Cited by 38Cardiovascular Syncope and Autonomic DisordersCardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmiasHealthcare Technology and Patient Monitoring

Utility of in-hospital cardiac remote telemetry in patients with unexplained syncope

Open access
Benezet-Mazuecos, J., Ibanez, B., Rubio, J. M., Navarro, F., Martin, E., Romero, J., Farre, J.·2007·Europace

Abstract

AIMS: Cardiac remote telemetry (CR-TEL) is in wide use in cardiac units, but its diagnostic value in the setting of unexplained syncope is unknown. METHODS: One hundred and two consecutive patients (73 +/- 14 years) arriving to the emergency department due to an unexplained syncope were admitted under CR-TEL. Heart rhythm was continuously monitored from a central station by trained nurses. Events included all causes of mortality and arrhythmias unnoticed on emergency department. RESULTS: Thirty patients (29.4%) presented events. There were no deaths during the time of monitoring (4.8 +/- 2.7 days). Events requiring transfer to the coronary care units (CCU) occurred in 15 patients (14.7%), principally due to AV-block and extreme bradycardia. Cardiac remote telemetry was diagnostic in 18 patients (17.6%) in whom the arrhythmic event occurred simultaneously with the syncopal episode. Multivariate analysis showed that age > or =86 years (P < 0.01) and heart failure on admission (P < 0.04) were the strongest predictors of events. All transfers to the CCU were documented within the first 4 days. The best cut-off point as a threshold for CR-TEL monitoring time was 72 hours (sensitivity 73%, specificity 86%). CONCLUSION: Cardiac remote telemetry appears to be a useful tool in the management of patients with unexplained syncope, especially in those older and presenting heart failure on admission.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/europace/eum239

Cites

24 of 24 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The diagnostic yield of ECG monitoring varies from 1.9-17.6%.

    “Although the diagnostic yield of ECG monitoring varies from 1.9-17.6%, 158-160 it is justified by the need to avoid immediate risk to the patient.”

    From 2018 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of syncope (2018) · cites this paper as [159]

    The ‘Cardiac remote telemetry in current clinical practice’ section says the diagnostic yield of ECG monitoring in patients with syncope may be low when an arrhythmic cause is not strongly suspected, and reports that nearly 18% of its patients were diagnosed with cardiac syncope. It does not give or substantiate the claimed 1.9–17.6% range. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Jenkins LS, George V. Heart watch: national survey of continuous electro- cardiographic monitoring in U.S. hospitals. J Nurs Adm 1995;25:38-44.
  2. Kapoor WN. Syncope. N Engl J Med 2000;343:1856-62.
  3. Drew BJ, Califf RM, Funk M, Kaufman ES, Krucoff MW, Laks MM et al. Prac- tice standards for electrocardiographic monitoring in hospital settings: an American Heart Association Scientific Statement from the Councils on Cardiovascular Nursing, Clinical Cardiology, and Cardiovascular Disease in the Young. Circulation 2004;110:2721-46.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Benezet-Mazuecos, J., Ibanez, B., Rubio, J. M., Navarro, F., Martin, E., Romero, J., & Farre, J.
Affiliations
Hospital Universitario Fundación Jiménez Díaz (ES)
Venue
Europace
Published
2007-10-03
Volume
9
Issue
12
Pages
1196-1201
ISSN
  • 1099-5129 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-2092
OpenAlex
W2147247098
Cited by
38
References
24
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 2
FWCI
1.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • EP Europace (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Cardiovascular Syncope and Autonomic Disorders
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Cardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmias
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Healthcare Technology and Patient Monitoring
Keywords
unexplained syncope, in-hospital monitoring, arrhythmia detection, heart failure, atrioventricular block, bradycardia, emergency department admission, elderly patients
MeSH terms
Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Arrhythmias, Cardiac, Coronary Care Units, Electrocardiography, Female, Heart Failure, Heart Rate, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Prospective Studies, Syncope, Telemetry, Multivariate Analysis, Patient Selection, Endpoint Determination

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review