Diagnostic work-up for detection of @entity955 after acute @entity385 : cross-sectional survey on german XXXX units.

@entity1 @entity64 @entity63 @entity955 @entity385
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Multiple methods to detect @entity955 ( @entity955 ) in @entity1 with @entity64 are available. However, it is unknown which approaches are currently used in clinical routine and guidelines remain vague to the extent of cardiac monitoring. We characterize diagnostic efforts for @entity955 detection on German @entity64 units (SU). METHODS: A standardized anonymous questionnaire was sent to all clinical leads of certified SUs in Germany. The questionnaire focused on basic characteristics of SUs, procedures to detect AF, and estimates on AF detection. RESULTS: One hundred seventy-nine SU leads participated (response rate 71.6%). All @entity1 undergo continuous bedside ECG monitoring. A percentage of 77.6 SUs initiate additional 24-hour Holter ECG in >50% of @entity1 without known AF. @entity1 with transient @entity63 attack are monitored significantly shorter than @entity1 with @entity385 . Independent of SU type or size, 67.6% of leads assumed to fail detecting @entity955 in 5% to 20% of @entity1 . In cryptogenic @entity64 , additional ECG monitoring is recommended by 90.2% but only 13.8% of SUs perform routine ECG follow-up visits. The use of implanted event recorders is low (1-10 @entity1 /y by 60.7% of SUs; 28.1%: no use). A percentage of 83.9 do not use external event recorders. CONCLUSIONS: Our survey demonstrates substantial heterogeneity among German SUs on diagnostic work-up for @entity955 . Future prospective multicenter studies should systematically evaluate the impact of different methods to uncover @entity955 .
