Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
PulseExploreClubsResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeClubsExplore
January 1, 2007Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology

Remote, Wireless, Ambulatory Monitoring of Implantable Pacemakers, Cardioverter Defibrillators, and Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Systems: Analysis of a Worldwide Database

View Full Paper
Ask AI
Bookmark
Share

Key result

Remote, wireless Home Monitoring in 11,624 cardiac device recipients provided a putative temporal gain of 154 and 64 days for event detection compared to standard 6- and 3-month follow-ups.

Why the study?

Does a remote, wireless Home Monitoring system reduce the time to event detection and optimize follow-up intervals in cardiac device recipients compared to standard practice?

Population

11,624 recipients of pacemakers, implantable cardioverter defibrillators, and combined ICD + cardiac…

Comparison

Remote, wireless Home Monitoring system with… vs Standard practice.

Design

Cohort

Follow-up

1 to 49 months

Authors

ALArnaud LazarusElectrophysiology

Discussion

Loading...

Member takes

Implication

May enable earlier event detection in device recipients; leaves open whether randomized trials confirm outcome benefits.

Study Design

Type

Observational (n=11,624)

Multicenter

Yes

Structured PICO

Does a remote, wireless Home Monitoring system reduce the time to event detection and optimize follow-up intervals in cardiac device recipients compared to standard practice?

P
Population
11,624 recipients of pacemakers (n = 4,631), implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD; n = 6,548), and combined ICD + cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT-D) systems (n = 445) worldwide.
I
Intervention
Remote, wireless Home Monitoring system (HM) with daily and automatic data transmission.
C
Comparator
Standard practice (routine follow-up visits at 3- or 6-month intervals).
O
Outcome
Average time gained in the detection of events using HM versus standard practice, impact of HM on physician workload, and mean interval between device interrogations.

Remote wireless monitoring of cardiac devices significantly reduces the time to event detection compared to standard follow-up intervals, potentially enhancing patient safety and optimizing healthcare resources.

Cite This Study

Arnaud Lazarus (2007) conducted an observational in Cardiac device recipients (pacemakers, ICDs, CRT-D) (n=11,624). Remote, wireless Home Monitoring system (HM) vs. Standard practice (guideline-recommended follow-up) was evaluated on Average time gained in the detection of events using HM versus standard practice. Remote, wireless Home Monitoring in 11,624 cardiac device recipients provided a putative temporal gain of 154 and 64 days for event detection compared to standard 6- and 3-month follow-ups.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a154e48b03a896dfa82081fhttps://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-8159.2007.00595.x

Topics

Cardiac device therapy
View Full Paper
Ask AI
Bookmark
Share

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Compliance and Effectiveness of 1 Year's Home Telemonitoring. The Report of a Pilot Study of Patients with Chronic Heart Failure2001 · 195 citations
  2. 2A Systematic Review of Telemonitoring for the Management of Heart Failure2003 · 263 citations
  3. 3Effect of a Standardized Nurse Case-Management Telephone Intervention on Resource Use in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure2002 · 473 citations
  4. 4Efficacy of Repeat Pulmonary Vein Isolation Procedures in Patients with Recurrent Atrial Fibrillation2004 · 296 citations
  5. 5Remote Monitoring of Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators:2004 · 195 citations