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

Accurate diagnosis of arrhythmias is improved with longer monitoring duration but can risk delayed diagnosis. We compared diagnostic yield, outcomes, and resource utilization by arrhythmia monitoring strategy in 330 matched adults (mean age 64 years, 40% women, and 30% non-White) without previously documented atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter (AF/AFL) who received ambulatory electrocardiographic monitoring by 14-day Zio XT (patch-based continuous monitor), 24-hour Holter, or 30-day event monitor (external loop recorder) between October 2011 and May 2014. Patients were matched by age, gender, site, likelihood of receiving Zio XT patch, and indication for monitoring, and subsequently followed for monitoring results, management changes, clinical outcomes, and resource utilization. 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). Nonsustained 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 between monitoring strategies in outcomes or resource utilization were observed. Prolonged monitoring with 14-day Zio XT patch or 30-day event monitor was superior to 24-hour Holter in detecting new AF/AFL but not different from each other. Documented nonsustained ventricular tachycardia was more frequent with Zio XT than 24-hour Holter and 30-day event monitor without apparent increased risk of adverse outcomes or excess utilization. In conclusion, additional efforts are needed to further personalize electrocardiographic monitoring strategies that optimize clinical management and outcomes.