Key result
Smartphone app remote monitoring linked to ~100-day faster notification of alert-based events versus standard care.
Why the study?
Bedside transmitters for remote monitoring of cardiac implantable electronic devices are suboptimal due to deficient adherence, prompting evaluation of smartphone app-based solutions.
Does smartphone app-based remote monitoring reduce the time to notification of alert-based events in heart failure patients with CRT-Ds?
Cohort (n=81)
Yes
Does smartphone app-based remote monitoring reduce the time to notification of alert-based events in heart failure patients with CRT-Ds?
Absolute Event Rate: 1% vs 101%
p-value: p=<0.0001
Smartphone app-based remote monitoring for CRT-D patients achieves high adherence and dramatically shortens the time to clinical notification for arrhythmic and device events, though smartphone access remains a significant enrollment barrier.
App-based monitoring was associated with faster notifications in CRT-D patients; leaves open outcome benefits and requires randomized trials before practice change.
Background/Objectives: Remote monitoring (RM) cardiac implantable electronic devices for adults delivers improved patient outcomes. However, previously used bedside transmitters are not optimal due to deficient patient adherence. The goal of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of RM regarding the connectivity of smartphone app-based solutions, adherence to scheduled automatic follow-ups, and prevalence of alert-based events. Methods: We evaluated the adult heart failure (HF) population with an implanted cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator (CRT-D) divided into two arms: with app-based RM (abRM) and without app-based RM (control). Results: A total of 81 patients (median age of 69.0) were included in our study. Sixty-five patients received a CRT-D with abRM functionality, and sixteen did not. Twelve patients had no smartphone, and two provided no consent, resulting in their transfer to the control group. Finally, the abRM arm consisted of 51 patients, while 30 patients were in the control group. The median period of follow-up lasted 12 months. Among abRM patients, 98.0% successfully transmitted their first scheduled follow-up, and 80.4% were continuously monitored. Alert-based events were mainly related to arrhythmic events and device functionality with significantly shorter median times to notification (1 day vs. 101 days; p < 0.0001) in the abRM group. Conclusions: Our study showed a high level of compliance with timely initial transmission and adherence to scheduled remote follow-ups. Patient enrollment eligibility was a major challenge due to the limited accessibility of smartphones in the population. App-based RM demonstrated an accurate notification of events and patient-initiated transmissions in emergencies, regardless of location.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kowal et al. (2024) conducted a cohort in Heart failure with CRT-D (n=81). Smartphone app-based remote monitoring (abRM) vs. Standard care without app-based remote monitoring (in-clinic follow-ups) was evaluated on Median time to notification of alert-based events (arrhythmic events and device functionality) (p=<0.0001). Smartphone app-based remote monitoring significantly reduced the median time to notification of alert-based events compared to standard care (1 day vs. 101 days, p<0.0001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: