Ambulatory ECG monitoring for syncope and collapse in United States, Europe, and Japan: The patients’ viewpoint

Journal of Arrhythmia

David G. Benditt¹  Meltem Altinsoy¹  Scott Sakaguchi¹  Ritsuko Kohno¹  Richard Sutton²  Robin K. Mears³ 

[1] Cardiac Arrhythmia Center Cardiovascular Division University of Minnesota Medical School Minneapolis MN USA;Cardiology Department National Heart and Lung InstituteImperial CollegeHammersmith Hospital London UK;Medtronic Inc. Minneapolis MN USA;

关键词: ambulatory ECG monitoring;    insertable cardiac monitors;    syncope;   

DOI  :  10.1002/joa3.12560

来源: DOAJ

【 摘 要 】

Abstract Background Practice guidelines provide clinicians direction for the selection of ambulatory ECG (AECG) monitors in the evaluation of syncope/collapse. However, whether patients’ understand differences among AECG systems is unknown. Methods and Results A survey was conducted of USA (n = 99), United Kingdom (UK)/Germany (D) (n = 75) and Japan (n = 40) syncope/collapse patients who underwent diagnostic AECG monitoring. Responses were quantitated using a Likert‐like 7‐point scale (mean ± SD) or percent of patients indicating a Top 2 box (T2B) for a particular AECG attribute. Patient ages and diagnosed etiologies of syncope/collapse were similar across geographies. Patients were queried on AECG attributes including the ability to detect arrhythmic/cardiac causes of collapse, instructions received, ease of use, and cost. Patient perception of the diagnostic capabilities and ease of use did not differ significantly among the AECG technologies; however, USA patients had a more favorable overall view of ICM/ILRs (T2B: 42.4%) than did UK/D (T2B: 28%) or Japan (T2B: 17.5%) patients. Similarly, US patient rankings for education received regarding device choice and operation tended to be higher than UK/D or Japan patients; nevertheless, at their best, the Likert scores were low (approximately 4.7‐6.0) suggesting need for education improvement. Finally, both US and UK/D patients were similarly concerned with ICM costs (T2B, 31% vs 20% for Japan). Conclusions Patients across several geographies have a similar but imperfect understanding of AECG technologies. Given more detailed education the patient is likely to be a more effective partner with the clinician in establishing a potential symptom‐arrhythmia correlation.

【 授权许可】

Unknown