Background: Recent miniaturization of an insertable cardiac monitor (ICM) may make it possible to move device insertion from a hospital to office setting. However, the safety of this strategy is unknown.
Objectives: The primary objective was to compare the safety of inserting the Reveal LINQ ICM in an office vs a hospital environment. Ancillary objectives included summarizing device- and procedure-related adverse events and responses to a physician questionnaire.
Methods: Five hundred twenty-one patients indicated for an ICM were randomized (1:1 ratio) to undergo ICM insertion in a hospital or office environment at 26 centers in the United States in the Reveal LINQ In-Office 2 study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02395536). Patients were followed for 90 days.
Results: ICM insertion was successful in all 482 attempted patients (office: 251; hospital: 231). The untoward event rate (composite of unsuccessful insertion and ICM- or insertion-related complications) was 0.8% (2 of 244) in the office and 0.9% (2 of 227) in the hospital (95% confidence interval, -3.0% to 2.9%; 5% noninferiority: P < .001). In addition, adverse events occurred during 2.5% (6 of 244) of office and 4.4% (10 of 227) of hospital insertions (95% confidence interval [office minus inhospital rates], -5.8% to 1.9%; 5% noninferiority: P < .001). Physicians indicated that for procedures performed in an office vs a hospital, there were fewer delays >15 minutes (16% vs 35%; P < .001) and patient response was more often "very positive." Physicians considered the office location "very convenient" more frequently than the hospital location (85% vs 27%; P < .001).
Conclusion: The safety profile for the insertion of the Reveal LINQ ICM is excellent irrespective of insertion environment. These results may expand site of service options for LINQ insertion.
Keywords: Adverse event; Complication; Insertable cardiac monitor; Office; Reveal LINQ; Safety.
Copyright © 2016 Heart Rhythm Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.