Why the study?
Does remote control of implanted devices improve early detection of atrial fibrillation, reduce costs, and prevent stroke in patients with pacemakers and ICDs?
Population
582 patients implanted with pacemakers (PMs) and implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs)
Comparison
Remote control (RC) follow-up vs Ambulatory care clinic follow-up (AMB)
Design
Cohort
Key result
Remote control of implanted devices reduced the median time to atrial fibrillation detection compared to ambulatory care (2 days vs 78 days) and yielded direct cost savings.
Authors
Loading...
Supports remote monitoring for earlier AF detection and savings in device patients; leaves open stroke prevention without randomized confirmation.
Cohort (n=582)
Does remote control of implanted devices improve early detection of atrial fibrillation, reduce costs, and prevent stroke in patients with pacemakers and ICDs?
Absolute Event Rate: 2% vs 78%
Remote monitoring of pacemakers and ICDs significantly reduces the time to detect new-onset atrial fibrillation, leading to potential cost savings and a simulated reduction in stroke risk.
Lorenzoni et al. (2014) conducted a cohort in New-onset atrial fibrillation in patients with pacemakers and ICDs (n=582). Remote control of implanted devices vs. Ambulatory care clinics was evaluated on Median time to AF detection (days). Remote control of implanted devices reduced the median time to atrial fibrillation detection compared to ambulatory care (2 days vs 78 days) and yielded direct cost savings.