Patient satisfaction and suggestions for improvement of remote ICD monitoring
- 486 Downloads
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.
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.
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.
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.
KeywordsImplantable cardioverter defibrillator Remote monitoring Patient acceptance Telemedicine
- 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
- 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
- 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar