Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine (May 2024)

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 Malczynski,
  • Clemens Steinwender,
  • Johannes Brachmann,
  • Harvey Serota,
  • Jürgen Schrader,
  • Steffen Behrens,
  • Peter Søgaard

DOI
https://doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2024.1300074
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 11

Abstract

Read online

ObjectivesCardiac arrhythmias predict poor outcome after myocardial infarction (MI). We studied if arrhythmia monitoring with an insertable cardiac monitor (ICM) can improve treatment and outcome.DesignBIO|GUARD-MI was a randomized, international open-label study with blinded outcome assessment.SettingTertiary care facilities monitored the arrhythmias, while the follow-up remained with primary care physicians.ParticipantsPatients after ST-elevation (STEMI) or non-ST-elevation MI with an ejection fraction >35% and a CHA2DS2-VASc score ≥4 (men) or ≥5 (women).InterventionsPatients 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 measuresMACE, defined as a composite of cardiovascular death or acute unscheduled hospitalization for cardiovascular causes.Results790 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.ConclusionsThe 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.

Keywords