Key result
Remote monitoring of implantable cardioverter defibrillators faces significant legal and organizational constraints that urgently require specific juridical guidance for adoption.
Legal and organizational hurdles must be addressed to enable the widespread adoption of remote monitoring for ICD patients.
Legal constraints limit ICD remote monitoring adoption; literature review leaves open optimal juridical frameworks for safe clinical use.
The remote monitoring of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) recently emerged as an attractive technological innovation that proved to be reasonably safe in partially replacing the in-clinic follow-ups of ICD patients with no or only mild symptoms. Apart from the fact that strong evidence about any additional clinical benefits and/or cost-efficiency are still awaited, legal and organizational hurdles remain in place, hampering any possibility for adoption of remote cardiac monitoring. This paper identifies a number of legal and organizational constraints which urgently need to be addressed. An elaboration of the specific juridical guidance for the interpretation and application of the relevant legislation is called for.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Vinck et al. (2012) conducted a review in Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs). Remote cardiac monitoring vs. In-clinic follow-ups was evaluated. Remote monitoring of implantable cardioverter defibrillators faces significant legal and organizational constraints that urgently require specific juridical guidance for adoption.
Synapse has enriched 3 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: