Remote monitoring of implantable cardioverter defibrillators: Patient experiences and preferences for follow-up
- PMID: 30536931
- PMCID: PMC6849564
- DOI: 10.1111/pace.13574
Remote monitoring of implantable cardioverter defibrillators: Patient experiences and preferences for follow-up
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.
© 2018 The Authors. Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Comment in
-
Remote monitoring of implantable cardioverter defibrillators: Aligning patient preferences and provider recommendations.Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2019 Feb;42(2):130-131. doi: 10.1111/pace.13572. Epub 2018 Dec 30. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2019. PMID: 30536426 No abstract available.
References
-
- 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
-
- 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
-
- 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
MeSH terms
Associated data
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
