nach oben

Current Cardiovascular Risk Reports

Erschienen in:

22.04.2023

Remote Patient Monitoring: What Have We Learned and Where Are We Going?

verfasst von: Bert Vandenberk, Satish R. Raj

Erschienen in: Current Cardiovascular Risk Reports | Ausgabe 6/2023

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose of Review

Remote monitoring (RM) of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) is an important part of patient follow-up. The increasing number of patients with CIEDs and the recent pandemic pose several challenges for already limited device clinic resources. This review focuses on recent evolutions in RM and identifies future needs to improve RM.

Recent Findings

RM has been associated with multiple clinical benefits, including improved survival, early detection of actionable events, reduction in inappropriate shocks, longer battery lives, and more efficient healthcare utilization. The survival benefit was driven by studies using alert-based continuous RM with daily transmissions and fast reaction times. Patients report a high satisfaction rate without significant differences in quality of life between RM and in-office follow-up.

The increasing workload, due to the increasing number of CIEDs implanted with daily remote transmissions, results in several challenges for the future of RM. RM requires appropriate reimbursement for RM device clinics to optimize patient/staff ratios, including sufficient non-clinical and administrative support. Universal alert programming and data processing may minimize inter-manufacturer differences, improve the signal-to-noise ratio, and allow the development of standard operating protocols and workflows. In the future, programming by remote control and true remote programming may further improve remote CIED management, patient quality of life, and device clinic workflows.

Summary

RM should be considered standard of care in management of patients with CIEDs. The clinical benefits of RM can be maximized by an alert-based continuous RM model. Adapted healthcare policies are required to keep RM manageable for the future.

Slotwiner D, Varma N, Akar JG, Annas G, Beardsall M, Fogel RI, et al. HRS Expert Consensus Statement on remote interrogation and monitoring for cardiovascular implantable electronic devices. Heart rhythm off J Heart Rhythm Soc. 2015;12(7):e69-100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrthm.2015.05.008.CrossRef

Akinyele B, Marine JE, Love C, Crawford TC, Chrispin J, Vlay SC, et al. Unregulated online sales of cardiac implantable electronic devices in the United States: a six-month assessment. Heart Rhythm O2. 2020;14:235–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hroo.2020.06.007.CrossRef

Varma N, Marrouche NF, Aguinaga L, Albert CM, Arbelo E, Choi JI, et al. HRS/EHRA/APHRS/LAHRS/ACC/AHA worldwide practice update for telehealth and arrhythmia monitoring during and after a pandemic. Heart rhythm  Off J Heart Rhythm Soc. 2020;17(9):e255–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrthm.2020.06.010.CrossRef

Burri H, Senouf D. Remote monitoring and follow-up of pacemakers and implantable cardioverter defibrillators. Europace. 2009;11(6):701–9. https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/eup110.CrossRefPubMed

Burri H. Remote follow-up and continuous remote monitoring, distinguished. Europace. 2013;15(Suppl 1):i14–6. https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/eut071.CrossRefPubMed

6.••

Varma N, Love CJ, Michalski J, Epstein AE. Alert-Based ICD Follow-Up JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology. 2021;7(8):976–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacep.2021.01.008. (This randomized clinical trial illustrates the feasibility and safety of a fully alert-based remote monitoring strategy.CrossRefPubMed

7.•

Hindricks G, Varma N, Kacet S, Lewalter T, Sogaard P, Guedon-Moreau L, et al. Daily remote monitoring of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: insights from the pooled patient-level data from three randomized controlled trials (IN-TIME, ECOST, TRUST). Eur Heart J. 2017;38(22):1749–55. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehx015. This meta-analysis shows the potential of remote monitoring to improve rsurvival, mainly by prevention of heart failure exacerbations.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Hindricks G, Taborsky M, Glikson M, Heinrich U, Schumacher B, Katz A, et al. Implant-based multiparameter telemonitoring of patients with heart failure (IN-TIME): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2014;384(9943):583–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61176-4.CrossRefPubMed

9.••

Parthiban N, Esterman A, Mahajan R, Twomey DJ, Pathak RK, Lau DH, et al. Remote monitoring of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical outcomes. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015;65(24):2591–600. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2015.04.029. This meta-analysis demonstrates that the survival benefit associated with remote monitoring is dependent on daily remote transmissions as these allow more rapid clinical event detection.CrossRefPubMed

10.

Varma N, Epstein AE, Irimpen A, Schweikert R, Love C. Efficacy and safety of automatic remote monitoring for implantable cardioverter-defibrillator follow-up. Circulation. 2010;122(4):325–32. https://doi.org/10.1161/circulationaha.110.937409.CrossRefPubMed

11.

Guedon-Moreau L, Lacroix D, Sadoul N, Clementy J, Kouakam C, Hermida JS, et al. A randomized study of remote follow-up of implantable cardioverter defibrillators: safety and efficacy report of the ECOST trial. Eur Heart J. 2013;34(8):605–14. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehs425.CrossRefPubMed

12.

Saxon LA, Hayes DL, Gilliam FR, Heidenreich PA, Day J, Seth M, et al. Long-term outcome after ICD and CRT implantation and influence of remote device follow-up: the ALTITUDE survival study. Circulation. 2010;122(23):2359–67. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.110.960633.CrossRefPubMed

13.

Kurek A, Tajstra M, Gadula-Gacek E, Buchta P, Skrzypek M, Pyka L, et al. Impact of remote monitoring on long-term prognosis in heart failure patients in a real-world cohort: results from all-comers COMMIT-HF trial. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2017;28(4):425–31. https://doi.org/10.1111/jce.13174.CrossRefPubMed

14.•

Varma N, Piccini JP, Snell J, Fischer A, Dalal N, Mittal S. The relationship between level of adherence to automatic wireless remote monitoring and survival in pacemaker and defibrillator patients. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015;65(24):2601–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2015.04.033. In this nationwide analysis on 29471 consecutive patients, the survival benefit associated with remote monitoring was related to patient adherence, but independent of device type.CrossRefPubMed

15.

Mabo P, Victor F, Bazin P, Ahres S, Babuty D, Da Costa A, et al. A randomized trial of long-term remote monitoring of pacemaker recipients (the COMPAS trial). Eur Heart J. 2012;33(9):1105–11. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehr419.CrossRefPubMed

16.

Halimi F, Clementy J, Attuel P, Dessenne X, Amara W, Ot Investigators. Optimized post-operative surveillance of permanent pacemakers by home monitoring: the OEDIPE trial. Europace. 2008;10(12):1392–9. https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/eun250.CrossRefPubMed

17.

Oliveira M, Fernandes M, Reis H, Primo J, Sanfins V, Silva V, et al. Remote versus in-office monitoring for implantable cardioverter defibrillators: results from a randomized pragmatic controlled study in Portugal. Rev Port Cardiol. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.repc.2021.08.017.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

18.

Versteeg H, Timmermans I, Widdershoven J, Kimman GJ, Prevot S, Rauwolf T, et al. Effect of remote monitoring on patient-reported outcomes in European heart failure patients with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator: primary results of the REMOTE-CIED randomized trial. Europace. 2019;21(9):1360–8. https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/euz140.CrossRefPubMed

19.

Leppert F, Siebermair J, Wesemann U, Martens E, Sattler SM, Scholz S, et al. The INFluence of Remote monitoring on Anxiety/depRession, quality of lifE, and Device acceptance in ICD patients: a prospective, randomized, controlled, single-center trial. Clin Res Cardiol. 2021;110(6):789–800. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00392-020-01667-0.CrossRefPubMed

20.

Petersen HH, Larsen MC, Nielsen OW, Kensing F, Svendsen JH. Patient satisfaction and suggestions for improvement of remote ICD monitoring. J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2012;34(3):317–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10840-012-9675-4.CrossRefPubMed

21.

Ricci RP, Morichelli L, Quarta L, Sassi A, Porfili A, Laudadio MT, et al. Long-term patient acceptance of and satisfaction with implanted device remote monitoring. Europace. 2010;12(5):674–9. https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/euq046.CrossRefPubMed

22.

Timmermans I, Meine M, Szendey I, Aring J, Romero Roldan J, van Erven L, et al. Remote monitoring of implantable cardioverter defibrillators: patient experiences and preferences for follow-up. Pacing Clinical Electrophysiol. 2019;42(2):120–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/pace.13574.CrossRefPubMed

23.

Artico J, Zecchin M, Zorzin Fantasia A, Skerl G, Ortis B, Franco S, et al. Long-term patient satisfaction with implanted device remote monitoring: a comparison among different systems. J Cardiovasc Med (Hagerstown). 2019;20(8):542–50. https://doi.org/10.2459/JCM.0000000000000818.CrossRefPubMed

24.

Hwang YM, Kim JH. The first survey on patient needs for remote monitoring of cardiac implantable electronic device in South Korea. Medicine (Baltimore). 2022;101(23):e29414. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000029414.CrossRefPubMed

25.

Heidbuchel H, Lioen P, Foulon S, Huybrechts W, Ector J, Willems R, et al. Potential role of remote monitoring for scheduled and unscheduled evaluations of patients with an implantable defibrillator. Europace. 2008;10(3):351–7. https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/eun010.CrossRefPubMed

26.

Varma N, Pavri BB, Stambler B, Michalski J, Investigators T. Same-day discovery of implantable cardioverter defibrillator dysfunction in the TRUST remote monitoring trial: influence of contrasting messaging systems. Europace. 2013;15(5):697–703. https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/eus410.CrossRefPubMed

27.

Varma N, Michalski J, Epstein AE, Schweikert R. Automatic remote monitoring of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator lead and generator performance. Circulation: Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology. 2010;3(5):428–36. https://doi.org/10.1161/circep.110.951962.CrossRefPubMed

28.

Varma N. Remote monitoring for advisories: automatic early detection of silent lead failure. Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE. 2009;32(4):525–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-8159.2009.02314.x.CrossRefPubMed

29.

Spencker S, Coban N, Koch L, Schirdewan A, Muller D. Potential role of home monitoring to reduce inappropriate shocks in implantable cardioverter-defibrillator patients due to lead failure. Europace. 2009;11(4):483–8. https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/eun350.CrossRefPubMed

30.

Varma N, Epstein AE, Schweikert R, Michalski J, Love CJ, Investigators T. Role of automatic wireless remote monitoring immediately following ICD implant: the Lumos-T reduces routine office device follow-up study (TRUST) trial. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2016;27(3):321–6. https://doi.org/10.1111/jce.12895.CrossRefPubMed

31.

Ricci RP, Morichelli L, D’Onofrio A, Calo L, Vaccari D, Zanotto G, et al. Effectiveness of remote monitoring of CIEDs in detection and treatment of clinical and device-related cardiovascular events in daily practice: the HomeGuide Registry. Europace. 2013;15(7):970–7. https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/eus440.CrossRefPubMed

32.

Guedon-Moreau L, Kouakam C, Klug D, Marquie C, Brigadeau F, Boule S, et al. Decreased delivery of inappropriate shocks achieved by remote monitoring of ICD: a substudy of the ECOST trial. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2014;25(7):763–70. https://doi.org/10.1111/jce.12405.CrossRefPubMed

33.

Ricci RP, Pignalberi C, Landolina M, Santini M, Lunati M, Boriani G, et al. Ventricular rate monitoring as a tool to predict and prevent atrial fibrillation-related inappropriate shocks in heart failure patients treated with cardiac resynchronisation therapy defibrillators. Heart. 2014;100(11):848–54. https://doi.org/10.1136/heartjnl-2013-305259.CrossRefPubMed

34.

Varma N, Love CJ, Schweikert R, Moll P, Michalski J, Epstein AE, et al. Automatic remote monitoring utilizing daily transmissions: transmission reliability and implantable cardioverter defibrillator battery longevity in the TRUST trial. Europace. 2018;20(4):622–8. https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/eux059.CrossRefPubMed

35.

Glikson M, Nielsen JC, Kronborg MB, Michowitz Y, Auricchio A, Barbash IM, et al. 2021 ESC Guidelines on cardiac pacing and cardiac resynchronization therapy. Eur Heart J. 2021;42(35):3427–520. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehab364.CrossRefPubMed

36.

Buck BH, Hill MD, Quinn FR, Butcher KS, Menon BK, Gulamhusein S, et al. Effect of implantable vs prolonged external electrocardiographic monitoring on atrial fibrillation detection in patients with ischemic stroke: the PER DIEM randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2021;325(21):2160–8. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2021.6128.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

37.

Jang JP, Lin HT, Chen YJ, Hsieh MH, Huang YC. Role of remote monitoring in detection of atrial arrhythmia, stroke reduction, and use of anticoagulation therapy- a systematic review and meta-analysis. Circ J. 2020;84(11):1922–30. https://doi.org/10.1253/circj.CJ-20-0633.CrossRefPubMed

38.

Healey JS, Connolly SJ, Gold MR, Israel CW, Van Gelder IC, Capucci A, et al. Subclinical atrial fibrillation and the risk of stroke. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(2):120–9. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1105575.CrossRefPubMed

39.

Lopes RD, Alings M, Connolly SJ, Beresh H, Granger CB, Mazuecos JB, et al. Rationale and design of the apixaban for the reduction of thrombo-embolism in patients with device-detected sub-clinical atrial fibrillation (ARTESiA) trial. Am Heart J. 2017;189:137–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ahj.2017.04.008.CrossRefPubMed

40.

Watanabe E, Yamazaki F, Goto T, Asai T, Yamamoto T, Hirooka K, et al. (2020) Remote management of pacemaker patients with biennial in-clinic evaluation: continuous home monitoring in the Japanese at-home study: a randomized clinical trial. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 13(5) e007734-e https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCEP.119.007734

41.

García-Fernández FJ, OscaAsensi J, Romero R, Fernández Lozano I, Larrazabal JM, Martínez Ferrer J, et al. Safety and efficiency of a common and simplified protocol for pacemaker and defibrillator surveillance based on remote monitoring only: a long-term randomized trial (RM-ALONE). Eur Heart J. 2019;40(23):1837–46. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehz067.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

42.••

Chew DS, Piccini JP, Au F, Frazier-Mills CG, Michalski J, Varma N, et al. Alert-driven versus scheduled remote monitoring of implantable cardiac defibrillators: a cost-consequence analysis from the TRUST trial. Heart rhythm. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrthm.2022.12.003. This cost-consequence analysis shows that atler-driven remote monitoring was economically attractive.CrossRef

43.

Heidbuchel H, Hindricks G, Broadhurst P, Van Erven L, Fernandez-Lozano I, Rivero-Ayerza M, et al. EuroEco (European Health Economic Trial on Home Monitoring in ICD Patients): a provider perspective in five European countries on costs and net financial impact of follow-up with or without remote monitoring. Eur Heart J. 2015;36(3):158–69. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehu339.CrossRefPubMed

44.

Health QO. Remote monitoring of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators, cardiac resynchronization therapy and permanent pacemakers: a health technology assessment. Ont Health Technol Assess Ser. 2018;18(7):1–199.

45.

Ricci RP, Vicentini A, D’Onofrio A, Sagone A, Rovaris G, Padeletti L, et al. Economic analysis of remote monitoring of cardiac implantable electronic devices: results of the Health Economics Evaluation Registry for Remote Follow-up (TARIFF) study. Heart Rhythm . 2017;14(1):50–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrthm.2016.09.008.CrossRef

46.

Chiu CSL, Timmermans I, Versteeg H, Zitron E, Mabo P, Pedersen SS, et al. Effect of remote monitoring on clinical outcomes in European heart failure patients with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator: secondary results of the REMOTE-CIED randomized trial. Europace . 2022;24(2):256–67. https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/euab221.CrossRefPubMed

47.

Boriani G, Da Costa A, Quesada A, Ricci RP, Favale S, Boscolo G, et al. Effects of remote monitoring on clinical outcomes and use of healthcare resources in heart failure patients with biventricular defibrillators: results of the MORE-CARE multicentre randomized controlled trial. Eur J Heart Fail. 2017;19(3):416–25. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejhf.626.CrossRefPubMed

48.

Boehmer JP, Hariharan R, Devecchi FG, Smith AL, Molon G, Capucci A, et al. A multisensor algorithm predicts heart failure events in patients with implanted devices: results from the MultiSENSE study. JACC Heart Fail. 2017;5(3):216–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jchf.2016.12.011.CrossRefPubMed

49.

Wintrich J, Pavlicek V, Brachmann J, Bosch R, Butter C, Oswald H, et al. Remote monitoring with appropriate reaction to alerts was associated with improved outcomes in chronic heart failure: results from the OptiLink HF study. Cir Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2021;14(1):e008693. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCEP.120.008693.CrossRefPubMed

50.

Abraham WT, Adamson PB, Bourge RC, Aaron MF, Costanzo MR, Stevenson LW, et al. Wireless pulmonary artery haemodynamic monitoring in chronic heart failure: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2011;377(9766):658–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60101-3.CrossRefPubMed

51.

Akar JG, Bao H, Jones P, Wang Y, Chaudhry SI, Varosy P, et al. Use of remote monitoring of newly implanted cardioverter-defibrillators: insights from the patient related determinants of ICD remote monitoring (PREDICT RM) study. Circulation. 2013;128(22):2372–83. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.113.002481.CrossRefPubMed

52.

Mittal S, Piccini JP, Snell J, Prillinger JB, Dalal N, Varma N. Improved survival in patients enrolled promptly into remote monitoring following cardiac implantable electronic device implantation. J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2016;46(2):129–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10840-016-0112-y.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

53.

Harvey M, Seiler A. Challenges in managing a remote monitoring device clinic. Heart Rhythm O2. 2022;3(1):3–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hroo.2021.12.002.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

54.

Ryan P, McGrath C, Lawrie I, Fitzsimons C, O’Shea J, De BrUn J. Enhancing efficiency in a cardiac investigations department by increasing remote patient monitoring. Int J Qual Health Care. 2019;31(Supplement_1):29–34. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzz065.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

55.

Kelly SE, Campbell D, Duhn LJ, Giddens K, Gillis AM, AbdelWahab A, et al. Remote monitoring of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices in Canada: survey of patients and device health care professionals. CJC Open. 2021;3(4):391–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cjco.2020.11.010.CrossRefPubMed

56.•

O’Shea CJ, Middeldorp ME, Hendriks JM, Brooks AG, Lau DH, Emami M, et al. Remote monitoring alert burden: an analysis of transmission in >26,000 patients. JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2021;7(2):226–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacep.2020.08.029. This retrospective analysis illustrates the increasing workload of remote monitoring, predominantly generated by implantable loop recorders.CrossRefPubMed

57.

Seiler A, Biundo E, Di Bacco M, Rosemas S, Nicolle E, Lanctin D, et al. Clinic time required for remote and in-person management of patients with cardiac devices: time and motion workflow evaluation. JMIR Cardio. 2021;5(2):e27720. https://doi.org/10.2196/27720.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

58.

Otsuki S, Izumi D, Sakaguchi Y, Suzuki N, Hakamata T, Ikami Y, et al. Efficacy of antitachycardia pacing alert by remote monitoring of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators for out-of-hospital electrical storm. Pacing Clinical Electrophysiol. 2021;44(10):1675–82. https://doi.org/10.1111/pace.14334.CrossRefPubMed

59.

Guedon-Moreau L, Finat L, Boule S, Wissocque L, Marquie C, Brigadeau F, et al. Validation of an organizational management model of remote implantable cardioverter-defibrillator monitoring alerts. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2015;8(4):403–12. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.114.001433.CrossRefPubMed

60.

Lau CP, Zhang S. Remote monitoring of cardiac implantable devices in the Asia-Pacific. Europace . 2013;15(Suppl 1):i65–8. https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/eut081.CrossRefPubMed

61.

Rosenfeld LE, Patel AS, Ajmani VB, Holbrook RW, Brand TA. Compliance with remote monitoring of ICDS/CRTDS in a real-world population. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2014;37(7):820–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/pace.12358.CrossRefPubMed

62.

Diamond J, Varma N, Kramer DB. Making the most of cardiac device remote management: towards an actionable care model. Circ Arrhythm electrophysiol. 2021;14(3):e009497. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCEP.120.009497.CrossRefPubMed

63.

Morimoto Y, Nishii N, Tsukuda S, Kawada S, Miyamoto M, Miyoshi A, et al. A low critical event rate despite a high abnormal event rate in patients with cardiac implantable electric devices followed up by remote monitoring. Intern Med. 2019;58(16):2333–40. https://doi.org/10.2169/internalmedicine.1905-18.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

64.

Slotwiner DJ, Abraham RL, Al-Khatib SM, Anderson HV, Bunch TJ, Ferrara MG, et al. HRS White Paper on interoperability of data from cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). Heart Rhythm . 2019;16(9):e107–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrthm.2019.05.002.CrossRef

65.

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(2):278–93. https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/eur303.CrossRefPubMed

66.

Mairesse GH, Braunschweig F, Klersy K, Cowie MR, Leyva F. Implementation and reimbursement of remote monitoring for cardiac implantable electronic devices in Europe: a survey from the health economics committee of the European Heart Rhythm Association. Europace . 2015;17(5):814–8. https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/euu390.CrossRefPubMed

67.

Bautista-Mesa RJ, Lopez-Villegas A, Peiro S, Catalan-Matamoros D, Robles-Musso E, Lopez-Liria R, et al. Long-term cost-utility analysis of remote monitoring of older patients with pacemakers: the PONIENTE study. BMC Geriatr. 2020;20(1):474. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-020-01883-3.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

68.

Burri H, Sticherling C, Wright D, Makino K, Smala A, Tilden D. Cost-consequence analysis of daily continuous remote monitoring of implantable cardiac defibrillator and resynchronization devices in the UK. Europace . 2013;15(11):1601–8. https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/eut070.CrossRefPubMed

69.

Crossley GH, Boyle A, Vitense H, Chang Y, Mead RH. The CONNECT (clinical evaluation of remote notification to reduce time to clinical decision) trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;57(10):1181–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2010.12.012.CrossRefPubMed

70.

Varma N, Michalski J, Stambler B, Pavri BB, Investigators T. 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;35(20):1345–52. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehu066.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

71.

Hindricks G, Elsner C, Piorkowski C, Taborsky M, Geller JC, Schumacher B, et al. Quarterly vs yearly clinical follow-up of remotely monitored recipients of prophylactic implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: results of the REFORM trial. Eur Heart J. 2014;35(2):98–105. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/eht207.CrossRefPubMed

72.

Alexander B, Baranchuk A. Remote device reprogramming: has its time come? Circ Arrhythm electrophysiol. 2020;13(10):e008949. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCEP.120.008949.CrossRefPubMed

73.

Baranchuk A, Alexander B, Campbell D, Haseeb S, Redfearn D, Simpson C, et al. Pacemaker cybersecurity: local experience with a firmware upgrade. Circulation. 2018;138(12):1272–3. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.118.035261.CrossRefPubMed

74.•

Ploux S, Strik M, Demoniere F, Rakotoarimanana D, Zemmoura A, Deplagne A, et al. (2022) Remote interrogation and reprogramming of cardiac implantable electronic devices using a custom multivendor solution. Heart rhythm : the official journal of the Heart Rhythm Society https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrthm.2022.12.015This study describes the feasibility and safety of remote interrogations and remote programming in clinical practice by using a custom multivendor solution.

75.

Xiong S, Li J, Tong L, Hou J, Yang S, Qi L, et al. (2022) Realtime remote programming in patients carrying cardiac implantable electronic devices requiring emergent reprogramming. Front Cardiovasc Med. 9 871425. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2022.871425

76.

Kloosterman EM, Rosenbaum M, La Starza B, Wilcox J, Rosman J. Remote control of cardiac implantable electronic devices: exploring the new frontier-first clinical application of real-time remote-control management of cardiac devices before and after magnetic resonance imaging. J Innov Card Rhythm Manag. 2019;10(1):3477–84. https://doi.org/10.19102/icrm.2019.100102.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

77.

Siddamsetti S, Shinn A, Gautam S. Remote programming of cardiac implantable electronic devices: a novel approach to program cardiac devices for magnetic resonance imaging. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2022;33(5):1005–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/jce.15434.CrossRefPubMed

Titel: Remote Patient Monitoring: What Have We Learned and Where Are We Going?
verfasst von: Bert Vandenberk
Satish R. Raj
Publikationsdatum: 22.04.2023
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: Current Cardiovascular Risk Reports / Ausgabe 6/2023
Print ISSN: 1932-9520
Elektronische ISSN: 1932-9563
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12170-023-00720-7

Neu im Fachgebiet Kardiologie

„Jeder Fall von plötzlichem Tod muss obduziert werden!“

17.05.2024 Plötzlicher Herztod Nachrichten

Ein signifikanter Anteil der Fälle von plötzlichem Herztod ist genetisch bedingt. Um ihre Verwandten vor diesem Schicksal zu bewahren, sollten jüngere Personen, die plötzlich unerwartet versterben, ausnahmslos einer Autopsie unterzogen werden.

Hirnblutung unter DOAK und VKA ähnlich bedrohlich

17.05.2024 Direkte orale Antikoagulanzien Nachrichten

Kommt es zu einer nichttraumatischen Hirnblutung, spielt es keine große Rolle, ob die Betroffenen zuvor direkt wirksame orale Antikoagulanzien oder Marcumar bekommen haben: Die Prognose ist ähnlich schlecht.

Schlechtere Vorhofflimmern-Prognose bei kleinem linken Ventrikel

17.05.2024 Vorhofflimmern Nachrichten

Nicht nur ein vergrößerter, sondern auch ein kleiner linker Ventrikel ist bei Vorhofflimmern mit einer erhöhten Komplikationsrate assoziiert. Der Zusammenhang besteht nach Daten aus China unabhängig von anderen Risikofaktoren.

Semaglutid bei Herzinsuffizienz: Wie erklärt sich die Wirksamkeit?

17.05.2024 Herzinsuffizienz Nachrichten

Bei adipösen Patienten mit Herzinsuffizienz des HFpEF-Phänotyps ist Semaglutid von symptomatischem Nutzen. Resultiert dieser Benefit allein aus der Gewichtsreduktion oder auch aus spezifischen Effekten auf die Herzinsuffizienz-Pathogenese? Eine neue Analyse gibt Aufschluss.

Update Kardiologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen

Die Highlights vom Kongress des American College of Cardiology 2024

Springer Medizin

Remote Patient Monitoring: What Have We Learned and Where Are We Going?

Abstract

Purpose of Review

Recent Findings

Summary

Neu im Fachgebiet Kardiologie

„Jeder Fall von plötzlichem Tod muss obduziert werden!“

Hirnblutung unter DOAK und VKA ähnlich bedrohlich

Schlechtere Vorhofflimmern-Prognose bei kleinem linken Ventrikel

Semaglutid bei Herzinsuffizienz: Wie erklärt sich die Wirksamkeit?

Update Kardiologie

Die Highlights vom Kongress des American College of Cardiology 2024

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Purpose of Review

Recent Findings

Summary

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Neu im Fachgebiet Kardiologie

„Jeder Fall von plötzlichem Tod muss obduziert werden!“

Hirnblutung unter DOAK und VKA ähnlich bedrohlich

Schlechtere Vorhofflimmern-Prognose bei kleinem linken Ventrikel

Semaglutid bei Herzinsuffizienz: Wie erklärt sich die Wirksamkeit?

Update Kardiologie