Key result
Remote-only pacemaker monitoring linked to ~86% fewer in-office visits versus appointment-based monitoring.
Why the study?
Remote monitoring enables convenient follow-up of patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices, but the feasibility and safety of medium-term remote-only monitoring in pacemaker patients needed evaluation.
Does remote-only monitoring reduce the need for in-office visits without increasing hospitalizations in pacemaker patients?
Cohort (n=606)
Does remote-only monitoring reduce the need for in-office visits without increasing hospitalizations in pacemaker patients?
Relative Risk: 6.9 (95% CI 4.9–9.9)
p-value: p=<0.001
Remote-only monitoring for pacemaker patients is feasible and significantly reduces the need for in-office visits without increasing hospitalizations.
Background Remote monitoring (RM) enables convenient follow‐up of patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices. In remote‐only monitoring (RM‐only), in‐person visits are only scheduled if needed based on RM findings. This study evaluated the feasibility and safety of medium‐term RM‐only of pacemaker (PM) patients. Methods All patients with Biotronik PM were included in the analysis. Data on the number and causes of additional in‐office device interrogations, actions due to the transmissions, hospitalizations and performance of RM were collected from a large cohort of PM patients followed by RM‐only. Results In total, 606 patients (302 females) with a mean age of 78 ± 12 years were included in the analysis. During the mean follow‐up of 2.8 years, 445 additional in‐office device interrogations were made in 287 patients (0.3 interrogations/year), and in 110 (25%) of these cases, changes to device programming were made. In a subgroup analysis of 100 patients with at least one year of prior appointment‐based device monitoring, the need for in‐office visits was 6.9 times higher per follow‐up year than in RM (IRR = 6.9, 95% CI 4.9–9.9; p < 0.001). The hospitalization rate in the entire cohort during RM was 0.3 / year with no difference in the rate of hospitalizations between the two monitoring methods (IRR 1, 95% CI 0.8–1.4, p = 0.8). The success of daily transmissions was 91.7%. Conclusion Our real‐world data indicate that RM‐only may be a viable option for long‐term follow‐up of PM patients. Portions of this manuscript contain text overlap with our previously published work because they describe the same methodology and standard clinical procedures. All overlapping material has been appropriately cited, and no previously published data, results, or conclusions have been duplicated without attribution.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sane et al. (2026) conducted a cohort in Pacemaker patients (n=606). Remote-only monitoring vs. Appointment-based device monitoring was evaluated on Need for in-office visits per follow-up year (IRR 6.9, 95% CI 4.9-9.9, p=<0.001). Remote-only monitoring of pacemaker patients was associated with significantly fewer in-office visits compared to appointment-based monitoring (IRR 6.9 for appointment vs remote; 95% CI 4.9-9.9; P<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: