PO-03-056 QUANTIFYING THE FREQUENCY AND ACCURACY OF DEVICE-INDICATED ATRIAL FIBRILLATION EPISODES ACROSS DEVICE MANUFACTURERS

Despite standardization efforts, cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) report atrial fibrillation (AF) episodes differently across device manufacturers. Similarly, traditional rhythm management (CRM) protocols have failed to standardize physician-indicated AF. Thus, few studies characterized the frequency and accuracy of device-indicated This study quantified compared physician- (‘true’ AF incidence) two patient segments by CIED manufacturer. Baptist Health Network in Kentucky uses a CRM care platform (Murj, Santa Cruz, CA) manage 12,000 patients 14 clinics. Both device- indicated transmissions 10,986 (age 76+12 yrs) including pacemakers, ICD, CRT-P, CRT-D implants between 10/1/2020-5/31/2022 were assessed. also analyzed 3,290 (30% pts) pacer dependent or heart block (HB) (defined as AV had non-CRT with average RV pacing >90%) 80+11 yrs). True represented 31% & 33% all pts HB corresponding 72% 68% pacing/HB pts. Device-indicated 32% transmissions. Overall, 19% 20% true positives (TP=device- AF). Device percentages manufacturer 35% Boston Scientific, 29% St. Jude, 27% Medtronic, 8% Biotronik. Medtronic lowest transmissions/pt, highest positive rate at 75% (TPR=true / total transmissions) false negative 30% (FNR=false negatives/ normal transmissions). Biotronik 50% (FPR= positives/ (FNR) 14%. The mean TPR was 61%+11% per Murj system allows greater episodes, enabling quantification device-indication accuracy. In this study, common (72% patients; patients) often inaccurate classifications. Alternating high FPR FNR manufacturers highlight optimization challenge reducing alarms while maintaining TPR. Studies like provide critical context for clinicians interpreting events required CRM.