Key result
A survey of 171 patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices in South Korea revealed that 85.4% favored remote monitoring over conventional hospital visits, mainly due to long travel times.
Why the study?
Due to a lack of local research on remote monitoring in Korea, evidence for policy or insurance standards was lacking despite high demand by domestic arrhythmia experts.
Observational (n=171)
No
Absolute Event Rate: 85.4% vs 14.6%
A large majority of CIED patients in South Korea prefer remote monitoring over conventional hospital visits, primarily to reduce travel time and socioeconomic burden.
Korean survey data on remote monitoring may inform local policy; leaves open reimbursement standards and prospective safety validation.
BACKGROUND/AIMS: Studies showed that remote device monitoring reduced unnecessary outpatient visits and increased patient satisfaction. As there was no local research on remote monitoring (RM) in Korea, there was a lack of evidence for policy or insurance standards due to the lack of domestic data despite high demand by domestic arrhythmia experts. To establish the basis for patient satisfaction, economic efficiency, and safety of wireless monitoring, a survey-based study was planned. METHODS: This was a single-university hospital survey. The satisfaction index was evaluated using a questionnaire to investigate patient satisfaction in outpatient clinics, economic efficiency (measured as home-to-clinic time, waiting time, and actual clinic time), and demand for RM in patients with implantable cardiac devices. The questionnaire was adopted and modified from the Survey on Telehealth Patient Experience by Bas-Villalobos, 2006 (modified Korean version 2.0 by You Mi Hwang, 2020). RESULTS: Surveys were answered by 171 patients. The mean age of these patients was 71.2 ± 12.4 years. Based on the survey, home to clinic time was usually less than one h, mean waiting time in the hospital until clinic time ranged 42.6 ± 24.5 minutes, and mean clinic time ranged 3.1 ± 1.7 minutes. Based on the survey, patients favored RM over hospital visits with cardiac implantable electronic device follow-up mainly because of long travel times from home to clinic. CONCLUSION: Based on the survey results, there is a clear need for RM in patients who have cardiac implantable electronic devices.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hwang et al. (2022) conducted an observational in Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) (n=171). Remote monitoring preference vs. Conventional hospital visits was evaluated on Patient preference for remote monitoring versus hospital visits. A survey of 171 patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices in South Korea revealed that 85.4% favored remote monitoring over conventional hospital visits, mainly due to long travel times.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: