You just clicked a link to go to another website. If you continue, you may go to a site run by someone else.
We do not review or control the content on non-Medtronic sites, and we are not responsible for any business dealings or transactions you have there. Your use of the other site is subject to the terms of use and privacy statement on that site.
It is possible that some of the products on the other site are not approved in your region or country.
Your browser is out of date
With an updated browser, you will have a better Medtronic website experience. Update my browser now.
The content of this website is exclusively reserved for Healthcare Professionals in countries with applicable health authority product registrations, except those practicing in France as some of the content is not in compliance with the French Advertising law N°2011-2012 dated 29th December 2011, article 34.
Click “OK” to confirm you are a Healthcare Professional.
Recent studies6, 7, 8 have indicated that brief periods of atrial fibrillation (AF) detected by implantable pacemakers are associated with an increased risk of ischemic stroke. However, effective clinical utilisation of diagnostic data provided by these devices is predicated upon high accuracy of the automatic AF detection algorithms. Furthermore, excessive false positive detections can be burdensome and frustrating for clinicians to review.
All AF episodes with stored electrograms (EGM) from the randomized phase of the RESPECT study (Medtronic AT500 or EnRhythm™ pacemakers) were manually adjudicated. We tabulated the positive predictive value (PPV) and 95% confidence intervals for AF detection as a function of episode duration (≤ 6 minutes, > 6 minutes, > 30 minutes, > 6 hours, and > 24 hours) and APP status (on/off).
Device-based detection of AF has a very high PPV across all episode durations and is unaffected by the APP algorithm. The findings suggest that AF diagnostics from these Medtronic pacemakers can be utilized without intensive manual adjudication of individual episodes.
AF detection accuracy rates determined from independent clinical trials are presented for reference.
PR Logic™ uses pattern and rate analysis to discriminate between supraventricular tachycardia (SVT) and true ventricular tachyarrhythmias. It can withhold inappropriate VT/VF detection and therapy during episodes of rapidly conducted SVT in dual chamber devices.
A controlled head-to-head study evaluating the comparative performance of device algorithms has not been done.
Ziegler P, et al. Accuracy of Atrial Fibrillation Detection in Implantable Pacemakers. Presented at HRS 2013 (PO02-08).
Sprenger M. Comparison of Manufacturer’s AT/AF Detection Accuracy across Clinical Studies. Medtronic data on file. January 2015.
Nowak B, et al. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2005;28:620-629.
Kauffman E, et al. Heart Rhythm. 2012;9:1241-1246.
Ziegler, P. Calculation of Positive Predictive Value for AT/AF Detection from the Assert Trial. Medtronic data on file. January 2013.
Chu SY et al. Pacemaker-detected atrial fibrillation burden and risk of ischemic stroke or thromboembolic events-A cohort study. Heart Lung. Jan-Feb 2020;49(1):66-72.
Boriani G. et al. Device-detected atrial fibrillation and risk for stroke: an analysis of >10,000 patients from the SOS AF project (Stroke preventiOn Strategies based on Atrial Fibrillation information from implanted devices). Eur Heart J. 2014 Feb;35(8):508-16.
Van Gelder IC et al. Duration of device-detected subclinical atrial fibrillation and occurrence of stroke in ASSERT. Eur Heart J. 2017 May 1;38(17):1339-1344.