Impact of monitoring on detection of arrhythmia recurrences in the ESC-EHRA EORP atrial fibrillation ablation long-term registry.

AIMS: Monitoring of patients after ablation had wide variations in the ESC-EHRA atrial fibrillation ablation long-term (AFA-LT) registry. We aimed to compare four different monitoring strategies after catheter AF ablation. METHODS AND RESULTS: The ESC-EHRA AFA-LT registry included 3593 patients who underwent ablation. Arrhythmia monitoring during follow-up was performed by 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG), Holter ECG, trans-telephonic ECG monitoring (TTMON), or an implanted cardiac monitoring (ICM) system. Patients were selected to a given monitoring group according to the most extensive ECG tool used in each of them. Comparison of the probability of freedom from recurrences was performed by censored log-rank test and presented by Kaplan-Meier curves. The rhythm monitoring methods were used among 2658 patients: ECG (N = 578), Holter ECG (N = 1874), TTMON (N = 101), and ICM (N = 105). A total of 767 of 2658 patients (28.9%) had AF recurrences during follow-up. Censored log-rank test discovered a lower probability of freedom from relapses, which was detected with ICM compared to TTMON, ECG, and Holter ECG (P < 0.001). The rate of freedom from AF recurrences was 50.5% among patients using the ICM while it was 65.4%, 70.6%, and 72.8% using the TTMON, ECG, and Holter ECG, respectively. CONCLUSION: Comparing all main electrocardiographic monitoring methods in a large patient sample, our results suggest that post-ablation recurrences of AF are significantly underreported by TTMON, ECG, and Holter ECG. The ICM estimates AF ablation recurrences most reliably and should be a preferred mode of monitoring for trials evaluating novel AF ablation techniques.

Risk stratification of cardiovascular and heart failure hospitalizations using integrated device diagnostics in patients with a cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator.

Aims: Cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillators (CRT-D) are able to monitor various parameters that may be combined by an automatic algorithm to provide a heart failure risk status (HFRS). We sought to validate the HFRS for stratifying patient risk, evaluate its association with heart failure (HF) symptoms, and investigate its utility for triage of automatic alerts. Methods and results: Data from 722 patients included in the MORE-CARE trial were analysed in a post hoc analysis. A high HFRS was associated with a significantly increased risk of admission over the next 30 days with a relative risk for cardiovascular hospitalization (CVH) of 4.5 (95% CI: 3.1-6.6, P < 0.001), of HF hospitalization of 6.3 (95% CI: 3.9-10.2, P < 0.001) and of non-HF related CVH of 3.5 (95% CI: 2.0-6.9, P < 0.001). The negative predictive value of low or medium HFRS for these admissions was ≥98%. A high HFRS was associated with an increased risk of HF symptoms. Of all the automatic remote monitoring alerts generated during the study, only 10% had a high HFRS. Conclusion: The HFRS is able to risk-stratify CRT-D patients, which is potentially useful for managing automatic remote monitoring alerts, by focusing attention on the minority of high-risk patients. Clinical Trial Registration: The trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov under number NCT00885677.