Key result
Remote-only follow-up significantly reduced the proportion of patients with implantable defibrillators requiring in-clinic visits at specialized sites from 54% to 10% (p < 0.001).
Why the study?
While remote monitoring combined with in-clinic visits improves outcomes for patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices, the feasibility, safety, healthcare utilization, quality of life, and costs of remote-only follow-up remained undetermined.
Does remote-only follow-up reduce health care utilization and costs without compromising safety or quality of life in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices?
Cohort (n=176)
Yes
Does remote-only follow-up reduce health care utilization and costs without compromising safety or quality of life in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices?
Absolute Event Rate: 10% vs 54%
p-value: p=<0.001
A remote-only monitoring strategy for patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices is feasible, safe, and reduces healthcare utilization and costs without negatively impacting quality of life.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
May reduce specialized visits for defibrillator patients; leaves open confirmation of long-term safety and cost-effectiveness in randomized trials.
Sapp et al. (2021) conducted a cohort in Cardiac implantable electronic devices (pacemakers or implantable cardioverter defibrillators) (n=176). Remote-only follow-up vs. Standard in-clinic follow-up (before phase) was evaluated on In-clinic visits at specialized sites (implantable cardioverter defibrillator patients) (p=<0.001). Remote-only follow-up significantly reduced the proportion of patients with implantable defibrillators requiring in-clinic visits at specialized sites from 54% to 10% (p < 0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: