Annals
Established in 1927 by the American College of Physicians
:
Advanced search
 
box Article
 arrow  Table of Contents                
space
box Services
 arrow  Send comment/rapid response letter
space
 arrow  Notify a friend about this article
space
 arrow  Alert me when this article is cited
space
 arrow  Add to Personal Archive
space
 arrow  Download to Citation Manager
space
 arrow  ACP Search                        
space
 arrow  Get Permissions
space
box Google Scholar
 arrow  Search for Related Content
space
box PubMed
Articles in PubMed by Author:
  arrow  Kinlay, S.
space
  arrow  Leitch, J. W.
space
 arrow  Related Articles in PubMed
space
 arrow  PubMed Citation
space
 arrow  PubMed
space

REPLY

Efficacy of Holter Monitors

right arrow Scott Kinlay, MD, and James W. Leitch, MBBS

15 October 1996 | Volume 125 Issue 8 | Page 698


IN RESPONSE:

Dr. Lantz's comments on the utility of Holter monitoring raise several issues that deserve comment. Compared with our study, his observations showed a higher rate of clinically significant arrhythmias, probably due to the different populations studied (for example, persons with documented arrhythmias) or perhaps to different definitions of significant arrhythmias (length of consecutive beats and type of arrhythmia).

Both studies found that Holter monitoring can lead to confusion in the diagnosis and treatment of patients with cardiac arrhythmias. In our study, many of the arrhythmias recorded by Holter monitoring during symptoms were nonspecific and would not require specific therapy. In Dr. Lantz's report, half of the arrhythmias were asymptomatic, and most did not lead to changes in therapy. In contrast, our study showed that for the diagnosis of palpitations, event recorders provided data of better quality than did Holter monitoring. Any documented arrhythmias were specifically related to symptoms, and many could be modified by specific therapy directed at improving symptoms.

Dr. Lantz also raises the question of whether any form of cardiac monitoring leads to clinical management that improves symptoms, quality of life, or survival. Few randomized, controlled trials have addressed this issue, but considering only changes in specific therapy as an end point may underestimate the value of providing a patient with a diagnosis. Two of six patients with supraventricular tachycardia enrolled in our study declined an electrophysiology test or specific therapy but were happy to know that a physical cause accounted for their symptoms and that they did not have a psychological illness. In these patients, the diagnosis was the therapy, and this benefit may not be easily obtained in a retrospective review.

Regarding the ordering of other diagnostic tests in the investigation of possible cardiac arrhythmias, we agree with the principle of directing tests to certain clinical features of the patient, but this is a difficult and poorly investigated area in which few properly conducted trials have evaluated which diagnostic tests provide the best diagnostic yield (let alone improvement) in other end points [1]. Although the role of Holter monitoring in other situations is being debated, Holter monitoring is inferior to event recorders in the diagnosis of palpitations. Dr. Lantz's data support the view that Holter monitoring is of questionable value, at least for this indication.


Author and Article Information
space
up arrowTop
dotAuthor & Article Info
down arrowREFERENCE

Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA 02115
John Hunter Hospital, New South Wales 2310, Australia


REFERENCE
space
up arrowTop
up arrowAuthor & Article Info
dotREFERENCE

1. Klein GJ, Gersh BJ, Yee R. Electrophysiological testing: the final court of appeal for diagnosis of syncope? Circulation. 1995; 92:1332-5.

About Letters
space

The Editors welcome submissions for possible publication in the Letters section. Authors of letters should:

•Include no more than 300 words of text, three authors, and five references

•Type with double-spacing

•Send three copies of the letter, an authors' form signed by all authors, and a cover letter describing any conflicts of interest related to the contents of the letter.

Letters commenting on an Annals article will be considered if they are received within 6 weeks of the time the article was published. Only some of the letters received can be published. Published letters are edited and may be shortened; tables and figures are included only selectively. Authors will be notified that the letter has been received. If the letter is selected for publication, the author will be notified about 3 weeks before the publication date. Unpublished letters cannot be returned.

Annals welcomes electronically submitted letters.





box Article
 arrow  Table of Contents                
space
box Services
 arrow  Send comment/rapid response letter
space
 arrow  Notify a friend about this article
space
 arrow  Alert me when this article is cited
space
 arrow  Add to Personal Archive
space
 arrow  Download to Citation Manager
space
 arrow  ACP Search                        
space
 arrow  Get Permissions
space
box Google Scholar
 arrow  Search for Related Content
space
box PubMed
Articles in PubMed by Author:
  arrow  Kinlay, S.
space
  arrow  Leitch, J. W.
space
 arrow  Related Articles in PubMed
space
 arrow  PubMed Citation
space
 arrow  PubMed
space


 Home | Current Issue | Past Issues | In the Clinic | ACP Journal Club | CME | Collections | Audio/Video | Mobile | Subscribe | Tools | Help | ACP Online