Remote, Wireless, Ambulatory Monitoring of Implantable Pacemakers, Cardioverter Defibrillators, and Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Systems: Analysis of a Worldwide Database

• Published in: Pacing and clinical electrophysiology Vol. 30; no. s1; pp. S2 - S12
• Main Author: LAZARUS, ARNAUD
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Malden, USA Blackwell Publishing Inc 01.01.2007
• Subjects: ambulatory monitoring; Arrhythmias, Cardiac - diagnosis; Arrhythmias, Cardiac - therapy; Cardiac Pacing, Artificial - adverse effects; Cardiac Pacing, Artificial - standards; Data Collection - methods; Databases, Factual - statistics & numerical data; Defibrillators, Implantable - adverse effects; Defibrillators, Implantable - standards; Defibrillators, Implantable - statistics & numerical data; Equipment Failure; Humans; implantable cardiac device; Monitoring, Physiologic - methods; Pacemaker, Artificial - adverse effects; Pacemaker, Artificial - standards; Pacemaker, Artificial - statistics & numerical data; remote consultation; Retrospective Studies; Telemedicine - methods
• ISSN: 0147-8389; 1540-8159
• DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-8159.2007.00595.x

Study Objective: To describe the daily routine application of a new telemonitoring system in a large population of cardiac device recipients. Methods: Data transmitted daily and automatically by a remote, wireless Home Monitoring™ system (HM) were analyzed. The average time gained in the detection of events using HM versus standard practice and the impact of HM on physician workload were examined. The mean interval between device interrogations was used to compare the rates of follow‐up visits versus that recommended in guidelines. Results: 3,004,763 transmissions were made by 11,624 recipients of pacemakers (n = 4,631), defibrillators (ICD; n = 6,548), and combined ICD + cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT‐D) systems (n = 445) worldwide. The duration of monitoring/patient ranged from 1 to 49 months, representing 10,057 years. The vast majority (86%) of events were disease‐related. The mean interval between last follow‐up and occurrence of events notified by HM was 26 days, representing a putative temporal gain of 154 and 64 days in patients usually followed at 6‐ and 3‐month intervals, respectively. The mean numbers of events per patient per month reported to the caregivers for the overall population was 0.6. On average, 47.6% of the patients were event‐free. The mean interval between follow‐up visits in patients with pacemakers, single‐chamber ICDs, dual chamber ICDs, and CRT‐D systems were 5.9 ± 2.1, 3.6 ± 3.3, 3.3 ± 3.5, and 1.9 ± 2.9 months, respectively. Conclusions: This broad clinical application of a new monitoring system strongly supports its capability to improve the care of cardiac device recipients, enhance their safety, and optimize the allocation of health resources.