Spanish Pacemaker Registry. Eleventh Official Report of the Spanish Society of Cardiology Working Group on Cardiac Pacing (2013)

Effectiveness of pacemaker tele‐monitoring on quality of life, functional capacity, event detection and workload: The PONIENTE trial

“…Finally, the generalization of results to other settings might be supported, as participant characteristics were quite similar to those reported in the Spanish Pacemaker Registry in terms of age, sex, symptoms and indications …”

“…Finally, the generalization of results to other settings might be supported, as participant characteristics were quite similar to those reported in the Spanish Pacemaker Registry in terms of age, sex, symptoms and indications. 8 The PONIENTE trial confirms that the remote monitoring of patients with pacemakers is an equivalent option to conventional hospital follow up, in terms of HRQoL and functional capacity. This new technology has been found to be feasible, reliable, and safe.…”

“…Despite these advantages, although RM was used in 39% of all cardiac resynchronization therapies (CRT) implanted in Spain in 2013, it only accounted for 6% of the conventional PM. 8 This modest figure could be related to the limited existing evidence -at least for comparison with implantable cardioverter defibrillators and CRT -on the effectiveness, safety and costeffectiveness of RM of conventional PM, particularly based on patient-reported outcomes, such as healthrelated quality of life (HRQoL) and functional capacity. 3,[9][10][11] The purpose of the present study was to assess the effectiveness of the remote monitoring of pacemakers regarding quality of life, functional capacity, feasibility, reliability and safety.…”

“…Therefore, RM might be a useful alternative to help mitigate overcrowded cardiology clinics, thereby optimizing medical resources. Despite these advantages, although RM was used in 39% of all cardiac resynchronization therapies (CRT) implanted in Spain in 2013, it only accounted for 6% of the conventional PM . This modest figure could be related to the limited existing evidence – at least for comparison with implantable cardioverter defibrillators and CRT – on the effectiveness, safety and cost‐effectiveness of RM of conventional PM, particularly based on patient‐reported outcomes, such as health‐related quality of life (HRQoL) and functional capacity …”

Implant of permanent pacemaker during acute coronary syndrome: Mortality and associated factors in the ARIAM registry

“…The mean age of PPM first implant in the MAMI Spanish pacemaker registry was 77.4 years, which is greater than ACS patients mean age; indeed, it is not rare for PPM implant to be conducted in nonagenarians. [22][23][24] So we can think if ACS reveals pre-existing degenerative pathology or they are secondary to myocardial ischaemia. On the other hand, the association of PPM implants with the presence of other arrhythmias, including LVBB, is very interesting.…”