It is feasible to automatically measure SDB severity using a pacemaker trans-thoracic impedance sensor. Advanced SDB was frequently undiagnosed in this cohort of pacemaker patients.

BackgroundIn heart failure (HF) patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD) or cardiac resynchronisation therapy defibrillators (CRT-D), remote monitoring has been shown to result in at least non-inferior outcomes relative to in-clinic visits. We aimed to provide further evidence for this effect, and to assess whether adding telephone follow-ups to remote follow-ups influenced outcomes.MethodsInContact was a prospective, randomised, multicentre study. Subjects receiving quarterly automated follow-up only (telemetry group) were compared to those receiving personal physician contact. Personal contact patients were further divided into those receiving automated follow-up plus a telephone call (remote+phone subgroup) or in-clinic visits only.ResultsTwo hundred and ten patients underwent randomisation (telemetry n = 102; personal contact n = 108 [remote+phone: n = 53; visit: n = 55]). Baseline characteristics were comparable between groups and subgroups. Over 12 months, 34.8% of patients experienced deterioration of their Packer Clinical Composite Response, with no significant difference between the telemetry group and personal care (p > 0.999), remote+phone (p = 0.937) or visit (p = 0.940) patients; predefined non-inferiority criteria were met. Mortality rates (5.2% overall) were comparable between groups and subgroups (p = 0.832/p = 0.645), as were HF-hospitalisation rates (11.0% overall; p = 0.605/p = 0.851). The proportion of patients requiring ≥1 unscheduled follow-up was nominally higher in telemetry and remote+phone groups (42.2 and 45.3%) compared to the visit group (29.1%). Overall, ≥ 1 ICD therapy was delivered to 15.2% of patients.ConclusionIn HF patients with ICDs/CRT-Ds, quarterly remote follow-up only over 12 months was non-inferior to regular personal contact. Addition of quarterly telephone follow-ups to remote monitoring does not appear to offer any clinical advantage.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov: NCT01200381 (retrospectively registered on September 13th 2010).

CAS using the right transradial approach for left CAS in bovine-type aortic arch or the right transradial approach in type-III aortic arch for right CAS appears to be safe and technically feasible.

No abstract

AimsRemote monitoring for patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) is well established in clinical routine and recommended by current guidelines. Nevertheless, data regarding patients’ perceptions are limited. Therefore, this study aims to analyze the patient perspectives on the remote monitoring of cardiac devices in Germany.Methods and resultsPatients with CIEDs and remote monitoring of all current manufacturers from three German centers were asked to participate. The questionnaire consisted of 37 questions regarding the patients’ individual use and perspectives on remote monitoring. Survey participation was anonymous and on a voluntary basis. A total of 617 patients (71.6% men) participated. Most patients reported feeling well informed (69.3%) and reported having unchanged or improved coping (98.8%) since the start of remote monitoring. At least 39.7% of patients experienced technical problems regarding the transmitter, whereas most patients (60.3%) reported that they never noted technical issues. Older patients had significantly less interest than younger patients in using their own smartphones for data transfer (p < 0.001).ConclusionPatients with remote follow-up of CIED reported that they felt well informed about the remote monitoring approach. Remote monitoring can support coping with their disease. With remote monitoring, patients experienced a prolongation of intervals of in-person follow-up visits, and especially younger patients would appreciate smartphone-based data transfer of their CIEDs.