A centralized home monitoring model for CIED patients was feasible, requiring 30 minutes for a telemonitoring nurse and 1.1 minutes for a physician daily per 100 patients monitored.
Observational (n=121)
Yes
Does a centralized home monitoring model provide feasible, safe, and clinically useful care with manageable workload in patients with pacemakers and ICDs?
A centralized home monitoring model for CIED patients is feasible and safe, requiring minimal daily time commitment while effectively prompting necessary clinical interventions.
AIM: Automated, daily Home Monitoring (HM) of pacemaker and implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) patients can improve patient care. Yet, HM introduction to routine clinical practice is challenged by resource allocation for regular HM data review. We tested the feasibility, safety, workload, and clinical usefulness of a centralized HM model consisting of one monitor centre and nine satellite clinics. METHODS AND RESULTS: Having no knowledge about patients' clinical data, a telemonitoring nurse (TN) and a supporting physician at the monitor centre screened and filtered HM data in 62 pacemaker and 59 ICD patients from nine satellite clinics for over 1 year. Basic screening of arrhythmic and technical events required 25.7 min (TN) and 0.7 min (physician) per working day, normalized for 100 patients monitored. Communication of relevant events to satellite clinics per email or phone required additional 4.3 min (TN) and 0.4 min (physician). Telemonitoring nurse also screened for abnormal developments in longitudinal data trends weekly for 3 months after implantation, and then monthly; one patient session lasted 4.0 ± 2.9 min. To handle transmission-gap notifications, TN needed additional 2.8 min daily. Satellite clinics received 231.3 observations from the monitor centre per 100 patients/year, which prompted 86.3 patient contacts or intensive HM screening periods by the satellite clinic itself (37.3% response rate), 51.7 extra follow-up controls (22.3%), and 30.1 clinical interventions (13.0%). CONCLUSION: Centralized HM was feasible, reliable, safe, and clinically useful. Basic screening and communication of relevant arrhythmic and technical events required a total of 30 min (TN) and 1.1 min (physician) daily per 100 patients monitored.
Vogtmann et al. (Fri,) conducted a observational in Pacemaker and implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) patients (n=121). Centralized Home Monitoring (HM) model was evaluated on Workload (time required for screening and communication per 100 patients daily). A centralized home monitoring model for CIED patients was feasible, requiring 30 minutes for a telemonitoring nurse and 1.1 minutes for a physician daily per 100 patients monitored.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: