ObjectivesRecent technology advances have allowed for heart rhythm monitoring using single-lead ECG monitoring devices, which can be used for early diagnosis of atrial fibrillation (AF). We sought to investigate the AF detection rate using portable ECG devices compared with Holter monitoring.Setting, participants and outcome measuresWe searched the Medline, Embase and Scopus databases (conducted on 8 May 2017) using search terms related to AF screening and included studies with adults aged >18 years using portable ECG devices or Holter monitoring for AF detection. We excluded studies using implantable loop recorders and pacemakers. Using a random-effects model we calculated the overall AF detection rate. Meta-regression analysis was performed to explore potential sources for heterogeneity. Quality of reporting was assessed using the tool developed by Downs and Black.ResultsPortable ECG monitoring was used in 18 studies (n=117 436) and Holter monitoring was used in 36 studies (n=8498). The AF detection rate using portable ECG monitoring was 1.7% (95% CI 1.4 to 2.1), with significant heterogeneity between studies (p<0.001). There was a moderate linear relationship between total monitoring time and AF detection rate (r=0.65, p=0.003), and meta-regression identified total monitoring time (p=0.005) and body mass index (p=0.01) as potential contributors to heterogeneity. The detection rate (4.8%, 95% CI 3.6% to 6.0%) in eight studies (n=10 199), which performed multiple ECG recordings was comparable to that with 24 hours Holter (4.6%, 95% CI 3.5% to 5.7%). Intermittent recordings for 19 min total produced similar AF detection to 24 hours Holter monitoring.ConclusionPortable ECG devices may offer an efficient screening option for AF compared with 24 hours Holter monitoring.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42017061021.

Patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) undergoing radiotherapy (RT) are more common due to the ageing of the population. With newer CIEDs’ implementing the complementary metal-oxide semiconductor (CMOS) technology which allows the miniaturization of CIED, it is also more susceptible to RT. Effects of RT on CIED ranges from device interference, device operational/memory errors of permanent damage. These malfunctions can cause life-threatening clinical effects. Cumulative dose is not the only component of RT that causes CIED malfunction, as neutron use and dose rate effect also affects CIEDs. The management of this patient cohort in clinical practice is inconsistent due to the lack of a consistent guideline from manufacturers and physician specialty societies. Our review will focus on the current clinical practice and the recently updated guidelines of managing patients with CIED undergoing RT. We aim to simplify the evidence and provide a simple and easy to use guide based on the recent guidelines.

Patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) undergoing radiotherapy (RT) are more common due to ageing of the population. With newer CIEDs implementing the complementary metaloxide semiconductor (CMOS) technology which allows the miniaturisation of CIED, it is also more susceptible to RT. Effects of RT on CIED ranges from device interference, device operational/memory errors of permanent damage. These malfunctions can cause life threatening clinical effects. Cumulative dose is not the only component of RT that causes CIED malfunction, as neutron use and dose rate effect also affects CIEDs. The management of this patient cohort in clinical practice is inconsistent due to lack of a consistent guideline from manufacturers and physician specialty societies. Our review will focus on the current clinical practice and the recent updated guidelines of managing patients with CIED undergoing RT. We aim to simplify the evidence and provide a simple and easy to use guide based on the recent guidelines.

No abstract

No abstract