P6561Diagnostic yield of implantable loop recorders: a comparison of arrhythmia nurse specialists versus clinicians

Abstract Background Implantable loop recorders (ILR) are recommended in guidelines to determine symptom-rhythm correlation. Arrhythmia Nurse Specialists (ANS) play a critical role in the assessment of such patients. Their effectiveness at risk stratification for ILR implantation is unknown. The ESC 2018 Syncope guidelines recommend more research in this field. Aim To evaluate the diagnostic yield of consecutive ILR implants at a tertiary centre over a 2year period and compare ANS versus Clinicians. Methods A retrospective study of all patients undergoing ILR implant between April 2016 and April 2018. Data collected included baseline patient demographics, referral source and management changes made by ILR findings. Results 305 patients had an ILR; median age was 71yrs (interquartile range 52–81), 55% male. Median follow-up time was 15months. Referrals were from general cardiology (GC) = 98 (32%), electrophysiology (EP) = 105 (34%), and ANS-led syncope clinic = 102 (34%). Indications for ILR implant were syncope = 203 (65.9%), palpitation = 21 (6.9%), pre-syncope = 16 (5.2%), cryptogenic stroke = 35 (11.5%) and others 7 (8.9%) (falls, channelopathies). Of the entire cohort, 102 (34.0%) experienced arrhythmias recorded on the ILR that resulted in a change of management. This included: pacemaker implant = 49 (16.1%), complex-device implant = 7 (2.3%), AF=28 (9.2%), SVT=14 (4.6%), VT=1 (0.3%). Of those with a syncope indication (n=203), findings on ILR altered management in 73patients (36.0%) over a median follow-up of 18months; a pacing indication in this syncope group was present in 44 (21.9%) patients (median time to diagnosis: 2.7 months) with 24 receiving a pacemaker indication within 3 months of ILR insertion. ANS had a higher pacemaker implant rate. Overall, an ILR resulted in a diagnostic yield of 34.1% (n=104). Specialist nurse referral resulted in an overall greater trend towards change of management in 38.2% of patients compared with GC (32.7%) and EP (31.0%) (p=0.593 nurse vs. consultant). Conclusion The overall diagnostic yield of ILR insertion was 34% in our study. ANS had a trend towards a greater diagnostic yield compared with clinicians, and significantly more pacemaker indications. Our data suggests that ANS patient selection for ILR insertion are at least comparable to clinicians.