![]() ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() |
![]()
|
![]() |
Clinical studies Recurring episodes of AT/AF require continuous monitoring
Certainty on absence of AF
ConclusionNon-continuous monitoring provides inaccurate assessments of AT/AF burden, compared to continuous monitoring with the implantable device used in the study. The implanted device records daily AT/AF burden with a sensitivity of over 95%.
P.D. Ziegler et al. Heart Rhythm. 2006; 3:1445-1452
![]() Long-term monitoring after AF ablation is more accurate
Freedom from AF, post PVI-procedure
ConclusionShort-term monitoring detects fewer recurrent AF-episodes than long-term monitoring. Reported results after catheter ablation may depend on the methods used for follow-up.
G. Senatore et al. JACC. 2005; 45:873-876
![]() What your AF patients cannot tell you
Differentiation of specific symptoms during AF and SR (in total numbers)![]()
ConclusionPoor correlation between symptoms and atrial tachyarrhythmia. Symptoms were reported in only 46%of the cases where AF was confirmed by ECGs When analyzing all symptom-triggered ECGs,AF was diagnosed in only 37%.
M.Patten et al. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2006; 17:1216-1220
![]() The pattern of AF recurrence is unpredictable
Detection of AF by ECG recording during follow-up
versus information
|
![]() |
![]() |