Patient satisfaction and suggestions for improvement of remote ICD monitoring
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 TelemedicineReferences
- 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.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.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.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.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.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.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.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.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.Burri, H., & Senouf, D. (2009). Remote monitoring and follow-up of pacemakers and implantable cardioverter defibrillators. Europace, 11(6), 701–709.PubMedCrossRefGoogle 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle 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.PubMedGoogle 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.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
- 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.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.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
- 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.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.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