Why the study?
Regular in-clinic follow-ups for cardiac implantable electronic devices place a substantial burden on healthcare systems, highlighting the need to explore remote follow-up and monitoring.
Does remote follow-up and monitoring of CIEDs provide a safe and cost-effective alternative to in-clinic follow-ups?
Does remote follow-up and monitoring of CIEDs provide a safe and cost-effective alternative to in-clinic follow-ups?
Remote follow-up and monitoring of CIEDs has the potential to replace many in-clinic procedures, alleviating healthcare burden cost-effectively without compromising safety.
Cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implantation is a diagnostic and therapeutic method that is being employed on a growing number of patients globally. These devices require long-term follow-up and monitoring, and after implantation, regular follow-ups are conducted at specific intervals. These follow-ups provide crucial information about both the device and the patient, aiding in diagnosis and guiding treatment. These monitoring procedures, which are usually performed in a clinical setting, place a substantial burden on the healthcare system and its personnel. Remote follow-up and monitoring, as discussed in this article, has the potential to replace many in-clinic follow-up/monitoring procedures, meeting the device and patient monitoring needs without compromising safety. Thus, it can alleviate the burden on the healthcare system and its personnel in a cost-effective manner. This article aims to provide a comprehensive exploration of remote follow-up and monitoring for CIEDs.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Serkan Çay (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: