Why the study?
Does remote patient monitoring reduce healthcare resource utilization and improve early event detection in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices compared to standard in-clinic follow-up?
Does remote patient monitoring reduce healthcare resource utilization and improve early event detection in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices compared to standard in-clinic follow-up?
Automatic remote monitoring of cardiac implantable devices safely reduces routine clinic visits while enabling earlier detection of actionable clinical events and system malfunctions.
Cardiac implantable electronic devices are increasing in prevalence. The post-implant follow-up is important for monitoring both device function and patient condition. However, practice is inconsistent. For example, ICD follow-up schedules vary from 3 monthly to yearly according to facility and physician preference and availability of resources. Recommended follow-up schedules impose significant burden. Importantly, no surveillance occurs between follow-up visits. In contrast, implantable devices with automatic remote monitoring capability provide a means for performing constant surveillance, with the ability to identify salient problems rapidly. Remote home monitoring reduces the volume of device clinic visits and provides early detection of patient and/or system problems.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Varma et al. (2012) conducted a review in Patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). Remote patient monitoring vs. Standard in-clinic follow-up was evaluated.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: