Key result
Follow-up of cardiac implantable electronic devices by industry representatives alone was associated with a 38% prevalence of programming errors.
Why the study?
Does follow-up by a cardiologist reduce programming errors in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices compared to follow-up by industry representatives alone?
Observational (n=403)
No
Does follow-up by a cardiologist reduce programming errors in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices compared to follow-up by industry representatives alone?
Follow-up of cardiac implantable electronic devices by industry representatives alone is associated with a high rate of programming errors, highlighting the necessity of physician oversight.
Raises caution for industry-only CIED follow-up; leaves open optimal models pending prospective trials.
OBJECTIVE: This retrospective study sought to research the adequacy of the follow-up and optimization of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) performed by industry representatives. METHODS: A total of 403 consecutive patients (35% females; median age, 67 years; age range 18-97 years) with either pacemakers (n=246), implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs), (n=117) or cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator (CRT-D) (n=40) applied to our hospital's outpatient pacemaker clinic for follow-up. These patients had been followed up by industry representatives alone until September 2013 and then by a cardiologist who is dealing with cardiac electrophysiology and has a knowledge of CIED follow-up. RESULTS: It was ascertained that 117 (47.6%) of 246 patients with pacemakers had a programming error. Forty-three (36.8%) of 117 patients were symptomatic, and after reprogramming, all symptoms diminished partially or completely during the follow-up. Moreover, 30 (25.6%) of 117 patients with ICDs had a programming error. Furthermore, 6 (15%) of 40 patients with CRT-Ds had a programming error. To conclude, when all patients with CIEDs were assessed together, it was ascertained that 153 (38%) of 403 patients had programming errors. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of inappropriate programming of CIEDs by industry representatives was quite higher than expected. Therefore, our study strongly demonstrates that CIED follow-up should not be allowed to be performed entirely by manufacturers' representatives alone.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Çağın Mustafa Üreyen (2017) conducted an observational in Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) (n=403). Follow-up by industry representatives alone was evaluated on Programming error. Follow-up of cardiac implantable electronic devices by industry representatives alone was associated with a 38% prevalence of programming errors.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: