Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Patient satisfaction and suggestions for improvement of remote ICD monitoring

  • Published:
Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The study aim was to evaluate patient acceptance and content with remote follow-up (FU) of their implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) and to estimate patients’ wish for changes in remote follow-up routines.

Methods

Four hundred seventy-four ICD patients at the device follow-up clinic at Rigshospitalet using CareLink® (Medtronic) remote follow-up, who had made ≥2 transmissions, received a questionnaire.

Results

Three hundred eighty-five patients (81.2%) answered. Mean time with ICD was 56 ± 45 months and mean age was 62 ± 13 years; 80% was male. Diagnosis related to ICD implant was: ischemic heart disease in 56% and dilated cardiomyopathy in 21%. Twenty-six percent had primary prophylactic indication. Mean time on remote FU was 16.4 ± 6.9 months. Mean time spent on in-clinic FU (two-way transport and FU) was 4 h and 36 min ± 7 h and 50 min, excluding 12 patients from Greenland and Faroe Islands. Ninety-five percent of the patients was very content or content with remote FU compared to in-clinic FU; 3% was less content and 2% was not content. For scheduled transmissions, 21% of the patients wished for a faster reply (sms or e-mail) compared to current practice with a letter. Eighty-four percent preferred more detailed information concerning ICD leads, battery status, and ICD therapies. A total of 96 patients (25%) had performed extra unscheduled remote transmissions: 20 due to shock, 20 due to alarm, 35 due to palpitations, and 18 for other or combined reasons.

Conclusion

Ninety-five percent of the patients were content with the remote FU. Only 25% had unscheduled transmissions and most unscheduled transmissions were for appropriate reasons. Eighty-four percent of the patients wished for a more detailed response and 21% wished for a faster reply after routine transmissions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Moss, A. J., Hall, W. J., Cannom, D. S., et al. (1996). Improved survival with an implanted defibrillator in patients with coronary disease at high risk for ventricular arrhythmia. New England Journal of Medicine, 335, 1933–1940.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Moss, A. J., Zareba, W., Hall, W. J., et al. (2002). Prophylactic implantation of a defibrillator in patients with myocardial infarction and reduced ejection fraction. New England Journal of Medicine, 346, 877–883.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bardy, G. H., Lee, K. L., Mark, D. B., et al. (2005). Amiodarone or an implantable defibrillator for congestive heart failure. New England Journal of Medicine, 352, 225–237.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Goldberger, Z., & Lampert, R. (2006). Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: expanding indications and technologies. Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), 295(7), 809–818.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Wilkoff, B. L., Auricchio, A., Brugada, J., Cowie, M., Ellenbogen, K. A., Gillis, A. M., et al. (2008). HRS/EHRA expert consensus on the monitoring of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs): description of techniques, indications, personnel, frequency and ethical considerations. Heart Rhythm, 5(6), 907–925.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Brugada, P. (2006). What evidence do we have to replace in-hospital implantable cardioverter defibrillator follow-up? Clinical Research on Cardiology, 95(Suppl 3), III3–III9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Deharo, J. C., & Djiane, P. (2006). Home monitoring: what can we expect in the future? Clinical Research on Cardiology, 95(Suppl 3), III36–III39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Heidbuchel, H., Lioen, P., Foulon, S., Huybrechts, W., Ector, J., Willems, R., et al. (2008). Potential role of remote monitoring for scheduled and unscheduled evaluations of patients with an implantable defibrillator. Europace, 10(3), 351–357.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Ricci, R. P., Morichelli, L., & Santini, M. (2008). Home monitoring remote control of pacemaker and implantable cardioverter defibrillator patients in clinical practice: impact on medical management and health-care resource utilization. Europace, 10(2), 164–170.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Burri, H., & Senouf, D. (2009). Remote monitoring and follow-up of pacemakers and implantable cardioverter defibrillators. Europace, 11(6), 701–709.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Raatikainen, M. J., Uusimaa, P., van Ginneken, M. M., Janssen, J. P., & Linnaluoto, M. (2008). Remote monitoring of implantable cardioverter defibrillator patients: a safe, time-saving, and cost-effective means for follow-up. Europace, 10(10), 1145–1151.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Bikou, O., Licka, M., Kathoefer, S., Katus, H. A., & Bauer, A. (2010). Cost savings and safety of ICD remote control by telephone: a prospective, observational study. Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare, 16(7), 403–408.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Lazarus, A. (2007). Remote, wireless, ambulatory monitoring of implantable pacemakers, cardioverter defibrillators, and cardiac resynchronization therapy systems: analysis of a worldwide database. Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology, 30(Suppl 1), S2–S12.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Nielsen, J. C., Kottkamp, H., Zabel, M., Aliot, E., Kreutzer, U., Bauer, A., et al. (2008). Automatic home monitoring of implantable cardioverter defibrillators. Europace, 10(6), 729–735.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Al-Khatib, S. M., Piccini, J. P., Knight, D., Stewart, M., Clapp-Channing, N., & Sanders, G. D. (2010). Remote monitoring of implantable cardioverter defibrillators versus quarterly device interrogations in clinic: results from a randomized pilot clinical trial. Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology, 21(5), 545–550.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Matlock, D. D. (2010). Big Brother is watching you: what do patients think about ICD home monitoring? Circulation, 122(4), 319–321.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Ricci, R. P., Morichelli, L., Quarta, L., Sassi, A., Porfili, A., Laudadio, M. T., et al. (2010). Long-term patient acceptance of and satisfaction with implanted device remote monitoring. Europace, 12, 674–679.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Danish Pacemaker and ICD-Registry. www.icddata.dk.

  19. Varma, N., Michalski, J., Epstein, A. E., & Schweikert, R. (2010). Automatic remote monitoring of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator lead and generator performance: the lumos-T safely RedUceS RouTine office device follow-up (TRUST) trial. Circulatory and Arrhythmetic Electrophysiology, 3(5), 428–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Saxon, L. A., Hayes, D. L., Gilliam, F. R., Heidenreich, P. A., Day, J., Seth, M., et al. (2010). Long-term outcome after ICD and CRT implantation and influence of remote device follow-up: the ALTITUDE survival study. Circulation, 122(23), 2359–2367.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Spencker, S., Coban, N., Koch, L., Schirdewan, A., & Muller, D. (2009). Potential role of home monitoring to reduce inappropriate shocks in implantable cardioverter-defibrillator patients due to lead failure. Europace, 11(4), 483–488.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Crossley, G. H., Boyle, A., Vitense, H., Chang, Y., & Mead, R. H. (2011). CONNECT investigators. The CONNECT (Clinical Evaluation of Remote Notification to Reduce Time to Clinical Decision) trial: the value of wireless remote monitoring with automatic clinician alerts. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 57(10), 1181–1189.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Marzegalli, M., Lunati, M., Landolina, M., Perego, G. B., Ricci, R. P., Guenzati, G., et al. (2008). Remote monitoring of CRT-ICD: the multicenter Italian CareLink evaluation—ease of use, acceptance, and organizational implications. Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology, 31(10), 1259–1264.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Cardiology, The Heart Centre, Rigshospitalet, Blegdamsvej 9, 2100, Copenhagen OE, Denmark

    Helen Høgh Petersen, Mie Christa Jensen Larsen & Jesper Hastrup Svendsen

  2. The Department of Cardiology, Bispebjerg Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Bispebjerg Bakke 23, 2400, Copenhagen NV, Denmark

    Olav Wendelboe Nielsen

  3. Center for IT Innovation, University of Copenhagen, Njalsgade 128, Building 24, 2300, Copenhagen S, Denmark

    Finn Kensing

  4. Department of Medicine and Surgery, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Blegdamsvej 3, 200, Copenhagen N, Denmark

    Jesper Hastrup Svendsen

  5. The Danish National Research Foundation Centre for Cardiac Arrhythmia (DARC), Blegdamsvej 3, 2200, Copenhagen N, Denmark

    Jesper Hastrup Svendsen

Authors
  1. Helen Høgh Petersen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mie Christa Jensen Larsen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Olav Wendelboe Nielsen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Finn Kensing
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jesper Hastrup Svendsen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Helen Høgh Petersen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Petersen, H.H., Larsen, M.C.J., Nielsen, O.W. et al. Patient satisfaction and suggestions for improvement of remote ICD monitoring. J Interv Card Electrophysiol 34, 317–324 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10840-012-9675-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10840-012-9675-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation