Key result
Home-delivered remote monitoring for cardiac implantable electronic devices resulted in similar activation times compared to office-delivered monitoring (1.33 vs 1.28 days; p=0.60).
Why the study?
The study evaluated a new remote monitoring follow-up protocol implemented during the Italian lockdown to limit in-hospital COVID-19 exposure for patients with cardiac electronic implantable devices.
Does home-delivered remote monitoring affect activation time and patient satisfaction compared to office-delivered remote monitoring in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices?
Cohort (n=332)
Does home-delivered remote monitoring affect activation time and patient satisfaction compared to office-delivered remote monitoring in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices?
Absolute Event Rate: 1.33% vs 1.28%
p-value: p=0.60
Home-delivered remote monitoring for cardiac implantable electronic devices is feasible, effective, and well-tolerated, with activation times comparable to office-delivered monitoring.
Home delivery yields similar activation times; hypothesis-generating for satisfaction and adoption pending RCTs.
Introduction: Remote monitoring (RM) has profoundly transformed the standard of care for patients with cardiac electronic implantable devices. It provides easy access to valuable information about arrhythmic events, acute decompensation manifestations and device-related issues without the need of continuous in-person visits. Methods: Starting March 1st, 332 patients were introduced to a RM program during the Italian lockdown in order to limit the risk of in-hospital exposure to Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2. Patients were categorized in two groups based on the modality of RM delivery [home (n=229) vs office (n= 103) delivered]. The study aimed at assessing the efficacy of the new follow-up protocol, reported as the mean RM Activation Time (AT) and the need for technical support for its activation. Patients’ acceptance and anxiety status was also quantified by means of the Home Monitoring Acceptance and Satisfaction Questionnaire and the Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item scale. Results: AT time was <48 hours in 93% of patients and 7% of them required further technical support. Despite a higher number of trans-telephonic technical support in home-delivered RM group, AT was comparable between groups (1.33±0.83 days in home-delivered vs 1.28±0.81 days in office-delivered patients; p=0.60). Twenty-eight (2.5%) urgent/emergent in-person examinations were planned. High degree of patient’s satisfaction was reached in both groups while anxiety status was higher in office-delivered group. Conclusions: RM was effective, safe and well tolerated by patients during the Italian lockdown. Our findings confirm the efficacy of this approach to reduce in-hospital visits, guaranteeing patients’ safety and quality of care.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Piro et al. (2020) conducted a cohort in Cardiac implantable electronic devices (n=332). Home-delivered remote monitoring vs. Office-delivered remote monitoring was evaluated on Mean remote monitoring Activation Time (AT) (p=0.60). Home-delivered remote monitoring for cardiac implantable electronic devices resulted in similar activation times compared to office-delivered monitoring (1.33 vs 1.28 days; p=0.60).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: