Key result
Remote ICD follow-up is linked to ~13-minute shorter visits versus conventional in-clinic checks.
Why the study?
The costs and safety of remote telephone follow-up for patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators compared to conventional clinic visits were not well established.
Observational (n=20)
Mean Difference: -12.7
Absolute Event Rate: 13.1% vs 25.8%
p-value: p=<0.05
May shorten time and costs for ICD follow-up; leaves open confirmation of safety in prospective trials.
We examined the costs and safety of follow-up of patients with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD). In a prospective study, a remote monitoring system was used to interrogate ICD devices via telephone. Twenty patients with an ICD were followed up conventionally (clinic visits) or remotely at 1, 3 and 6 months after implantation of the ICD. A total of 30 transmissions of ICD data were made via the remote monitoring system. Five transmissions (17%) were interrupted, mainly due to a loss of telemetry, but no data were lost. The duration of the remote follow-up was 12.7 min less than follow-up in clinic (25.8 min, P < 0.05). Five of the remote follow-up transmissions concerned arrhythmia episodes. These lasted significantly longer than those without arrhythmia (16.6 vs. 4.9 min, P < 0.05). In three patients an unscheduled visit to the outpatient clinic was necessary. The cost of remote follow-up for 100 ICD patients/year was calculated to be €44,267, or about 16% of the cost of conventional in-clinic follow-up.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bikou et al. (2010) conducted an observational in Implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) (n=20). Remote monitoring system via telephone vs. Conventional follow-up (clinic visits) was evaluated on Duration of follow-up (MD -12.7, p=<0.05). Remote follow-up of ICD patients via telephone was 12.7 minutes shorter than conventional in-clinic follow-up (P<0.05) and was calculated to cost about 16% of conventional follow-up.