Quarterly vs. yearly clinical follow-up of remotely monitored recipients of prophylactic implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: results of the REFORM trial
Why the study?
Does a 12-month in-office follow-up interval reduce the burden of ICD follow-up visits compared to a 3-month interval in primary prevention ICD patients under remote monitoring?
Population
155 primary prevention ICD recipients with MADIT II indications
Comparison
12-month in-office follow-up intervals with… vs 3-month in-office follow-up intervals with…
Design
RCT, randomized
Follow-up
2 years (between 3 and 27 months after implantation)
Authors
Discussion
Loading...
Member takes
Implication
Supports annual in-office ICD follow-up with remote monitoring in primary prevention; extends RCT evidence for safely reduced visit burden.
Structured PICO
Does a 12-month in-office follow-up interval reduce the burden of ICD follow-up visits compared to a 3-month interval in primary prevention ICD patients under remote monitoring?
P
Population
155 primary prevention ICD recipients with MADIT II indications
I
Intervention
12-month in-office follow-up intervals with automatic daily remote monitoring (Biotronik Home Monitoring)
C
Comparator
3-month in-office follow-up intervals with automatic daily remote monitoring
O
Outcome
Burden of scheduled and unscheduled ICD follow-up visits
In prophylactic ICD recipients with daily remote monitoring, extending in-office follow-up to 12 months safely reduces the total follow-up burden without worsening clinical outcomes.
Cite This Study
Hindricks et al. (2013) studied this question.