Advertisement

Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology

, Volume 34, Issue 3, pp 317–324 | Cite as

Patient satisfaction and suggestions for improvement of remote ICD monitoring

  • Helen Høgh Petersen
  • Mie Christa Jensen Larsen
  • Olav Wendelboe Nielsen
  • Finn Kensing
  • Jesper Hastrup Svendsen
Article

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.

Keywords

Implantable cardioverter defibrillator Remote monitoring Patient acceptance Telemedicine 

References

  1. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Goldberger, Z., & Lampert, R. (2006). Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: expanding indications and technologies. Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), 295(7), 809–818.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Burri, H., & Senouf, D. (2009). Remote monitoring and follow-up of pacemakers and implantable cardioverter defibrillators. Europace, 11(6), 701–709.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Matlock, D. D. (2010). Big Brother is watching you: what do patients think about ICD home monitoring? Circulation, 122(4), 319–321.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Danish Pacemaker and ICD-Registry. www.icddata.dk.
  19. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Helen Høgh Petersen
    • 1
  • Mie Christa Jensen Larsen
    • 1
  • Olav Wendelboe Nielsen
    • 2
  • Finn Kensing
    • 3
  • Jesper Hastrup Svendsen
    • 1
    • 4
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of CardiologyThe Heart CentreCopenhagen OEDenmark
  2. 2.The Department of Cardiology, Bispebjerg HospitalUniversity of CopenhagenCopenhagen NVDenmark
  3. 3.Center for IT InnovationUniversity of CopenhagenCopenhagen SDenmark
  4. 4.Department of Medicine and Surgery, Faculty of Health SciencesUniversity of CopenhagenCopenhagen NDenmark
  5. 5.The Danish National Research Foundation Centre for Cardiac Arrhythmia (DARC)Copenhagen NDenmark

Personalised recommendations