Arrhythmia monitoring and outcome after myocardial infarction (BIO|GUARD-MI): a randomized trial

Christian Jøns, Poul Erik Bloch Thomsen, Sam Riahi, Tom Smilde, Ulrich Bach, Peter Karl Jacobsen, Miloš Táborský, Jozsef Faluközy, Marcus Wiemer, Per Dahl Christensen, Attila Kónyi, Dan Schelfaut, Alan Bulava, Marcin Grabowski, Béla Merkely, Dieter Nuyens, Rajiv Mahajan, Patrick Nagel, Roland Tilz, Jerzy MalczynskiClemens Steinwender, Johannes Brachmann, Harvey Serota, Jürgen Schrader, Steffen Behrens, Peter Søgaard

Research output: Contribution to journal/Conference contribution in journal/Contribution to newspaperJournal articleResearchpeer-review

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives: Cardiac arrhythmias predict poor outcome after myocardial infarction (MI). We studied if arrhythmia monitoring with an insertable cardiac monitor (ICM) can improve treatment and outcome. Design: BIO|GUARD-MI was a randomized, international open-label study with blinded outcome assessment. Setting: Tertiary care facilities monitored the arrhythmias, while the follow-up remained with primary care physicians. Participants: Patients after ST-elevation (STEMI) or non-ST-elevation MI with an ejection fraction >35% and a CHA2DS2-VASc score ≥4 (men) or ≥5 (women). Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned to receive or not receive an ICM in addition to standard post-MI treatment. Device-detected arrhythmias triggered immediate guideline recommended therapy changes via remote monitoring. Main outcome measures: MACE, defined as a composite of cardiovascular death or acute unscheduled hospitalization for cardiovascular causes. Results: 790 patients (mean age 71 years, 72% male, 51% non-STEMI) of planned 1,400 pts were enrolled and followed for a median of 31.6 months. At 2 years, 39.4% of the device group and 6.7% of the control group had their therapy adapted for an arrhythmia [hazard ratio (HR) = 5.9, P < 0.0001]. Most frequent arrhythmias were atrial fibrillation, pauses and bradycardia. The use of an ICM did not improve outcome in the entire cohort (HR = 0.84, 95%-CI: 0.65–1.10; P = 0.21). In secondary analysis, a statistically significant interaction of the type of infarction suggests a benefit in the pre-specified non-STEMI subgroup. Risk factor analysis indicates that this may be connected to the higher incidence of MACE in patients with non-STEMI. Conclusions: The burden of asymptomatic but actionable arrhythmias is large in post-infarction patients. However, arrhythmia monitoring with an ICM did not improve outcome in the entire cohort. Post-hoc analysis suggests that it may be beneficial in non-STEMI patients or other high-risk subgroups. Clinical Trial Registration: [https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02341534], NCT02341534.

Original languageEnglish
Article number1300074
JournalFrontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine
Volume11
Pages (from-to)1300074
ISSN2297-055X
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2024

Keywords

  • cardiac arrhythmia
  • implantable cardiac monitor
  • myocardial infarction
  • randomized controlled trial
  • telemedicine

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Arrhythmia monitoring and outcome after myocardial infarction (BIO|GUARD-MI): a randomized trial'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this