abrégé: J Arrhythm
Pays: Japan
ID NLM: 101263026
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Aug 2021
Aug 2021
Historique:
received:
16
04
2021
revised:
20
05
2021
accepted:
04
06
2021
entrez:
13
8
2021
pubmed:
14
8
2021
medline:
14
8
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Electrical artefacts are frequent in implantable cardiac monitors (ICMs). We analyzed the subcutaneous electrogram (sECG) provided by an ICM with a long sensing vector and factors potentially affecting its quality. Consecutive ICM recipients underwent a follow-up where demographics, body mass index (BMI), implant location, and surface ECG were collected. The sECG was then analyzed in terms of R-wave amplitude and P-wave visibility. A total of 84 patients (43% female, median age 68 [58-76] years) were enrolled at 3 sites. ICMs were positioned with intermediate inclination (n = 44, 52%), parallel (n = 35, 43%), or perpendicular (n = 5, 6%) to the sternum. The median R-wave amplitude was 1.10 (0.72-1.48) mV with P waves readily visible in 69.2% (95% confidence interval, CI: 57.8%-79.2%), partially visible in 23.1% [95% CI: 14.3%-34.0%], and never visible in 7.7% [95% CI: 2.9%-16.0%] of patients. Men had higher R-wave amplitudes compared to women (1.40 [0.96-1.80] mV vs 1.00 [0.60-1.20] mV, In ordinary clinical practice, ICMs with long sensing vector provided median R-wave amplitude above 1 mV and reliable P-wave visibility of nearly 70%, regardless of the position of the device. Women and obese patients showed lower but still very good signal quality.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34386133
doi: 10.1002/joa3.12585
pii: JOA312585
pmc: PMC8339108
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
1061-1068Informations de copyright
© 2021 The Authors. Journal of Arrhythmia published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of Japanese Heart Rhythm Society.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Daniele Giacopelli is employee of BIOTRONIK Italia. All the other authors have no conflicts relevant to the contents of this study to disclose.
Références
Europace. 2018 Jun 1;20(6):1050-1057
pubmed: 29016753
Int J Cardiol. 2013 Oct 9;168(4):3968-70
pubmed: 23886532
Heart Rhythm. 2015 Mar;12(3):477-483
pubmed: 25460855
JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2018 Apr;4(4):559-561
pubmed: 30067500
J Electrocardiol. 2020 May - Jun;60:118-125
pubmed: 32361086
N Engl J Med. 2020 Oct 1;383(14):1305-1316
pubmed: 32865375
Europace. 2017 Jul 1;19(7):1101-1108
pubmed: 27702865
Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2017 May;40(5):516-526
pubmed: 28220938
Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2020 May;43(5):511-517
pubmed: 32259309
J Electrocardiol. 2014 Sep-Oct;47(5):669-76
pubmed: 24857184
Heart Rhythm. 2015 Jun;12(6):1113-9
pubmed: 25728756
Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2018 Mar;41(3):277-283
pubmed: 29341174
J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2019 Apr;30(4):468-478
pubmed: 30575175
Heart Lung Circ. 2018 Dec;27(12):1462-1466
pubmed: 29054505
J Electrocardiol. 2018 Sep - Oct;51(5):751-755
pubmed: 30177307
J Atr Fibrillation. 2017 Aug 31;10(2):1590
pubmed: 29250232
Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2019 Jul;42(7):1038-1046
pubmed: 31119745
Heart Rhythm. 2020 Jan;17(1):75-80
pubmed: 31323348
Europace. 2009 May;11(5):671-87
pubmed: 19401342
J Electrocardiol. 2020 Mar - Apr;59:147-150
pubmed: 32120081
Europace. 2021 Apr 09;:
pubmed: 33837418
Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2016 Dec;39(12):1344-1350
pubmed: 27862030