Key result
Remote device management links to fewer inappropriate shocks and improved survival over conventional follow-up.
Why the study?
Pacemaker and ICD patients are ideally suited to remote management, but comprehensive clinical evidence summarizing its advantages and safety was needed.
Remote monitoring may aid early event detection in PM/ICD patients; leaves open optimal implementation and outcome impact in routine care.
Pacemaker (PM) and implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) patients are ideally suited to remote management in the form of remote follow-up as well as of remote monitoring, which are both acts of telemedicine. Large randomized trials, such as TRUST, COMPAS, CONNECT, ECOST and EVOLVO, and the huge ALTITUDE registry provided a high level of evidence for the multiple advantages of remote management. These trials demonstrated the capability of early detection of events, the ability to reduce the incidence of inappropriate shocks and also of all charged shocks and this despite fewer in-clinic visits for the patients. The studies also demonstrated the safety of remote management of ICD and PM patients and moreover its positive impact on the survival of patients. Thereby, remote monitoring is clinically much more effective and efficient than conventional follow-up.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Guédon-Moreau et al. (2013) conducted a review in Pacemaker and implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) patients. Remote patient management (remote follow-up and monitoring) vs. Conventional follow-up was evaluated. Remote management of pacemaker and ICD patients demonstrated safety, reduced incidence of inappropriate shocks, and positively impacted survival compared to conventional follow-up.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: