JBiSE  Vol.12 No.8 , August 2019
Data Transmission Delay in Medtronic Reveal LINQTM Implantable Cardiac Monitor: Clinical Experience in 520 Patients
Abstract: Background: The Implantable Cardiac Monitor (ICM) is an invaluable tool for detecting cardiac arrhythmias by providing physicians. Critical to the success of ICMs depends on how quickly and accurately the data can be transmitted to a physician’s office after an arrhythmic event. Then, the clinical event can be analyzed and the treatment will be provided accordingly. However, no reports have been published as to how efficiently the ICM data is transmitted. Methods: There is a retrospective review of 520 patients who received a Medtronic Reveal LINQTM between 2/01/2015 and 6/01/2017. The time from the arrhythmic event to the time of physician notification was calculated and reason for delay was noted. Results: One hundred and twenty patients out of 520 patients (23%) had arrhythmic events transmitted over a mean follow up of 14 ± 4 months. The mean time between cardiac events and physician notification was 15 ± 8 days. Sixty-three percent (63%) of data transmission delay (defined as >24 hours) was due to the MyCareLinkTM Monitor not being in proximity to the patient. Connection failure between the monitor and the network accounted for 34% of data transmission delay. Conclusion: Significant delay in data transmission from Medtronic Reveal LINQTM cardiac monitor occurs frequently impacting patient care. Newer generations of the implantable cardiac monitors utilize Bluetooth technology, enabling immediate transfer of data from ICM to a patient’s cellular phone and subsequently to their physician’s office. This technology could potentially improve efficiency and reliability eliminating the issues of proximity and connectivity.
Cite this paper: Chokesuwattanaskul, R. , Safadi, A. , Ip, R. , Waraich, H. , Hudson, O. , Ip, J. (2019) Data Transmission Delay in Medtronic Reveal LINQTM Implantable Cardiac Monitor: Clinical Experience in 520 Patients. Journal of Biomedical Science and Engineering, 12, 391-399. doi: 10.4236/jbise.2019.128030.

[1]   Maines, M., Zorzi, A., Tomasi, G., Angheben, C., Catanzariti, D., Piffer, L., et al. (2017) Clinical Impact, Safety, and Accuracy of the Remotely Monitored Implantable Loop Recorder Medtronic Reveal LINQTM. EP Europace, 20, 1050-1057.

[2]   Ip, J.H., Viqar-Syed, M., Grimes, D., Xie, Y., Jager, K., Boak, J., et al. (2012) Surveillance of AF Recurrence Post-Surgical AF Ablation Using Implantable Cardiac Monitor. Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology, 33, 77-83.

[3]   Locati, E.T. (2017) New Directions for Ambulatory Monitoring Following 2017 HRS-ISHNE Expert Consensus. Journal of Electrocardiology, 50, 828-832.

[4]   Giada, F., Gulizia, M., Francese, M., Croci, F., Santangelo, L., Santomauro, M., et al. (2007) Recurrent Unexplained Palpitations (RUP) Study Comparison of Implantable Loop Recorder versus Conventional Diagnostic Strategy. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 49, 1951-1956.

[5]   Tanno, K. (2017) Use of Implantable and External Loop Recorders in Syncope with Unknown Causes. Journal of Arrhythmia, 33, 579-582.

[6]   Drak-Hernandez, Y., Toquero-Ramos, J., Fernandez, J.M., Perez-Pereira, E., Castro-Urda, V. and Fernandez-Lozano, I. (2013) Effectiveness and Safety of Remote Monitoring of Patients with an Implantable Loop Recorder. Revista Española de Cardiología (English Edition), 66, 943-948.

[7]   Sanna, T., Diener, H.C., Passman, R.S., Di Lazzaro, V., Bernstein, R.A., Morillo, C.A., et al. (2014) Cryptogenic Stroke and Underlying Atrial Fibrillation. The New England Journal of Medicine, 370, 2478-2486.

[8]   Tomson, T.T. and Passman, R. (2015) The Reveal LINQ Insertable Cardiac Monitor. Expert Review of Medical Devices, 12, 7-18.

[9]   Medtronic (2017) Cardiac Diagnostics & Monitoring.

[10]   Medtronic (2017) RevealTM ICM Manuals/MRI Information.

[11]   Lacour, P., Dang, P.L., Huemer, M., Parwani, A.S., Attanasio, P., Pieske, B., et al. (2017) Performance of the New BioMonitor 2-AF Insertable Cardiac Monitoring System: Can Better Be Worse? Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology, 40, 516-526.

[12]   de Ruvo, E., Sciarra, L., Martino, A.M., Rebecchi, M., Iulianella, R.V., Sebastiani, F., et al. (2016) A Prospective Comparison of Remote Monitoring Systems in Implantable Cardiac Defibrillators: Potential Effects of Frequency of Transmissions. Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology, 45, 81-90.

[13]   Cronin, E.M., Ching, E.A., Varma, N., Martin, D.O., Wilkoff, B.L. and Lindsay, B.D. (2012) Remote Monitoring of Cardiovascular Devices: A Time and Activity Analysis. Heart Rhythm, 9, 1947-1951.

[14]   Krahn, A.D., Klein, G.J., Yee, R. and Norris, C. (1998) Final Results from a Pilot Study with an Implantable Loop Recorder to Determine the Etiology of Syncope in Patients with Negative Noninvasive and Invasive Testing. American Journal of Cardiology, 82, 117-119, A8-A9.

[15]   Krahn, A.D., Klein, G.J., Yee, R., Takle-Newhouse, T. and Norris, C. (1999) Use of an Extended Monitoring Strategy in Patients with Problematic Syncope. Circulation, 99, 406-410.

[16]   Furukawa, T., Maggi, R., Bertolone, C., Ammirati, F., Santini, M., Ricci, R., et al. (2011) Effectiveness of Remote Monitoring in the Management of Syncope and Palpitations. EP Europace, 13, 431-437.

[17]   Sivakumaran, S., Krahn, A.D., Klein, G.J., Finan, J., Yee, R., Renner, S., et al. (2003) A Prospective Randomized Comparison of Loop Recorders versus Holter Monitors in Patients with Syncope or Presyncope. The American Journal of Medicine, 115, 1-5.

[18]   Kapoor, W.N. (1990) Evaluation and Outcome of Patients with Syncope. Medicine (Baltimore), 69, 160-175.

[19]   Kapoor, W.N. (1992) Evaluation and Management of the Patient with Syncope. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, 268, 2553-2560.