Multi-centre Randomised Controlled Trial of a Smartphone-based Event Recorder Alongside Standard Care Versus Standard Care for Patients Presenting to the Emergency Department with Palpitations and Pre-syncope: The IPED (Investigation of Palpitations in the ED) study

Matthew J Reed, Neil R Grubb, Christopher C Lang, Rachel O'Brien, Kirsty Simpson, Mia Padarenga, Alison Grant, Sharon Tuck, Liza Keating, Frank Coffey, Lucy Jones, Tim Harris, Gavin Lloyd, James Gagg, Jason E Smith, Tim Coats, Matthew J Reed, Neil R Grubb, Christopher C Lang, Rachel O'Brien, Kirsty Simpson, Mia Padarenga, Alison Grant, Sharon Tuck, Liza Keating, Frank Coffey, Lucy Jones, Tim Harris, Gavin Lloyd, James Gagg, Jason E Smith, Tim Coats

Abstract

Background: Patients with palpitations and pre-syncope commonly present to Emergency Departments (EDs) but underlying rhythm diagnosis is often not possible during the initial presentation. This trial compares the symptomatic rhythm detection rate of a smartphone-based event recorder (AliveCor) alongside standard care versus standard care alone, for participants presenting to the ED with palpitations and pre-syncope with no obvious cause evident at initial consultation.

Methods: Multi-centre open label, randomised controlled trial. Participants ≥ 16 years old presenting to 10 UK hospital EDs were included. Participants were randomised to either (a) intervention group; standard care plus the use of a smartphone-based event recorder or (b) control group; standard care alone. Primary endpoint was symptomatic rhythm detection rate at 90 days. Trial registration number NCT02783898 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Findings: Two hundred forty-three participants were recruited over an 18-month period. A symptomatic rhythm was detected at 90 days in 69 (n = 124; 55.6%; 95% CI 46.9-64.4%) participants in the intervention group versus 11 (n = 116; 9.5%; 95% CI 4.2-14.8) in the control group (RR 5.9, 95% CI 3.3-10.5; p < 0.0001). Mean time to symptomatic rhythm detection in the intervention group was 9.5 days (SD 16.1, range 0-83) versus 42.9 days (SD 16.0, range 12-66; p < 0.0001) in the control group. The commonest symptomatic rhythms detected were sinus rhythm, sinus tachycardia and ectopic beats. A symptomatic cardiac arrhythmia was detected at 90 days in 11 (n = 124; 8.9%; 95% CI 3.9-13.9%) participants in the intervention group versus 1 (n = 116; 0.9%; 95% CI 0.0-2.5%) in the control group (RR 10.3, 95% CI 1.3-78.5; p = 0.006).

Interpretation: Use of a smartphone-based event recorder increased the number of patients in whom an ECG was captured during symptoms over five-fold to more than 55% at 90 days. This safe, non-invasive and easy to use device should be considered part of on-going care to all patients presenting acutely with unexplained palpitations or pre-syncope.

Funding: This study was funded by research awards from Chest, Heart and Stroke Scotland (CHSS) and British Heart Foundation (BHF) which included funding for purchasing the devices. MR was supported by an NHS Research Scotland Career Researcher Clinician award.

Keywords: Ambulatory electrocardiography monitoring; Cardiac arrhythmias; Palpitations; Pre-syncope.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Study recruitment diagram.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Kaplan–Meier curve showing number of participants undiagnosed (y axis) versus time up to 90 days (x axis) in both study groups.

References

    1. Thiruganasambandamoorthy V., Stiell I.G., Wells G.A., Vaidyanathan A., Mukarram M., Taljaard M. Outcomes in presyncope patients: a prospective cohort study. Ann Emerg Med. 2015;65(3):268–276. [e6]
    1. Probst M.A., Mower W.R., Kanzaria H.K., Hoffman J.R., Buch E.F., Sun B.C. Analysis of emergency department visits for palpitations (from the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey) Am J Cardiol. 2014;113(10):1685–1690.
    1. Dimarco A.D., Onwordi E.N., Murphy C.F. Diagnostic utility of real-time smartphone ECG in the initial investigation of palpitations. Brit J Cardio. 2018
    1. Blomstrom-Lundqvist C., Sheinman M.M., Aliot E.M. ACC/AHA/ESC guidelines for the management of patients with supraventricular arrhythmias – executive summary. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2003;42:1493–1531.
    1. Raviele A., Giada F., Bergfeldt L. Management of patients with palpitations: a position paper from the European Heart Rhythm Association. Europace. 2011;13:920–934.
    1. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. NICE clinical knowledge summaries. Palpitations. London: NICE, May 2015. (accessed 16th August 2018).
    1. Zimetbaum P.J., Josephson M.E. The evolving role of ambulatory arrhythmia monitoring in general practice. Ann Intern Med. 1999;150:848–856.
    1. Scherr D., Dalal D., Henrikson C.A. Prospective comparison of the diagnostic utility of a standard event monitor versus a ‘leadless’ portable ECG monitor in the evaluation of patients with palpitations. J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2008;22:39–44.
    1. Zimetbaum P.J., Kim K.Y., Josephson M.E. Diagnostic yield and optimal duration of continuous-loop event monitoring for the diagnosis of palpitations. Ann Intern Med. 1998;28:890–895.
    1. Barrett PM, Komatireddy R, Haaser S et al. Comparison of 24-hour Holter monitoring with 14-day novel adhesive patch electrocardiographic monitoring. Am J Med 2014; 127: 95.e11–95.e17.
    1. Cheung CC1, Kerr CR, Krahn AD. Comparing 14-day adhesive patch with 24-h Holter monitoring. Future Cardiol. 2014; 10(3): 319–22.
    1. Schreiber D., Sattar A., Drigalla D., Higgins S. Ambulatory cardiac monitoring for discharged emergency department patients with possible cardiac arrhythmias. West J Emerg Med. 2014;15(2):194–198.
    1. Turakhia MP, Hoang DD, Zimetbaum P et al. Diagnostic utility of a novel leadless arrhythmia monitoring device. Am J Cardiol. 2013; 15; 112(4): 520–4.
    1. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. AliveCor heart monitor and AliveECG app (Kardia Mobile) for detecting atrial fibrillation. NICE advice MIB35. London: NICE, 2015. (accessed 16th August 2018).
    1. William A.D., Kanbour M., Callahan T. Assessing the accuracy of an automated atrial fibrillation detection algorithm using smartphone technology: the iREAD study. Heart Rhythm. 2018
    1. Lau J., Lowres N., Neubeck L. iPhone ECG application for community screening to detect silent atrial fibrillation: a novel technology to prevent stroke. Int J Cardiol. 2013;165:193–194.
    1. Lowres N., Neubeck L., Salkeld G. Feasibility and cost-effectiveness of stroke prevention through community screening for atrial fibrillation using iPhone ECG in pharmacies. The SEARCHAF study. Thromb Haemost. 2014;111:1167–1176.
    1. Haberman Z.C., Jahn R.T., Bose R. Wireless smartphone ECG enables large-scale screening in diverse populations. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2015;26:520–526.
    1. Tarakji K.G., Wazni O.M., Callahan T. Using a novel wireless system for monitoring patients after the atrial fibrillation ablation procedure: the iTransmit study. Heart Rhythm. 2015;12:554–559.
    1. Desteghe L., Raymaekers Z., Lutin M. Performance of handheld electrocardiogram devices to detect atrial fibrillation in a cardiology and geriatric ward setting. Europace. 2017;19:29–39.
    1. Newham WG, Tayebjee MH. Excellent symptom rhythm correlation in patients with palpitations using a novel Smartphone based event recorder. J Atr Fibrillation 2017; 10(1): 1514.
    1. Macinnes M., Martin N., Fulton H., McLeod K.A. Comparison of a smartphone-based ECG recording system with a standard cardiac event monitor in the investigation of palpitations in children. Arch Dis Child. 2018 [Epub ahead of print]
    1. Narasimha D., Hanna N., Beck H. Validation of a smartphone-based event recorder for arrhythmia detection. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2018;41(5):487–494.
    1. Mitchell A.R.J., Le Page P. Living with the handheld ECG. BMJ Innov. 2015;1:46–48.
    1. Halcox J.P.J., Wareham K., Cardew A. Assessment of remote heart rhythm sampling using the AliveCor heart monitor to screen for atrial fibrillation: the REHEARSE-AF study. Circulation. 2017;136:1784–1794.
    1. Reed MJ, Grubb NR, Lang CC, et al. Multi-centre randomised controlled trial of a smart phone based event recorder alongside standard care versus standard care for patients presenting to the Emergency Department with palpitations and pre-syncope - the IPED (Investigation of Palpitations in the ED) study: Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. Trials 2018; 19: 711. nndoi:10.1186/s13063-018-3098-1
    1. Summers A., Reed M.J. An evaluation of patient ownership and use and acceptability of smartphone technology within the emergency department. Eur J Emerg Med. 2018;25(3):224–225.
    1. Weber B.E., Kapoor W.H. Evaluations and outcomes of patients with palpitations. Am J Med. 1996;100:138–148.
    1. Barsky A.J., Cleary P.D., Coeytaux R.R. The clinical course of palpitations in medical outpatients. Arch Intern Med. 1995;155:1782–1788.
    1. Abbott A.V. Diagnostic approach to palpitations. Am Fam Physician. 2005;71:743–750.
    1. Messineo F.C. Ventricular ectopic activity: prevalence and risk. Am J Cardiol. 1989;64:53J–56J.
    1. Kroenke K., Arrington M.E., Mangelsdorff A.D. The prevalence of symptoms in medical outpatients and the adequacy of therapy. Arch Intern Med. 1990;150:1685–1689.
    1. Knudson M.P. The natural history of palpitations in a family practice. J Fam Pract. 1987;24:357–360.

Source: PubMed

Sponzoři a spolupracovníci

Zdravotní podmínky

Drogové intervence

3
Předplatit