Why the study?
The effect of remote patient monitoring on patient-reported outcomes in the first 2 years after implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation had not been evaluated in a randomized trial.
Does remote patient monitoring plus yearly in-clinic check-ups improve patient-reported health status and ICD acceptance compared to 3-6-month in-clinic check-ups alone in European heart failure patients with an ICD?
Does remote patient monitoring plus yearly in-clinic check-ups improve patient-reported health status and ICD acceptance compared to 3-6-month in-clinic check-ups alone in European heart failure patients with an ICD?
Remote patient monitoring does not significantly impact patient-reported health status or ICD acceptance compared to standard in-clinic check-ups in the first 2 years after ICD implantation.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Remote monitoring adds no benefit for health status or ICD acceptance; supports standard in-clinic schedules as sufficient for the first 2 years.
AIMS: The European REMOTE-CIED study is the first randomized trial primarily designed to evaluate the effect of remote patient monitoring (RPM) on patient-reported outcomes in the first 2 years after implantation of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD). METHODS AND RESULTS: The sample consisted of 595 European heart failure patients implanted with an ICD compatible with the Boston Scientific LATITUDE® RPM system. Patients were randomized to RPM plus a yearly in-clinic ICD check-up vs. 3-6-month in-clinic check-ups alone. At five points during the 2-year follow-up, patients completed questionnaires including the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire and Florida Patient Acceptance Survey (FPAS) to assess their heart failure-specific health status and ICD acceptance, respectively. Information on clinical status was obtained from patients' medical records. Linear regression models were used to compare scores between groups over time. Intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses showed no significant group differences in patients' health status and ICD acceptance (subscale) scores (all Ps > 0.05). Exploratory subgroup analyses indicated a temporary improvement in device acceptance (FPAS total score) at 6-month follow-up for secondary prophylactic in-clinic patients only (P < 0.001). No other significant subgroup differences were observed. CONCLUSION: Large clinical trials have indicated that RPM can safely and effectively replace most in-clinic check-ups of ICD patients. The REMOTE-CIED trial results show that patient-reported health status and ICD acceptance do not differ between patients on RPM and patients receiving in-clinic check-ups alone in the first 2 years after ICD implantation.ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01691586.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Versteeg et al. (2019) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: