In the article by Charitos et al, “A Comprehensive Evaluation of Rhythm Monitoring Strategies for the Detection of Atrial Fibrillation Recurrence: Insights From 647 Continuously Monitored Patients and Implications for Monitoring After Therapeutic Interventions” which was published in the August 14, 2012 issue of the journal (Circulation. 2012;126:806–814), an error occurred in the legend to Figure 1. The legend should read:
“Reconstruction of the rhythm history of patients A and B. Both patients have similar atrial fibrillation (AF) burden (AF burden for patient A=0.22; AF burden for patient B=0.21). The vastly different temporal aggregation of the AF episodes and AF burden in these patients is responsible for the different sensitivities of intermittent AF monitoring modalities in these patients.
For patient A, the probability of identification of AF recurrence in a 24-hour and 30-day monitor is Pr(24h|A)=0.23 and Pr(30d|A)=0.26. In this case, a random 30-day monitoring increases the sensitivity by only 3% from that which random 24-hour Holter monitoring (HM) would provide.
For patient B, the respective probabilities are Pr(24h|B)=1 and Pr(30d|B)=1.
The numbers 1 and 2 denote the time points of 2 random 24-hour HM tests, whereas the numbers 3 and 4 denote the time points of 2 random 30-day HM tests.”
The current online version of the article has been corrected. The authors regret the error.
- © 2012 American Heart Association, Inc.