Why the study?
Extensions of remote monitoring can provide greater efficiency, and LiveSupport was introduced as a solution allowing remote programming of BIOTRONIK devices, but its utilization, efficacy, and satisfaction levels required evaluation.
Does the LiveSupport remote programming system provide a safe, effective, and satisfactory extension of remote monitoring for patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices?
Observational (n=159)
Yes
Does the LiveSupport remote programming system provide a safe, effective, and satisfactory extension of remote monitoring for patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices?
Remote programming of CIEDs using the LiveSupport system is technically feasible, safe, and associated with high user satisfaction and significant time savings.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
May reduce clinician workload in CIED follow-up; extends observational support for remote programming but leaves practice change open pending RCTs.
Background As remote monitoring has become the standard of care for follow-up of cardiac implantable cardiac devices, extensions of remote monitoring can provide greater efficiency for the patient, caregiver, and industry representatives. To accomplish greater efficiency and flexibility of remote monitoring, and as an interim step toward "true" remote monitoring, LiveSupport was introduced as an innovative programmer and software solution that allows for remote programming of all current and most legacy BIOTRONIK devices. Objective To determine the utilization and efficacy of LiveSupport as an extension of remote monitoring and the level of satisfaction with this modality. Methods Analysis of the USA dataset of LiveSupport utilization from 04/01/2022 to 04/30/2025 was completed. In addition, satisfaction with LiveSupport was assessed with a total of 159 surveys of patients, remote caregivers, and industry representative. Results A total of 38,943 total LiveSupport sessions, from 2831 unique Renamic Neo Programmers, and 555 unique users were successfully completed. LiveSupport utilization increased substantially over time, peaking at 2,295 sessions per month. Survey results were consistent with high levels of satisfaction for patients, remote caregivers, and industry representatives. It was estimated that LiveSupport saved more than 60 min per patient in 78% of the sessions. Conclusion LiveSupport as an extension of remote monitoring is safe and effective with marked advantages for patients, remote caregivers, and industry representatives. This technical solution is an important step toward "true" remote monitoring of cardiac electronic implantable devices.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Prasad et al. (2026) conducted an observational in Remote programming of cardiac implantable electronic devices (n=159). LiveSupport vs. Standard follow-up in-person visits was evaluated on Time saved using LiveSupport sessions (null, 95% CI null, p=null).
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: