Objectives To compare the procedure, recovery, hospitalization times, and costs along with patient/parent satisfaction after newer-generation cardiac implantable loop recorder (Reveal LINQ; Medtronic Inc, Minneapolis, Minnesota) and previous-generation implantable loop recorder (Reveal XT; Medtronic Inc). Study design A prospective study of patients undergoing LINQ implantations between April 2014 and October 2015 was performed. Retrospective chart review of patients undergoing XT implantations was performed for comparison. Results Thirty-one patients received LINQ and 15 patients received XT. Indications included syncope/palpitations (28/46, 61%), history of arrhythmias (9/46, 20%), arrhythmia burden in congenital heart disease (5/46, 10%), and monitoring in channelopathies (4/46, 9%). The LINQ group underwent more conscious sedation procedures than the XT group (8/31 vs 0/15, P =.04) with shorter procedural time (9 vs 34 minutes, P <.001), room occupation time (38 vs 81 minutes, P <.001), recovery time (21 vs 67 minutes, P <.001), and total hospital time (214 vs 264 minutes, P =.046). The LINQ group also had shorter return to activity time (2 vs 5 days, P = 1). Three device erosions in the LINQ group required reintervention. The LINQ group had fewer body image issues than the XT group (1/26 vs 5/14, P =.01) with both groups scoring 5/5 overall patient/parent satisfaction score at follow-up. Both groups had comparable total direct hospital costs (US $5905 vs $5438, P =.8). Conclusions LINQ offers better procedural and recovery time compared with XT. LINQ implantations under conscious sedation reduce total hospitalization time.
- cardiac monitor
- implantable loop recorder