BioMonitor 2 in-office setting insertion safety and feasibility evaluation with device functionality assessment: results from the prospective cohort BioInsight study

Khaled Awad, Raul Weiss, Asim Yunus, Jon M Bittrick, Rajasekhar Nekkanti, Mahmoud Houmsse, Toshimasa Okabe, Teagan Adamson, Crystal Miller, Abdul K Alawwa, Khaled Awad, Raul Weiss, Asim Yunus, Jon M Bittrick, Rajasekhar Nekkanti, Mahmoud Houmsse, Toshimasa Okabe, Teagan Adamson, Crystal Miller, Abdul K Alawwa

Abstract

Background: Insertable cardiac monitors are utilized for the diagnosis of arrhythmias and traditionally have been inserted within hospitals. Recent code updates allow for reimbursement of office-based insertions; however, there is limited information regarding the resources and processes required to support in-office insertions. We sought to determine the safety and feasibility of in-office insertion of the BioMonitor 2 and better understand in-office procedures, including patient selection, pre-insertion protocols, resource availability, and staff support.

Methods: Patients meeting an indication for a rhythm monitor were prospectively enrolled into this single-arm, non-randomized trial. All patients underwent insertion in an office setting. Two follow-up visits at days 7 and 90 were required. Information on adverse events, device performance, office site preparations, and resource utilization were collected.

Results: Eighty-two patients were enrolled at six sites. Insertion was successful in all 77 patients with an attempt. Oral anticoagulation was stopped in 20.8% of patients and continued through insertion in 23.4%, while prophylactic antibiotics were infrequently utilized (37.7% of study participants). On average, the procedure required a surgeon plus two support staff and 35 min in an office room to complete the 8.4 min insertion procedure. The mean R-wave amplitude was 0.77 mV at insertion and 0.67 mV at 90-days with low noise burden (2.7%). There were no procedure related complications. Two adverse events were reported (event rate 2.7% [95% CI 0.3, 9.5%]).

Conclusions: In-office insertion of the BioMonitor 2 is safe and feasible. Devices performed well with high R-wave amplitudes and low noise burden. These results further support shifting cardiac monitor insertions to office-based locations.

Trial registration: clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02756338. Registered 29 April 2016.

Keywords: Adverse event; BioMonitor 2; Feasibility; Insertable cardiac monitor; Office procedure; Safety.

Conflict of interest statement

KA: Consultant honoraria from BIOTRONIK, Inc.; Research support from BioSense Webster. RW: Research support from Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Abbott, BIOTRONIK, Inc., and Biosense Webster; Consultant honoraria from Boston Scientific, BIOTRONIK, Inc., Biosense Webster, and Merit Medical; Advisory board for Boston Scientific and Biosense Webster. AY: Consulting honoraria from BIOTRONIK, Inc.. JMB, RN, MH, and TO: No conflicts of interest to declare. TA and CM: Employed by BIOTRONIK, Inc.. AKA: Consultant honoraria from St. Jude Medical/Abbott, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic; Research support from St. Jude Medical/Abbott, Boston Scientific, and BIOTRONIK, Inc.; Speaking fees from Boston Scientific.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flowchart of Patient Enrollment and Study Participation
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Standard Insertion Positions of the BioMonitor 2. Position A: 45°relative to the sternum over the fourth intercostal space. Position B: parallel to the sternum over the fourth intercostal space. Position C: perpendicular to the sternum, sub-mammary
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Long Term Amplitude and Noise Trends. The mean and 95% CI for long term (a) R-wave amplitude and (b) noise burden trends extrapolated from all study partcipants using BIOTRONIK Home Monitoring® data are presented

References

    1. Kapa S, Epstein AE, Callans DJ, Garcia FC, Lin D, Bala R, et al. Assessing arrhythmia burden after catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation using an implantable loop recorder: the ABACUS study. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2013;24:875–881. doi: 10.1111/jce.12141.
    1. Pürerfellner H, Sanders P, Pokushalov E, Di Bacco M, Bergemann T, Dekker LR. Miniaturized reveal LINQ insertable cardiac monitoring system: first-in-human experience. Heart Rhythm. 2015;12:1113–1119. doi: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2015.02.030.
    1. Harley DH, Collins DR., Jr Patient satisfaction after blepharoplasty performed as office surgery using oral medication with the patient under local anesthesia. Aesthet Plast Surg. 2008;32:77–81. doi: 10.1007/s00266-007-9014-9.
    1. Hancox JG, Venkat AP, Coldiron B, Feldman SR, Williford PM. The safety of office-based surgery: review of recent literature from several disciplines. Arch Dermatol. 2004;140:1379–1382. doi: 10.1001/archderm.140.11.1379.
    1. Rogers JD, Sanders P, Piorkowski C, Sohail MR, Anand R, Crossen K, et al. In-office insertion of a miniaturized insertable cardiac monitor: results from the reveal LINQ in-office 2 randomized study. Heart Rhythm. 2017;14:218–224. doi: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2016.11.001.
    1. Ooi SY, Ng B, Singarayar S, Hellestrand K, Illes P, Mohamed U, et al. BioMonitor 2 pilot study: early experience with implantation of the Biotronik BioMonitor 2 implantable cardiac monitor. Heart Lung Circ. 2018;27:1462–1466. doi: 10.1016/j.hlc.2017.09.005.
    1. Reinsch N, Ruprecht U, Buchholz J, Diehl RR, Kalsch H, Neven K. The BioMonitor 2 insertable cardiac monitor: clinical experience with a novel implantable cardiac monitor. J Electrocardiol. 2018;51:751–755. doi: 10.1016/j.jelectrocard.2018.05.017.
    1. Steffel J, Wright DJ, Schäfer H, Rashid-Fadel T, Lewalter T. Insertion of miniaturized cardiac monitors outside the catheter operating room: experience and practical advice. Europace. 2017;19:1624–1629. doi: 10.1093/europace/euw304.
    1. Zacà V, Marcucci R, Parodi G, Limbruno U, Notarstefano P, Pieragnoli P, et al. Management of antithrombotic therapy in patients undergoing electrophysiological device surgery. Europace. 2015;17:840–854. doi: 10.1093/europace/euu357.
    1. Mittal S, Sanders P, Pokushalov E, Dekker L, Kereiakes D, Schloss EJ, et al. Safety profile of a miniaturized Insertable cardiac monitor: results from two prospective trials. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2015;38:1464–1469. doi: 10.1111/pace.12752.
    1. Beinart SC, Natale A, Verma A, Amin A, Kasner S, Diener HC, et al. Real-world use of prophylactic antibiotics in Insertable cardiac monitor procedures. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2016;39:837–842. doi: 10.1111/pace.12886.
    1. Lacour P, Dang PL, Huemer M, Parwani AS, Attanasio P, Pieske B, et al. Performance of the new BioMonitor 2-AF Insertable cardiac monitoring system: can better be worse? Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2017;40:516–526. doi: 10.1111/pace.13059.
    1. Baddour LM, Epstein AE, Erickson CC, Knight BP, Levison ME, Lockhart PB, et al. Update on cardiovascular implantable electronic device infections and their management: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2010;121:458–477. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.109.192665.
    1. Wong GR, Lau DH, Middeldorp ME, Harrington JA, Stolcman S, Wilson L, et al. Feasibility and safety of reveal LINQ insertion in a sterile procedure room versus electrophysiology laboratory. Int J Cardiol. 2016;223:13–17. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2016.08.113.
    1. Way JC, Culham BA. Establishment and cost analysis of an office surgical suite. Can J Surg. 1996;39:379–383.
    1. Duquette S, Nosrati N, Cohen A, Munshi I, Tholpady S. Decreased wait times after institution of office-based hand surgery in a veterans administration setting. JAMA Surg. 2015;150:182–183. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2014.1239.

Source: PubMed

3
Subscribe