Cost Effectiveness of Insertable Cardiac Monitors vs. Conventional Testing

Randomized Assessment of Syncope Trial¹

• Combining primary strategy with crossover, the diagnostic yield for an insertable cardiac monitor is 43% vs. 20% for conventional testing
• Cost per diagnosis of ICM is 26% less than conventional testing

Objective

Assess the cost implications of two investigation strategies in patients with unexplained syncope.

Methods

Sixty patients with unexplained syncope were randomized to conventional testing with an external loop recorder, tilt test and EP study, or prolonged monitoring with an insertable cardiac monitor.

References

1. ¹Krahn AD, Klein GJ, Yee R, Hoch JS, Skanes AC. Cost implications of testing strategy in patients with syncope: Randomized Assessment of Syncope Trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. August 6, 2003;42(3):495-501.

©Medtronic, Inc. 2008                                                   • Contact Medtronic • Privacy Statement • Terms of Use • Site Map