Key result
Fully digital data processing during ambulatory CIED follow-up was feasible and did not significantly change the total duration of follow-up visits compared to manual data transfer (18.7 vs. 18.2 minutes, p=0.49).
Why the study?
Does fully digital data processing improve data transfer quality or reduce follow-up duration compared to manual processing in patients undergoing routine CIED follow-up?
Cohort (n=391)
No
Does fully digital data processing improve data transfer quality or reduce follow-up duration compared to manual processing in patients undergoing routine CIED follow-up?
Absolute Event Rate: 18.7% vs 18.2%
p-value: p=0.49
Fully digital data processing during CIED follow-up is feasible and highly successful without increasing the duration of the follow-up visit compared to manual processing.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Supports feasibility of digital CIED follow-up without time penalty; leaves open efficiency gains in scaled implementation.
Staudacher et al. (2017) conducted a cohort in Cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) (n=391). Fully digital data processing (FDDP) vs. Manual data transfer was evaluated on Total duration of follow-up visit (minutes) (p=0.49). Fully digital data processing during ambulatory CIED follow-up was feasible and did not significantly change the total duration of follow-up visits compared to manual data transfer (18.7 vs. 18.2 minutes, p=0.49).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: