Implementation of guidelines for implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy in clinical practice: Which patients do benefit?

Wijers, Sofieke C.; Kolk, B. Y. M. van der; Tuinenburg, Anton E.; Doevendans, Pieter A.; Vos, Marc A.; Meine, Mathias

doi:10.1007/s12471-013-0407-x

Cited by 32 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 50 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Patients who are at high risk for life‐threatening ventricular arrhythmias are preferably treated with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD). The number of ICD patients has increased due to expanding indications, leading to higher workload and increased healthcare costs . Remote patient monitoring (RPM) systems can send disease‐ and ICD‐related data from the patient's home to the hospital, and are, therefore, a promising alternative to in‐clinic follow‐up …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Timmermans

Meine

Szendey

et al. 2019

Pacing Clinical Electrophis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundPatient 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.MethodsEuropean 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.ResultsAt 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).ConclusionIn 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.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Timmermans

Meine

Szendey

et al. 2019

Pacing Clinical Electrophis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Several studies have shown male sex as an independent risk factor for appropriate ICD therapies 438 . Women are 30%‐50% less likely to receive an appropriate shock, 439–442 and this difference is more pronounced among CRT‐D recipients 443–445 . However, most of studies have shown similar mortality rates in both genders after ICD implantation 438–445 .…”

Section: How To Assess Risk For Adverse Outcomes In Patients With Venmentioning

confidence: 99%

European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA)/Heart Rhythm Society (HRS)/Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS)/Latin American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS) expert consensus on risk assessment in cardiac arrhythmias: use the right tool for the right outcome, in the right population

Nielsen

Lin

Figueiredo

et al. 2020

Journal of Arrhythmia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Given the growth in the number of patients receiving a cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED), in particular the implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) and cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) devices, the burden on outpatient clinics to follow up these patients is increasing [ 1 – 3 ]. Remote patient monitoring offers a potential solution to this problem [ 4 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patient perspective on remote monitoring of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices: rationale and design of the REMOTE-CIED study

et al. 2014

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundRemote patient monitoring is a safe and effective alternative for the in-clinic follow-up of patients with cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). However, evidence on the patient perspective on remote monitoring is scarce and inconsistent.ObjectivesThe primary objective of the REMOTE-CIED study is to evaluate the influence of remote patient monitoring versus in-clinic follow-up on patient-reported outcomes. Secondary objectives are to: 1) identify subgroups of patients who may not be satisfied with remote monitoring; and 2) investigate the cost-effectiveness of remote monitoring.MethodsThe REMOTE-CIED study is an international randomised controlled study that will include 900 consecutive heart failure patients implanted with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) compatible with the Boston Scientific LATITUDE® Remote Patient Management system at participating centres in five European countries. Patients will be randomised to remote monitoring or in-clinic follow-up. The In-Clinic group will visit the outpatient clinic every 3–6 months, according to standard practice. The Remote Monitoring group only visits the outpatient clinic at 12 and 24 months post-implantation, other check-ups are performed remotely. Patients are asked to complete questionnaires at five time points during the 2-year follow-up.ConclusionThe REMOTE-CIED study will provide insight into the patient perspective on remote monitoring in ICD patients, which could help to support patient-centred care in the future.

show abstract

Implementation of guidelines for implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy in clinical practice: Which patients do benefit?

Cited by 32 publications

References 50 publications

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

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

European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA)/Heart Rhythm Society (HRS)/Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS)/Latin American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS) expert consensus on risk assessment in cardiac arrhythmias: use the right tool for the right outcome, in the right population

Patient perspective on remote monitoring of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices: rationale and design of the REMOTE-CIED study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About