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
. 2019 Feb;42(2):120-129.
doi: 10.1111/pace.13574. Epub 2019 Jan 2.

Remote monitoring of implantable cardioverter defibrillators: Patient experiences and preferences for follow-up

Affiliations

Remote monitoring of implantable cardioverter defibrillators: Patient experiences and preferences for follow-up

Ivy Timmermans et al. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2019 Feb.

Abstract

Background: Patient satisfaction with remote patient monitoring (RPM) of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) seems to be high, yet knowledge on long-term patient experiences is limited. The European REMOTE-CIED study explored patients' experiences with RPM, examined patient's preferences for ICD follow-up, and identified determinants of patient's preferences in the first 2 years postimplantation.

Methods: European heart failure patients (N = 300; median age = 66 years [interquartile range (IQR) = 59-73], and 22% female) with a first-time ICD received a Boston Scientific LATITUDE RPM system (Marlborough, MA, USA) and had scheduled in-clinic follow-ups once a year. Patients completed questionnaires at 1-2 weeks and also at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months postimplantation and clinical data were obtained from their medical records. Patient evaluation data were analyzed descriptively, and Student's t-tests/Man-Whitney U tests or Chi-square tests/Fisher's exact tests were performed to examine determinants of patient preferences.

Results: At 2 years postimplantation, the median patient satisfaction score with the RPM system was 9 out of 10 (IQR = 8-10), despite 53% of the patients experiencing issues (eg, failure to transmit data). Of the 221 patients who reported their follow-up preferences, 43% preferred RPM and 19% preferred in-clinic follow-up. Patients with a preference for RPM were more likely to be higher educated (P = 0.04), employed (P = 0.04), and equipped with a new LATITUDE model (P = 0.04), but less likely to suffer from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (P = 0.009).

Conclusion: In general, patients were highly satisfied with RPM, but a subgroup preferred in-clinic follow-up. Therefore, physicians should include patients' concerns and preferences in the decision-making process, to tailor device follow-up to individual patients' needs and preferences.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01691586.

Keywords: implantable cardioverter defibrillator; patient experiences; patient preferences; remote patient monitoring.

PubMed Disclaimer

Comment in

References

    1. Wijers SC, van der Kolk BY, Tuinenburg AE, Doevendans PA, Vos MA, Meine M. Implementation of guidelines for implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator therapy in clinical practice: Which patients do benefit. Neth Heart J. 2013;21:274‐283. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Wilkoff BL, Auricchio A, Brugada J, 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;5:907‐925. - PubMed
    1. Dubner S, Auricchio A, Steinberg JS, et al. ISHNE/EHRA expert consensus on remote monitoring of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). Ann Noninvasive Electrocardiol. 2012;17:36‐56. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Klersy C, Boriani G, De Silvestri A, et al. Effect of telemonitoring of cardiac implantable electronic devices on healthcare utilization: A meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials in patients with heart failure. Eur J Heart Fail. 2016;18:195‐204. - PubMed
    1. Parthiban N, Esterman A, Mahajan R, et al. Remote monitoring of implantable cardioverter‐defibrillators: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of clinical outcomes. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015;65:2591‐2600. - PubMed

Publication types

Associated data