https://www.clinicaltrials.org. Unique identifier: NCT01863472.

Aims This trial aimed to evaluate the safety and efficiency of a common and simplified protocol for the surveillance of cardiac implantable electronic devices based on remote monitoring (RM) in patients with pacemakers (PMs) and implantable cardiac defibrillators (ICDs) for at least 24 months. Methods and results The RM-ALONE is a multicentre prospective trial that randomly assigned 445 patients in two groups, both followed by RM: the home monitoring-only (HMo) based on RM + remote interrogations (RIs) every 6 months and the HM + IO that adds in-office evaluations every 6 months to RM. Four hundred and forty-five patients were enrolled in the study, 294 PMs and 151 ICDs recipients. In the HMo group, 20% of patients experienced ≥1 major adverse cardiac event (MACE) vs. 19.5% in HM + IO group ( P = 0.006 for non-inferiority). The proportion of patients with a PM/ICD who experienced ≥1 MACE was 15.2/29.3% in HMo group and 16.1/26.3% in HM + IO group (hazard ratio 0.95/1.15, 95% confidence interval 0.53–1.70/0.62–2.10). There were 789 in-office evaluations (136 in the HMo and 653 in the HM + IO; P < 0.001). There was a 79.2% reduction of in-office evaluations with no significant differences in unscheduled visits between groups: 122 (54.5%) in HMo and 101 (45.3%) in HM + IO; P = 0.15. The time a physician/nurse spent per patient/follow-up was significantly reduced in the HMo group: 4/5 min (0–30)/(1–30) vs. 10/10 min (0–40)/(1–40) in HM + IO ( P < 0.0001). Conclusion The RM-ALONE protocol common for ICD and PM surveillance, consisting of RM + RI every 6 months has proven safe and efficient in reducing hospital visits and staff workload.

Background and purpose Prospectively collected data comparing the safety and effectiveness of individual non-vitamin K antagonists (NOACs) are lacking. Our objective was to directly compare the effectiveness and safety of NOACs in patients with newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation (AF). Methods In GLORIA-AF, a large, prospective, global registry program, consecutive patients with newly diagnosed AF were followed for 3 years. The comparative analyses for (1) dabigatran vs rivaroxaban or apixaban and (2) rivaroxaban vs apixaban were performed on propensity score (PS)-matched patient sets. Proportional hazards regression was used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) for outcomes of interest. Results The GLORIA-AF Phase III registry enrolled 21,300 patients between January 2014 and December 2016. Of these, 3839 were prescribed dabigatran, 4015 rivaroxaban and 4505 apixaban, with median ages of 71.0, 71.0, and 73.0 years, respectively. In the PS-matched set, the adjusted HRs and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dabigatran vs rivaroxaban were, for stroke: 1.27 (0.79–2.03), major bleeding 0.59 (0.40–0.88), myocardial infarction 0.68 (0.40–1.16), and all-cause death 0.86 (0.67–1.10). For the comparison of dabigatran vs apixaban, in the PS-matched set, the adjusted HRs were, for stroke 1.16 (0.76–1.78), myocardial infarction 0.84 (0.48–1.46), major bleeding 0.98 (0.63–1.52) and all-cause death 1.01 (0.79–1.29). For the comparison of rivaroxaban vs apixaban, in the PS-matched set, the adjusted HRs were, for stroke 0.78 (0.52–1.19), myocardial infarction 0.96 (0.63–1.45), major bleeding 1.54 (1.14–2.08), and all-cause death 0.97 (0.80–1.19). Conclusions Patients treated with dabigatran had a 41% lower risk of major bleeding compared with rivaroxaban, but similar risks of stroke, MI, and death. Relative to apixaban, patients treated with dabigatran had similar risks of stroke, major bleeding, MI, and death. Rivaroxaban relative to apixaban had increased risk for major bleeding, but similar risks for stroke, MI, and death. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifiers: NCT01468701, NCT01671007. Date of registration: September 2013. Graphical abstract

No abstract