Key result
Smartphone-based remote monitoring is linked to ~11% higher enrollment rates over traditional bedside monitors.
Why the study?
Remote monitoring is standard of care for cardiac implantable electronic device follow-up, but smartphone-based monitoring had not been compared to traditional bedside monitoring.
Does smartphone-based remote monitoring improve compliance and connectivity compared to bedside monitor remote monitoring in patients with ICDs or CRT-Ds?
Cohort (n=18,794)
Yes
Does smartphone-based remote monitoring improve compliance and connectivity compared to bedside monitor remote monitoring in patients with ICDs or CRT-Ds?
Smartphone-based remote monitoring for cardiac implantable electronic devices significantly improves patient compliance, connectivity, and event transmission times compared to traditional bedside monitors.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
May boost remote monitoring enrollment in CIED patients; leaves open whether gains improve outcomes.
Aims Remote monitoring (RM) is the standard of care for follow up of patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices. The aim of this study was to compare smartphone-based RM (SM-RM) using patient applications (myMerlinPulse™ app) with traditional bedside monitor RM (BM-RM). Methods and results The retrospective study included de-identified US patients who received either SM-RM or BM-RM capable of implantable cardioverter defibrillators or cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillators (Abbott, USA). Patients in SM-RM and BM-RM groups were propensity-score matched on age and gender, device type, implant year, and month. Compliance with RM was quantified as the proportion of patients enrolling in the RM system (Merlin.net™) and transmitting data at least once. Connectivity was measured by the median number of days between consecutive transmissions per patient. Of the initial 9714 patients with SM-RM and 26 679 patients with BM-RM, 9397 patients from each group were matched. Remote monitoring compliance was higher in SM-RM; significantly more patients with SM-RM were enrolled in RM compared with BM-RM (94.4 vs. 85.0%, P < 0.001), similar number of patients in the SM-RM group paired their device (95.1 vs. 95.0%, P = 0.77), but more SM-RM patients transmitted at least once (98.1 vs. 94.3%, P < 0.001). Connectivity was significantly higher in the SM-RM, with patients transmitting data every 1.2 (1.1, 1.7) vs. every 1.7 (1.5, 2.0) days with BM-RM (P < 0.001) and remained better over time. Significantly more SM-RM patients utilized patient-initiated transmissions compared with BM-RM (55.6 vs. 28.1%, P < 0.001). Conclusion In this large real-world study, patients with SM-RM demonstrated improved compliance and connectivity compared with BM-RM.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Manyam et al. (2022) conducted a cohort in Patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (ICDs or CRT-Ds) (n=18,794). Smartphone-based remote monitoring (SM-RM) vs. Bedside monitor remote monitoring (BM-RM) was evaluated on Enrollment in the remote monitoring system (compliance) (p=<0.001). Smartphone-based remote monitoring improved patient enrollment in the remote monitoring system compared to traditional bedside monitors.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: