Skip to main content
Log in

What evidence do we have to replace in-hospital implantable cardioverter defibrillator follow-up?

  • Published:
Clinical Research in Cardiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Summary

Introduction

Due to the increasing number of patients with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD), new options for ICD patient follow-up management are required.

Methods

Patients with ICD indication according to the guidelines received an ICD with Home Monitoring technology. The devices enabled the transmission of the relevant episode, therapy, and system integrity data. Patients were followed for 12 months with routine controls every 3 months. The physician analyzed the Home Monitoring data before the routine follow-up visit (FU) and gave a forecast on the necessity of the pending FU, which was compared with the evaluation after the FU. Based on the derived forecast reliability, a patient management scheme was developed and its impact on patient safety was assessed retrospectively.

Results

A total of 271 patients were enrolled (40 f, mean age 62±12 years, mean LVEF 39±15%, 65% ischemic heart disease, 20% cardiomyopathy) and followed for 339±109 days. Of 908 pairs of Home Monitoring data and FU data evaluation, 129 there were false negative results for 92 patients. Safety concerns from false negative forecasts can be minimized with a patient management scheme containing the following elements: 1) never skip the first routine FU; 2) never skip a routine FU for a patient having already shown pacing threshold problems; 3) perform FU following hospitalizations; 4) perform FU following episode detection by the ICD; and 5) perform a routine FU if the patient reports symptoms. The retrospective analysis showed, that if the patients had been managed using this scheme, 503 of 1079 routine FU could have been skipped with only one safety concern, a three month delay in the detection of silent paroxysmal atrial fibrillation in one patient.

Conclusions

Home Monitoring in ICD therapy over 12 months is feasible. The data transmitted relevantly contribute to a remarkable reduction of follow-up burden and enable the individualization of routine follow-up.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bardy GH, Lee KL, Mark DB et al (2005) Amiodarone or an Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator for Congestive Heart Failure. N Engl J Med 352:225–237

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Becker R, Ruf-Richter J, Senges-Becker JC et al (2004) Patient alert in implantable cardioverter defibrillators: toy or tool? J Am Coll Cardiol 44:95–98

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Cleland JG, Louis AA, Rigby AS et al (2005) Noninvasive home telemonitoring for patients with heart failure at high risk of recurrent admission and death: the Trans-European Network-Home-Care Management System (TEN-HMS) study. J Am Coll Cardiol 45:1654–1664

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Freedberg NA, Hill JN, Fogel RI et al (2001) Recurrence of symptomatic ventricular arrhythmias in patients with Implantable Cardioverter Defirbillator after the first device therapy. J Am Coll Cardiol 37:1910–1915

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Gillis AM, Philippon F, Cassidy MR et al (2003) Guidelines for implantable cardioverter defibrillator FU in Canada. Can J Cardiol 19:21–28

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Gradaus R, Block M, Brachmann J et al (2003) Mortality, morbidity, and complications in 3,344 patients with implantatble cardioverter defibrillators: results from the german ICD registry EURID. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 26:1511–1518

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Higgins SL (1999) Impact of the Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial on implantable cardioverter defibrillator indication trends. Am J Cardiol 83:79D–82D

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Klein RC, Raitt MH, Wilkoff BL et al (2003) Analysis of implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy in the Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators (AVID) Trial. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 14:940–948

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Koos R, Sinha AM, Stellbrink C (2005) Home Monitoring in an ICD patient with incessant ventricular tachycardia. Z Kardiol 94:461–464

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Lercher P, Rotman B, Scherr D, Kraxner W, Luha O, Klein W (2003) [The impact of the Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial II in a university hospital—do all patients with myocardial infarction and reduced left ventricular function need an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator?] Wien Klin Wochenschr 115:167–174

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Louis AA, Turner T, Gretton M et al (2003) A systematic review of telemonitoring for the management of heart failure. Eur J Heart Fail 5:583–590

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Mirowski M, Mower MM, Reid PR (1980) The automatic implantable defibrillator. Am Heart J 100:1089–1092

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Moss AJ, Hall WJ, Cannom DS et al (1996) Improved survival with an implanted defibrillator in patients with coronary disease at high risk for ventricular arrhythmia. N Engl J Med 335:1933–1940

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Moss AJ, Zareba W, Hall WJ et al (2005) Prophylactic implantation of a defibrillator in patients with myocardial infarction and reduced ejection fraction. N Engl J Med 346:877–883

    Google Scholar 

  15. Senges-Becker JC, Klostermann M, Becker R et al (2005) What is the “Optimal” follow-up schedule for ICD patients? Europace 7:319–326

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Scholten MF, Thornton AS, Theuns DA et al (2004) Twiddler’s syndrome detected by Home Monitoring device. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 27:1151–1152

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Winters SL, Packer DL, Marchlinski FE et al (2001) Consensus statement on indication, guidelines for use, and recommendations for FU of implantable cardioverter defibrillators. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 24:262–269

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. ACC/AHA/NASPE 2002 guideline update for implantation of cardiac pacemakers and antiarrythmia devices; www.acc.org

  19. http://www.sjm.com

  20. http://www.medtronic.com/carelink

  21. http://www.guidant.com

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Brugada, P. What evidence do we have to replace in-hospital implantable cardioverter defibrillator follow-up?. Clin Res Cardiol 95 (Suppl 3), iii3–iii9 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00392-006-1302-x

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00392-006-1302-x

Key words

Navigation