Remote versus In-Office Monitoring for Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators: Results from a Randomized Pragmatic Controlled Study in Portugal

• Autor(a) principal: Martins Oliveira, M
• Data de Publicação: 2022
• Outros Autores: Fernandes, M, Reis, H, Primo, J, Sanfins, V, Silva, V, Silva Cunha, P, Silva, M, Nicola, P, PORTLink Study Investigators
• Tipo de documento: Artigo
• Idioma: eng
• Título da fonte: Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
• Texto Completo: http://hdl.handle.net/10400.17/4382
• topic: HSM CAR; Adult; Female; Male; Humans; Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy*; Defibrillators, Implantable* / adverse effects; Portugal

Introduction: Remote monitoring (RM) is a safe and effective alternative to in-office conventional follow-up. Objective: We aimed to evaluate patient satisfaction with RM and its impact on healthcare resources in a population with cardiac implantable electronic devices. Methods: Randomized, pragmatic, open-label controlled trial, with adult wearers of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) or cardiac resynchronization therapy with ICD (CRT-D), eligible for the CareLink® system. Patients newly implanted or with previous conventional follow-up were randomized to RM or conventional follow-up (control), and followed for 12 months, according to the centers' practice. The number of in-office visits and adverse events were compared between groups. Patient and healthcare professionals' satisfaction with RM were described. Results: Of the 134 randomized patients (69 RM; 65 control, aged 60±13 years), 80% were male, 23% employed, 72% ICD wearers and 54% newly implanted. Most patients (70%) reported travel costs less than 15€/visit, and 46% daily routine interference with in-office visits. Median physician/technician time with patient was 15 min/15 min, per in-office visit. Excluding baseline and final visits, control patients had more in-office visits in total: median 1 vs. 0, p<0.001. In 81% of the in-office visits, no clinical measures were taken. There were 10 adverse events, with no differences between groups. At the final visit, 95% of RM patients considered RM easy/very easy to use, and would all prefer to maintain RM and recommend it to others. All professionals found the CareLink website easy/very easy to use and were satisfied with transmission data. Conclusions: In a Portuguese population with ICD and CRT-D, RM safely reduced the burden of in-office visits, with high levels of satisfaction among patients and healthcare professionals.