PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
January 1, 2007Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology230 citations

Remote, Wireless, Ambulatory Monitoring of Implantable Pacemakers, Cardioverter Defibrillators, and Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Systems: Analysis of a Worldwide Database

View Full Paper
ALArnaud Lazarus

Key Result

Remote, wireless Home Monitoring in 11,624 cardiac device recipients provided a putative temporal gain of 154 and 64 days for event detection compared to standard 6- and 3-month follow-ups.

Study Design

Type

Observational (n=11,624)

Multicenter

Yes

Structured PICO

Does a remote, wireless Home Monitoring system reduce the time to event detection and optimize follow-up intervals in cardiac device recipients compared to standard practice?

P
Population
11,624 recipients of pacemakers (n = 4,631), implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD; n = 6,548), and combined ICD + cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT-D) systems (n = 445) worldwide.
I
Intervention
Remote, wireless Home Monitoring system (HM) with daily and automatic data transmission.
C
Comparator
Standard practice (routine follow-up visits at 3- or 6-month intervals).
O
Outcome
Average time gained in the detection of events using HM versus standard practice, impact of HM on physician workload, and mean interval between device interrogations.

Remote wireless monitoring of cardiac devices significantly reduces the time to event detection compared to standard follow-up intervals, potentially enhancing patient safety and optimizing healthcare resources.

Abstract

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To describe the daily routine application of a new telemonitoring system in a large population of cardiac device recipients. METHODS: Data transmitted daily and automatically by a remote, wireless Home Monitoring system (HM) were analyzed. The average time gained in the detection of events using HM versus standard practice and the impact of HM on physician workload were examined. The mean interval between device interrogations was used to compare the rates of follow-up visits versus that recommended in guidelines. RESULTS: 3,004,763 transmissions were made by 11,624 recipients of pacemakers (n = 4,631), defibrillators (ICD; n = 6,548), and combined ICD + cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT-D) systems (n = 445) worldwide. The duration of monitoring/patient ranged from 1 to 49 months, representing 10,057 years. The vast majority (86%) of events were disease-related. The mean interval between last follow-up and occurrence of events notified by HM was 26 days, representing a putative temporal gain of 154 and 64 days in patients usually followed at 6- and 3-month intervals, respectively. The mean numbers of events per patient per month reported to the caregivers for the overall population was 0.6. On average, 47.6% of the patients were event-free. The mean interval between follow-up visits in patients with pacemakers, single-chamber ICDs, dual chamber ICDs, and CRT-D systems were 5.9 +/- 2.1, 3.6 +/- 3.3, 3.3 +/- 3.5, and 1.9 +/- 2.9 months, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This broad clinical application of a new monitoring system strongly supports its capability to improve the care of cardiac device recipients, enhance their safety, and optimize the allocation of health resources.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Arnaud Lazarus (2007) conducted an observational in Cardiac device recipients (pacemakers, ICDs, CRT-D) (n=11,624). Remote, wireless Home Monitoring system (HM) vs. Standard practice (guideline-recommended follow-up) was evaluated on Average time gained in the detection of events using HM versus standard practice. Remote, wireless Home Monitoring in 11,624 cardiac device recipients provided a putative temporal gain of 154 and 64 days for event detection compared to standard 6- and 3-month follow-ups.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a154e48b03a896dfa82081fhttps://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-8159.2007.00595.x
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper