Key result
Among 1,582 patients with remote monitoring, 10,406 transmissions were received, with 75.0% being un-eventful and 1.2% red alerts, projecting a workload of 25,990 transmissions/year for full coverage.
Why the study?
Remote monitoring of cardiac implantable electronic devices is standard of care, but organizational and projection workload models are needed.
Observational (n=3,995)
Remote monitoring of CIEDs generates a significant transmission workload, the vast majority of which (75%) are uneventful, highlighting the need for structured organizational planning and resource allocation.
CIED remote monitoring imposes high transmission workload requiring resource planning; leaves open optimal triage and workflow strategies for clinics.
Aim: The remote monitoring (RM) of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) is standard of care. We describe an organizational and projection RM workload model. Methods: At the time of the analysis (2015), 3995 CIED patients were followed-up; 1582 (40.5%) with RM. All RM transmissions (Tx) have been gathered in five event types. Results: We received 10,406 Tx, classified as: 128 (1.2%) red alerts, 141 (1.3%) atrial fibrillation episodes, 1944 (18.6%) yellow alerts, 403 (3.9%) lost Tx (disconnected/noncompliant patients) and 7790 (75.0%) Tx ‘OK' (un-eventful Tx). At the time of 100% of remote CIED managed, we can expect a total of 25,990 Tx/year. Conclusion: We provide a descriptive analysis of remote monitoring management and workload estimation in a large cohort of CIED patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zoppo et al. (2020) conducted an observational in Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) (n=3,995). Remote monitoring was evaluated on Remote monitoring transmissions and workload estimation. Among 1,582 patients with remote monitoring, 10,406 transmissions were received, with 75.0% being un-eventful and 1.2% red alerts, projecting a workload of 25,990 transmissions/year for full coverage.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: