Why the study?
Despite recommendations and potential clinical advantages, remote monitoring of CIEDs lacks widespread diffusion across Europe due to heterogeneous reimbursement policies.
Heterogeneous reimbursement policies across Europe remain a significant barrier to the widespread implementation of remote monitoring for cardiac implantable electrical devices.
Heterogeneous reimbursement may limit remote CIED monitoring uptake; leaves open optimal policy models for implementation research.
Remote monitoring (RM) of cardiac implantable electrical devices (CIEDs) is currently proposed as a standard of care for CIEDs follow-up, as recommended by major cardiology societies worldwide. By detecting a series of relevant device and patient-related parameters, RM is a valuable option for early detection of CIEDs' technical issues, as well as changes in parameters related to cardio-respiratory functions. Moreover, RM may allow longer spacing between in-office follow-ups and better organization of in-hospital resources. Despite these potential advantages, resulting in improved patient safety, we are still far from a widespread diffusion of RM across Europe. Reimbursement policies across Europe still show an important heterogeneity and have been considered as an important barrier to full implementation of RM as a standard for the follow-up of all the patients with pacemakers, defibrillators, devices for cardiac resynchronization, or implantable loop recorders. Indeed, in many countries, there are still inertia and unresponsiveness to the request for widespread implementation of RM for CIEDs, although an improvement was found in some countries as compared to years ago, related to the provision of some form of reimbursement. As a matter of fact, the COVID-19 pandemic has promoted an increased use of digital health for connecting physicians to patients, even if digital literacy may be a limit for the widespread implementation of telemedicine. CIEDs have the advantage of making possible RM with an already defined organization and reliable systems for data transmissions that can be easily implemented as a standard of care for present and future cardiology practice.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Boriani et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: