Background: Insertable cardiac monitors (ICM) allow prolonged rhythm monitoring, but the diagnostic performance can be hampered by false positive arrhythmia alerts related to inadequate Rwave sensing. This study assesses the prevalence and predictors of inadequate R-wave sensing (both over-and undersensing) among different ICM types. Methods:Patients implanted with an ICM at Ghent University Hospital between January 2017 and August 2018 were included. ICM tracings recorded at interrogation or transmitted by remote monitoring were reviewed for inadequate R-wave sensing leading to false arrhythmia alerts.Patient and implant characteristics were retrieved from the medical records and implant reports. Results: The study screened 135 patients (age 59 ± 19 years, 44% female) implanted with different ICM types: Reveal LINQ TM and XT (Medtronic): n = 92 (68%), Confirm and Confirm Rx (Abbott): n = 35 (26%), and BioMonitor 2 (Biotronik): n = 8 (6%). ICM tracings were analyzed in 112 patients (83%). False arrhythmia alerts occurred in 22 (20%) patients, most frequently related to undersensing (77%). False diagnosis of bradycardia or pause was documented in 64%, false high ventricular rates in 14%, and false atrial fibrillation alerts in 22%. Occurrence of R-wave changes was not related to patient characteristics or implant R-wave sensing. A trend toward higher number of inadequate R-wave sensing seems to occur with nonparasternal implant sites (P = .074). Conclusions: False arrhythmia alerts due to inadequate R-wave sensing occurred in 20% of ICM patients independent of implant features and patient characteristics. K E Y W O R D S arrhythmia detection, implantable loop recorder, insertable cardiac monitor, oversensing, R-wave, undersensing

No abstract

OnBehalf 1.Department of Cardiology, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium Introduction Insertable cardiac monitors (ICM) allow automatic arrhythmia detection but the diagnostic performance can be hampered by poor R-wave sensing leading to false positive recordings. Purpose This study assesses the prevalence and predictors of R-wave under- and oversensing among different ICM types.  Methods Patients implanted with an ICM at the University Hospital of Ghent between January 2017 and August 2018 were included. All ICM tracings recorded at ICM interrogation or transmitted by remote monitoring were reviewed for inadequate R-wave sensing leading to false arrhythmia alerts. Inadequate R wave sensing was defined as undersensing due to sudden reduction in R wave amplitude or oversensing due to the occurrence of artefacts. Patient and implant characteristics were retrieved from the medical record and implant reports. Results The study screened 135 patients (age 59 ± 19 years, 44% female) implanted with different ICM types: Reveal XT and LINQ n = 92 (68%), Confirm and Confirm Rx n = 35 (26%),  BioMonitor n = 8 (6%). ICM analysis was conducted in 112 patients (83%). Overall, false arrhythmia alerts due to inadequate R wave sensing occurred in 22 (20%) of the patients. Among these 22 patients, false diagnosis of bradycardia or pauses were documented in 64%, false high ventricular rates in 14% and false atrial fibrillation alerts in 22% of the patients. Of interest, in an additional 7 (6%) patients significant changes in R wave sensing occurred, although not causing false arrhythmic alerts. Occurrence of R-wave changes occurred in 19% of Reveal, 17% of Confirm and 50% of BioMonitor ICMs (p = not significant). Occurrence of R-wave changes among the different types of ICMs were not related to age, sex, BMI, time of the day, heart frequency or implant R-wave sensing. Conclusion Poor R wave sensing, leading to false arrhythmia detection, occurred in a significant number of ICM, and seems to occur independent of ICM type, patient or implant characteristics. Abstract Figure.

The Topaz model 515 (Vitatron B.V.) is a dual sensor rate responsive pacemaker for single chamber stimulation. It can be driven by activity counts (ACT) and QT interval measurements. Inappropriate rate modulation due to one sensor can be corrected by "sensor cross-checking." It was implanted in ten patients (20-86 years) of whom seven had complete heart block and atrial arrhythmias. After implantation T-wave amplitude ranged from 0.9 mV-3.5 mV. T-wave sensing ranged from 88%-99% in 9/10 patients at the follow-up of 3 weeks. Eight patients remained in default setting of the activity threshold, after evaluation with a short walking test. An exercise test was performed on all patients. In one test, QT sensing was marginal because of lead implantation in the right ventricular outflow tract. Therefore, this pacing rate was only modulated by ACT sensing. All others were tested with equal contribution of information from both sensors (ACT = QT). In 7/9, rate response was satisfactory. When the treadmill was repeated with ACT in five of these seven patients, rate generally accelerated too fast. In one patient the setting was adjusted to "QT > ACT," because of inappropriate acceleration due to activity sensing, in another it was adjusted to "QT < ACT" because of delayed response to activity. The pacing rate and the ACT during treadmill tests in "QT = ACT" mode were more closely correlated in the first 3 minutes, compared with the last 3 minutes. We feel that rate modulation with this new pacemaker is adequate. Sensor blending and sensor cross-checking are of clinical importance.