Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2013 Feb;34(8):605-14.
doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehs425. Epub 2012 Dec 13.

A randomized study of remote follow-up of implantable cardioverter defibrillators: safety and efficacy report of the ECOST trial

Laurence Guédon-Moreau  1 , Dominique Lacroix, Nicolas Sadoul, Jacques Clémenty, Claude Kouakam, Jean-Sylvain Hermida, Etienne Aliot, Michel Boursier, Olivier Bizeau, Salem Kacet; ECOST trial Investigators
Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

A randomized study of remote follow-up of implantable cardioverter defibrillators: safety and efficacy report of the ECOST trial

Laurence Guédon-Moreau et al. Eur Heart J. 2013 Feb.

Abstract

Aims: The ECOST trial examined prospectively the long-term safety and effectiveness of home monitoring (HM) of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD).

Methods and results: The trial's primary objective was to randomly compare the proportions of patients experiencing ≥ 1 major adverse event (MAE), including deaths from all causes, and cardiovascular, procedure-related, and device-related MAE associated with HM (active group) vs. ambulatory follow-ups (control group) in a sample of 433 patients. The 221 patients assigned to the active group were seen once a year, unless HM reported an ICD dysfunction or a clinical event requiring an ambulatory visit, while the 212 patients in the control group underwent ambulatory visits every 6 months. The characteristics of the study groups were similar. Over a follow-up of 24.2 months, 38.5% of patients in the active and 41.5% in the control group experienced ≥ 1 MAE (P < 0.05 for non-inferiority). The overall number of shocks delivered was significantly lower in the active (n = 193) than in the control (n = 657) group (P < 0.05) and the proportion of patients who received inappropriate shocks was 52% lower in the active (n = 11) than in the control (n = 22) group (P < 0.05). At the end of the follow-up, the battery longevity was longer in the active group because of a lower number of capacitor charges (499 vs. 2081).

Conclusion: Our observations indicate that long-term HM of ICD is at least as safe as standard ambulatory follow-ups with respect to a broad spectrum of MAE. It also lowered significantly the number of appropriate and inappropriate shocks delivered, and spared the device battery. Clinical trials registration NCT00989417.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow of patients between enrolment and end of follow-up.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Cumulative survival free from major adverse events in the per-protocol (A) and in the intention-to-treat (B) populations.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Risk of major adverse events according to selected characteristics. LVEF, left-ventricular ejection fraction. Prevention pertains to the implantable cardioverter defibrillator implantation indication.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Cumulative incidence of ambulatory visits up to 27 months of follow-up. The blue and orange curves show the number of follow-ups per patient in the control vs. the active group, with the respective 95% confidence intervals (CI) represented by the shaded areas. At 27 months, the incidence of follow-up was 24% lower in the active than in the control group. The slope of each curve represents the number of visits per patient per year (P < 0.001).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Comment in

References

    1. ICT for better healthcare in Europe. http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/health/index_en.htm. 18 June 2012.
    1. Epstein AE, DiMarco JP, Ellenbogen KA, Estes NA, III, Freedman RA, Gettes LS, Gillinov AM, Gregoratos G, Hammill SC, Hayes DL, Hlatky MA, Newby LK, Page RL, Schoenfeld MH, Silka MJ, Stevenson LW, Sweeney MO, Smith SC, Jr, Jacobs AK, Adams CD, Anderson JL, Buller CE, Creager MA, Ettinger SM, Faxon DP, Halperin JL, Hiratzka LF, Hunt SA, Krumholz HM, Kushner FG, Lytle BW, Nishimura RA, Ornato JP, Page RL, Riegel B, Tarkington LG, Yancy CW American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Revise the ACC/AHA/NASPE 2002 Guideline Update for Implantation of Cardiac Pacemakers and Antiarrhythmia Devices); American Association for Thoracic Surgery; Society of Thoracic Surgeons. ACC/AHA/HRS 2008 Guidelines for Device-Based Therapy of Cardiac Rhythm Abnormalities: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Revise the ACC/AHA/NASPE 2002 Guideline Update for Implantation of Cardiac Pacemakers and Antiarrhythmia Devices): developed in collaboration with the American Association for Thoracic Surgery and Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Circulation. 2008;117:2820–2840. doi:10.1161/CIRCUALTIONAHA.108.189741. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Brugada P. What evidence do we have to replace in-hospital implantable cardioverter defibrillator follow-up? Clin Res Cardiol. 2006;95(Suppl. 3):III/3–9. - PubMed
    1. Heidbüchel H, Lioen P, Foulon S, Huybrechts W, Ector J, Willems R, Ector H. Potential role of remote monitoring for scheduled and unscheduled evaluations of patients with an implantable defibrillator. Europace. 2008;10:351–357. doi:10.1093/europace/eun010. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Nielsen JC, Kottkamp H, Zabel M, Aliot E, Kreutzer U, Bauer A, Schuchert A, Neuser H, Schumacher B, Schmidinger H, Stix G, Clémenty J, Danilovic D, Hindricks G. Automatic home monitoring of implantable cardioverter defibrillators. Europace. 2008;10:729–735. doi:10.1093/europace/eun099. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

Associated data