부산대학교 도서관

Background: Implantable loop recorders (ILR) are increasingly used to screen for atrial fibrillation (AF) among patients with stroke, but real-world outcomes are lacking. Goal: To determine comparative effectiveness, safety, and costs of ILR compared with continuous external monitors (CEM) and Holter monitors in a real-world setting of patients with stroke.Methods: This retrospective cohort analysis used the Optum Labs Data Warehouse, which contains longitudinal, de-identified administrative claims. The cohort included patients with recent stroke who received cardiac monitoring from 1/1/2016 - 6/30/2021, comparing those with ILR to those with CEM (>48 hours to 30 days) or Holter (≤48 hours). Eligibility criteria included: ischemic stroke during 6 month baseline; continuous enrollment with medical and pharmacy coverage; no evidence of pacemaker, implantable cardioverter-defibrillator, AF, left atrial appendage ablation, or oral anticoagulants. The primary outcome was 12-month all-cause mortality, secondary outcomes included new diagnosis of AF + initiation of anticoagulants, hemorrhagic stroke, and total and device-related costs. Final analyses were adjusted for CHA2DS2-VASc score.Results: Among 48,801 individuals, 18.9% received ILR, 59.5% CEM, and 21.6% Holter. Groups had similar demographics and comorbidities (Table). Compared to those with CEM, the ILR group had higher odds of a new diagnosis of AF plus initiation of anticoagulants (OR 2.27; (95% CI 2.09, 2.48)), and hemorrhagic stroke (OR of 1.60 (95% CI 1.34, 1.93)). There was no difference in mortality. Unadjusted direct medical cost of monitoring was substantially higher in the ILR group ($13,975) compared to CEM ($449) and Holter ($149).Conclusions: Although the use of ILRs was associated with increased detection and treatment for AF, there was no impact on all-cause mortality. ILR was associated with increased hemorrhagic stroke and higher costs.