Effectiveness of remote monitoring of CIEDs in detection and treatment of clinical and device-related cardiovascular events in daily practice: the HomeGuide Registry
- PMID: 23362021
- PMCID: PMC3689436
- DOI: 10.1093/europace/eus440
Effectiveness of remote monitoring of CIEDs in detection and treatment of clinical and device-related cardiovascular events in daily practice: the HomeGuide Registry
Abstract
Aims: The HomeGuide Registry was a prospective study (NCT01459874), implementing a model for remote monitoring of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) in daily clinical practice, to estimate effectiveness in major cardiovascular event detection and management.
Methods and results: The workflow for remote monitoring [Biotronik Home Monitoring (HM)] was based on primary nursing: each patient was assigned to an expert nurse for management and to a responsible physician for medical decisions. In-person visits were scheduled once a year. Seventy-five Italian sites enrolled 1650 patients [27% pacemakers, 27% single-chamber implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs), 22% dual-chamber ICDs, 24% ICDs with cardiac resynchronization therapy]. Population resembled the expected characteristics of CIED patients. During a 20 ± 13 month follow-up, 2471 independently adjudicated events were collected in 838 patients (51%): 2033 (82%) were detected during HM sessions; 438 (18%) during in-person visits. Sixty were classified as false-positive, with generalized estimating equation-adjusted sensitivity and positive predictive value of 84.3% [confidence interval (CI), 82.5-86.0%] and 97.4% (CI, 96.5-98.2%), respectively. Overall, 95% of asymptomatic and 73% of actionable events were detected during HM sessions. Median reaction time was 3 days [interquartile range (IQR), 1-14 days]. Generalized estimating equation-adjusted incremental utility, calculated according to four properties of major clinical interest, was in favour of the HM sessions: +0.56 (CI, 0.53-0.58%), P < 0.0001. Resource consumption: 3364 HM sessions performed (76% by nurses), median committed monthly manpower of 55.5 (IQR, 22.0-107.0) min × health personnel/100 patients.
Conclusion: Home Monitoring was highly effective in detecting and managing clinical events in CIED patients in daily practice with remarkably low manpower and resource consumption.
Keywords: Implantable cardioverter defibrillators; Pacemakers; Remote monitoring; Telemedicine.
Figures


Comment in
-
Remote monitoring of patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices: maximizing gains by addressing workflow.Europace. 2013 Jul;15(7):921-3. doi: 10.1093/europace/eut065. Epub 2013 Apr 17. Europace. 2013. PMID: 23594932 No abstract available.
-
Author reply: To PMID 23362021.Europace. 2014 Jul;16(7):1099-100. doi: 10.1093/europace/eut421. Epub 2014 Feb 23. Europace. 2014. PMID: 24567236 No abstract available.
-
Effectiveness of remote monitoring of cardiac implantable electronic devices in detection and treatment of clinical and device-related cardiovascular events in daily practice: the HomeGuide Registry.Europace. 2014 Jul;16(7):1099. doi: 10.1093/europace/eut396. Epub 2014 Feb 23. Europace. 2014. PMID: 24567237 No abstract available.
Similar articles
-
Manpower and outpatient clinic workload for remote monitoring of patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices: data from the HomeGuide Registry.J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2014 Nov;25(11):1216-23. doi: 10.1111/jce.12482. Epub 2014 Jul 28. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2014. PMID: 24964380
-
Remote monitoring of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED).Trends Cardiovasc Med. 2016 Aug;26(6):568-77. doi: 10.1016/j.tcm.2016.03.012. Epub 2016 Mar 31. Trends Cardiovasc Med. 2016. PMID: 27134007 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Effectiveness of remote monitoring of cardiac implantable electronic devices in detection and treatment of clinical and device-related cardiovascular events in daily practice: the HomeGuide Registry.Europace. 2014 Jul;16(7):1099. doi: 10.1093/europace/eut396. Epub 2014 Feb 23. Europace. 2014. PMID: 24567237 No abstract available.
-
Survival in Women Versus Men Following Implantation of Pacemakers, Defibrillators, and Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Devices in a Large, Nationwide Cohort.J Am Heart Assoc. 2017 May 10;6(5):e005031. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.116.005031. J Am Heart Assoc. 2017. PMID: 28490521 Free PMC article.
-
Remote Monitoring of Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators, Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy and Permanent Pacemakers: A Health Technology Assessment.Ont Health Technol Assess Ser. 2018 Oct 24;18(7):1-199. eCollection 2018. Ont Health Technol Assess Ser. 2018. PMID: 30443279 Free PMC article. Review.
Cited by
-
2023 HRS/EHRA/APHRS/LAHRS Expert Consensus Statement on Practical Management of the Remote Device Clinic.Europace. 2023 May 19;25(5):euad123. doi: 10.1093/europace/euad123. Europace. 2023. PMID: 37208301 Free PMC article.
-
[Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator: Is remote monitoring obligatory?].Herzschrittmacherther Elektrophysiol. 2015 Jun;26(2):116-22. doi: 10.1007/s00399-015-0368-4. Epub 2015 Apr 22. Herzschrittmacherther Elektrophysiol. 2015. PMID: 25900214 German.
-
JCS/JHRS 2021 guideline focused update on non-pharmacotherapy of cardiac arrhythmias.J Arrhythm. 2022 Jan 7;38(1):1-30. doi: 10.1002/joa3.12649. eCollection 2022 Feb. J Arrhythm. 2022. PMID: 35222748 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
-
Remote monitoring for implantable defibrillators: a nationwide survey in Italy.Interact J Med Res. 2013 Sep 20;2(2):e27. doi: 10.2196/ijmr.2824. Interact J Med Res. 2013. PMID: 24055720 Free PMC article.
-
Superiority of automatic remote monitoring compared with in-person evaluation for scheduled ICD follow-up in the TRUST trial - testing execution of the recommendations.Eur Heart J. 2014 May 21;35(20):1345-52. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehu066. Epub 2014 Mar 3. Eur Heart J. 2014. PMID: 24595864 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
References
-
- Wilkoff BL, Auricchio A, Brugada J, Cowie M, Ellenbogen KA, Gillis AM, et al. HRS/EHRA expert consensus on the monitoring of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs): description of techniques, indications, personnel, frequency and ethical considerations. Heart Rhythm. 2008;5:907–25. - PubMed
-
- Dubner S, Auricchio A, Steinberg JS, Vardas P, Stone P, Brugada J, et al. ISHNE/EHRA expert consensus on remote monitoring of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) Europace. 2012;14:278–93. - PubMed
-
- Varma N, Epstein A, Irimpen A, Schweikert R, Shah J, Love CJ. TRUST Investigators. Efficacy and safety of automatic remote monitoring for ICD follow-up: The TRUST trial. Circulation. 2010;122:325–32. - PubMed
-
- Crossley GH, Boyle A, Vitense H, Chang Y, Mead RH. CONNECT Investigators. The Clinical Evaluation of Remote Notification to Reduce Time to Clinical Decision (CONNECT) Trial: the value of wireless remote monitoring with automatic clinician alerts. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;57:1181–9. - PubMed
-
- Landolina M, Perego GB, Lunati M, Curnis A, Guenzati G, Vicentini A, et al. Remote monitoring reduces healthcare utilization and improves quality of care in heart failure patients with implantable defibrillators: The EVOLVO (Evolution Of Management Strategies Of Heart Failure Patients With Implantable Defibrillators) Study. Circulation. 2012;125:2985–92. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Associated data
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical