PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
June 6, 2005EP Europace56 citations

What is the “Optimal” follow-up schedule for ICD patients?

View Full Paper
JSJulia C. Senges–BeckerMKM KLOSTERMANNRBR C Becker

Key Result

Extending routine ICD follow-up intervals from 3 to 6 months would have caused a theoretical maximum delay in detecting potentially life-threatening complications in only 1.7% of patients.

Study Design

Type

Observational (n=618)

Structured PICO

Does a 6-month follow-up schedule safely detect complications compared to a 3-month schedule in ICD patients?

P
Population
618 ICD patients followed for a mean of 3.3 years to evaluate the safety of 3-month versus 6-month routine follow-up intervals.
E
Exposure
6-month routine follow-up intervals (simulated by analyzing data from every other 3-month visit)
C
Comparator
3-month routine follow-up intervals
O
Outcome
Detection of complications and theoretical delay in detecting potentially life-threatening complicationssafety

Routine 6-month follow-up intervals for ICD patients appear safe, as complications detected solely during routine visits are rare, especially with newer generation devices.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In the absence of comparative studies, recommended routine follow-up (FU) intervals for implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) patients range from 1 to 6 months; most patients are followed at 3 month intervals. METHODS: Six hundred and eighteen ICD patients were routinely seen 4 weeks after implant and then every 3 months. Unplanned visits (UPV) were either patient initiated or due to manufacturer recalls. FU visits included patient history/examination, ICD interrogation, pacing/sensing threshold and pacing/shock impedance. Chest X-rays were performed every 6 months. To validate FU interval recommendations, a comparative analysis on the detection of complications was performed, relying either on the information of every, or of every other FU visit, i.e., on 3 or 6 month intervals. RESULTS: During 3.3+/-2.8 years, 137 complications occurred in 110 patients (17%). However, identification of only 34% was dependent on the FU schedule, since the mode of detection was ICD interrogation in 38 and history/physical examination in nine patients. The remainder was diagnosed by UPV in 47, manufacturer recall in seven, accidental discovery during device replacement in two, and routine X-ray in 34 patients. Complication free survival at 2 years was 86.4% for patients implanted before 1999, and 89.2% thereafter (P=0.003). Regarding 6 rather than 3 month FU intervals, a theoretical maximum delay of 3 months in the detection of potentially life-threatening complications would have occurred in 1.7% of all patients. For those implanted after 1999, this related to only 0.9%. CONCLUSIONS: ICD-related complications detected during routine FU visits are relatively rare, particularly with newer generation ICD systems. Thus, 6 month FU intervals appear to be safe. With new developments such as patient alert features and telemedical data transmission, FU intervals in ICD clinics might even be further extended.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Senges–Becker et al. (2005) conducted an observational in Implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) patients (n=618). 6-month follow-up intervals vs. 3-month follow-up intervals was evaluated on Theoretical maximum delay of 3 months in the detection of potentially life-threatening complications. Extending routine ICD follow-up intervals from 3 to 6 months would have caused a theoretical maximum delay in detecting potentially life-threatening complications in only 1.7% of patients.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a6e2c4b26770c2b8ddfb999https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eupc.2005.02.117
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper