Key result
Remote monitoring of ICDs significantly reduced mean non-hospital costs per patient-year compared to ambulatory follow-up (€1695 vs. €1952, P=0.04), resulting in cost savings.
Why the study?
Does remote monitoring reduce follow-up costs in patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators compared to ambulatory follow-ups?
Population
310 patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs)
Comparison
Remote monitoring vs Ambulatory follow-ups
Design
RCT, randomly assigned
Follow-up
27 months
Authors
Loading...
Supports remote ICD monitoring to reduce non-hospital costs; extends RCT evidence for cost-effectiveness over ambulatory follow-up.
RCT (n=310)
Does remote monitoring reduce follow-up costs in patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators compared to ambulatory follow-ups?
Mean Difference: 257
Absolute Event Rate: 1695% vs 1952%
p-value: p=0.04
Remote monitoring of ICD patients is cost-saving compared to routine ambulatory follow-ups from the perspective of the French health insurance system.
Guédon-Moreau et al. (2014) conducted an RCT in Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) (n=310). Remote monitoring vs. Ambulatory follow-ups was evaluated on Mean non-hospital costs per patient-year (€257 difference, p=0.04). Remote monitoring of ICDs significantly reduced mean non-hospital costs per patient-year compared to ambulatory follow-up (€1695 vs. €1952, P=0.04), resulting in cost savings.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: