Impact of Remote Monitoring on Hospitalizations for Heart Failure: A Five-year Single-center Experience
- PMID: 34476114
- PMCID: PMC8384298
- DOI: 10.19102/icrm.2021.120802
Impact of Remote Monitoring on Hospitalizations for Heart Failure: A Five-year Single-center Experience
Abstract
The impact of a provider-driven assessment and treatment algorithm based on remote OptiVol (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN, USA) fluid index levels on hospitalizations for congestive heart failure (CHF) remains unknown. We implemented a physician-guided screening and educational strategy for elevated OptiVol fluid index levels measured on remote implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) monitoring and assessed clinical outcomes over a five-year period. Patients with CHF and a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of 40% or less with a previously implanted ICD underwent monthly remote monitoring from January 2015 to November 2019. An OptiVol fluid index of 60 Ω-days or more triggered a protocol-based CHF screening and therapy adjustment according to clinical presentation. Among 279 patients included in the study, 228 (81%) were male and 205 (73%) had ischemic cardiomyopathy. The average LVEF was 29% (± 7.3%). A total of 6,616 monthly transmissions were reviewed over five years; of those, 575 (8.7%) were associated with elevated OptiVol fluid index levels in 178 (64%) patients, and clinical follow-up data were available in 459 of 575 (80%) cases. Following abnormal OptiVol fluid levels on remote monitoring, CHF hospitalization occurred in 10 of 459 (2.2%) patient cases. In conclusion, monthly remote monitoring of OptiVol fluid index levels with a health care provider-guided CHF screening and an educational approach to abnormal OptiVol fluid index levels were associated with a low CHF hospitalization rate. This compared favorably to prior similar studies, and randomized controlled prospective studies evaluating similar algorithms are warranted.
Keywords: Congestive heart failure; defibrillator; intrathoracic impedance; remote monitoring.
Copyright: © 2021 Innovations in Cardiac Rhythm Management.
Conflict of interest statement
Dr. Kloosterman serves on the Medtronic advisory committee. The other authors report no conflicts of interest for the published content.
Figures
References
-
- Jackson SL, Tong X, King RJ, et al. National burden of heart failure events in the United States, 2006 to 2014. Circ Heart Fail. 2018;11(12):e004873. [CrossRef] [PubMed] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
-
- Abraham WT, Compton S, Haas G, et al. Intrathoracic impedance vs daily weight monitoring for predicting worsening heart failure events: results of the Fluid Accumulation Status Trial (FAST) Congest Heart Fail. 2011;17(2):51–55. [CrossRef] [PubMed] - DOI - PubMed
-
- Cowie MR, Sarkar S, Koehler J, et al. Development and validation of an integrated diagnostic algorithm derived from parameters monitored in implantable devices for identifying patients at risk for heart failure hospitalization in an ambulatory setting. Eur Heart J. 2013;34(31):2472–2480. [CrossRef] [PubMed] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
-
- Yu CM, Wang L, Chau E, et al. Intrathoracic impedance monitoring in patients with heart failure correlation with fluid status and feasibility of early warning preceding hospitalization. Circulation. 2005;112(6):841–848. [CrossRef] [PubMed] - DOI - PubMed
-
- Small RS, Wickemeyer W, Germany R, et al. Changes in intrathoracic impedance are associated with subsequent risk of hospitalizations for acute decompensated heart failure: clinical utility of implanted device monitoring without a patient alert. J Card Fail. 2009;15(6):475–481. [CrossRef] [PubMed] - DOI - PubMed
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources