[Comparative Effectiveness of Remote Monitoring of People with Cardiac Pacemaker versus Conventional: quality of Life at the 6 Months]

Abstract

Background: The use of remote follow-up (RF) of people with pacemakers (PM) is limited in comparison to the hospital modality (HS), being still poor the scientific evidence that shows their comparative effectiveness. The aim of this study was to compare the quality of life in individuals with different modalities of follow-up.

Methods: Controlled, not randomized nor masked clinical trial, with data collection at pre and post-implantation of pacemakers during the 6 months follow-up. All patients over 18 years-old who were implanted a PM during the study period were selected (n = 83), and they were assigned to RF (n = 30) or HF (n = 53) groups according to their personal characteristics and patient's preferences. Baseline characteristics and number of visits to the hospital were analysed, the EuroQol-5D (EQ5D) questionnaire was administered to evaluate the health-related quality of life, and Duke Activity Status Index (DASI) to assess the functional capacity.

Results: There were no significant differences between both groups in relation to the baseline analysis, EQ5D (RF:0.7299; HF:0.6769) and DASI (RF:21.41; HF:19.99). At 6 months the quality of life was improved in both groups (EQ5D RF:0.8613; HF:0.8175; p = 0,439) still without significant differences between them. DASI score was similar to baseline (20.51 vs 21.80). RF group performed less transmissions/visits per patient (1.57) than hospital group (1.96; relative reduction 31%; p = 0.015).

Conclusions: Remote follow-up of people with pacemakers might be considered as an equivalent option to the hospital follow-up in relation to the quality of life and it reduces the number of hospital visits.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02234245.