Diagnostic Yield, Outcomes, and Resource Utilization With Different Ambulatory Electrocardiographic Monitoring Strategies

Authors: Nigel Gupta, MD, Jingrong Yang, MAb, Kristi Reynolds, PhD, Judith Lenane, RN, Elisha Garcia, BSb, Sue Hee Sung, MPHb, Teresa N. Harrison, SMc Matthew D. Solomon, MD, Alan S. Go, MD.

Summary:

Retrospective analysis comparing diagnostic yield, outcomes, and resource utilization between Zio XT monitor, traditional Holter and 30 day event monitor.

Key Findings:

AF/AFL ≥30 seconds was noted in 6% receiving Zio XT versus 0% by Holter (p = 0.04) and 3% by event monitor (p = 0.07).

Non-sustained ventricular tachycardia was noted in 24% for Zio XT patch versus 8% (p <0.001) for Holter and 4% (p<0.001) for event monitor.

No significant differences in outcomes or resource utilization were observed between monitoring strategies.

The content on iRhythm Academy is provided for general educational purposes only and should not be considered the exclusive source for this type of information. This training does not replace or supersede approved labeling. The content will be shared with physicians and healthcare professionals who seek a deeper understanding of the operation and use of iRhythm products and services with the intent of enhancing their knowledge of features and operations described in the clinician manuals. At all times, it is the professional responsibility of the physicians and healthcare professionals to exercise independent clinical judgment in a particular situation. The device and service functionality and programming described on iRhythm Academy are based on its products and services, and can be referenced in the labeling and reference manuals. This website is intended for healthcare professionals and not intended for patients or consumers.