Key result
Remote ICD monitoring in patients with Brugada syndrome significantly decreased the mean number of cardiology consultations compared to standard ICDs (3 vs. 7; P<0.001).
Why the study?
Does remote ICD monitoring reduce outpatient cardiology consultations and inappropriate shocks in patients with Brugada syndrome?
Cohort (n=70)
Does remote ICD monitoring reduce outpatient cardiology consultations and inappropriate shocks in patients with Brugada syndrome?
Absolute Event Rate: 3% vs 7%
p-value: p=<0.001
Remote ICD monitoring in patients with Brugada syndrome significantly reduces the burden of outpatient cardiology consultations and facilitates early detection of device issues that may prevent inappropriate shocks.
Remote monitoring was associated with fewer consultations in Brugada syndrome; hypothesis-generating and requires randomized confirmation.
AIMS: The diagnosis of Brugada syndrome (BS) is typically made in a young and otherwise healthy population. In patients with a high risk of sudden cardiac death (SCD), the only currently recommended therapy is an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD), but these are not without complications. We investigated whether remote ICD monitoring could simplify follow-up and detect potential complications in these patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: Thirty-five consecutive patients (26 males, 44 +/- 11 years) implanted with an ICD for BS with a remote monitoring ['Home Monitoring' (HM), Biotronik, Germany] system were prospectively enrolled in this study. They were matched for age, sex, and follow-up duration with 35 BS patients implanted with an ICD without this capability. During a mean follow-up of 33 +/- 17 months, the number of cardiology consultations was significantly lower in the HM group (3 +/- 2 vs. 7 +/- 3; P < 0.001). Inappropriate shock(s) [IS(s)] occurred in three patients (8.5%) in the HM group vs. six (17%) in the control group (P = NS). Ten patients in the HM group had a median of four alerts ('ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation detection' in all patients, 'shock' in three, 'ineffective shock' in two patients with shock on noise, 'extreme ventricular pacing impedance' in one patient due to lead failure, and 'deactivated therapy' in two patients with lead failure before replacement). In 5 of these 10 patients, prompt reprogramming of the ICD may have prevented IS(s). CONCLUSION: Remote ICD monitoring in patients with BS decreases outpatient consultations and may help prevent ISs.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sacher et al. (2008) conducted a cohort in Brugada syndrome (n=70). Remote ICD monitoring vs. ICD without remote monitoring capability was evaluated on Number of cardiology consultations (p=<0.001). Remote ICD monitoring in patients with Brugada syndrome significantly decreased the mean number of cardiology consultations compared to standard ICDs (3 vs. 7; P<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: