AimRemote follow-up (FU) of implantable cardiac defibrillators (ICDs) allows for fewer in-office visits in combination with earlier detection of relevant findings. Its implementation requires investment and reorganization of care. Providers (physicians or hospitals) are unsure about the financial impact. The primary end-point of this randomized prospective multicentre health economic trial was the total FU-related cost for providers, comparing Home Monitoring facilitated FU (HM ON) to regular in-office FU (HM OFF) during the first 2 years after ICD implantation. Also the net financial impact on providers (taking national reimbursement into account) and costs from a healthcare payer perspective were evaluated.Methods and resultsA total of 312 patients with VVI- or DDD-ICD implants from 17 centres in six EU countries were randomised to HM ON or OFF, of which 303 were eligible for data analysis. For all contacts (in-office, calendar- or alert-triggered web-based review, discussions, calls) time-expenditure was tracked. Country-specific cost parameters were used to convert resource use into monetary values. Remote FU equipment itself was not included in the cost calculations. Given only two patients from Finland (one in each group) a monetary valuation analysis was not performed for Finland. Average age was 62.4 ± 13.1 years, 81% were male, 39% received a DDD system, and 51% had a prophylactic ICD. Resource use with HM ON was clearly different: less FU visits (3.79 ± 1.67 vs. 5.53 ± 2.32; P < 0.001) despite a small increase of unscheduled visits (0.95 ± 1.50 vs. 0.62 ± 1.25; P < 0.005), more non-office-based contacts (1.95 ± 3.29 vs. 1.01 ± 2.64; P < 0.001), more Internet sessions (11.02 ± 15.28 vs. 0.06 ± 0.31; P < 0.001) and more in-clinic discussions (1.84 ± 4.20 vs. 1.28 ± 2.92; P < 0.03), but with numerically fewer hospitalizations (0.67 ± 1.18 vs. 0.85 ± 1.43, P = 0.23) and shorter length-of-stay (6.31 ± 15.5 vs. 8.26 ± 18.6; P = 0.27), although not significant. For the whole study population, the total FU cost for providers was not different for HM ON vs. OFF [mean (95% CI): €204 (169–238) vs. €213 (182–243); range for difference (€−36 to 54), NS]. From a payer perspective, FU-related costs were similar while the total cost per patient (including other physician visits, examinations, and hospitalizations) was numerically (but not significantly) lower. There was no difference in the net financial impact on providers [profit of €408 (327–489) vs. €400 (345–455); range for difference (€−104 to 88), NS], but there was heterogeneity among countries, with less profit for providers in the absence of specific remote FU reimbursement (Belgium, Spain, and the Netherlands) and maintained or increased profit in cases where such reimbursement exists (Germany and UK). Quality of life (SF-36) was not different.ConclusionFor all the patients as a whole, FU-related costs for providers are not different for remote FU vs. purely in-office FU, despite reorganized care. However, disparity in the impact on provider budget among dif...

No abstract

A mutation of the LDL receptor gene very common among Finnish patients with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) was identified. This mutation, designated as FHNorth Karelia, deletes seven nucleotides from exon 6 of the LDL receptor gene, causes a translational frameshift, and is predicted to result in a truncated receptor protein. Only minute quantities of mRNA corresponding to the deleted gene were detected. Functional studies using cultured fibroblasts from the patients revealed that the FH-North Karelia gene is associated with a receptor-negative (or binding-defective) phenotype of FH. Carriers of the FH-North Karelia gene showed a typical xanthomatous form of FH, with mean serum total and LDL cholesterol levels of 12 and 10 mmol/liter, respectively. This mutation was found in 69 (34%) out of 201 nonrelated Finnish FH patients and was especially abundant (prevalence 79%) in patients from the eastern Finland. These results, combined with our earlier data on another LDL receptor gene deletion (FH-Helsinki), demonstrate that two "Finnish-type" mutant LDL receptor genes make up about two thirds of FH mutations in this country, reflecting a founder gene effect. This background provides good possibilities to examine whether genetic heterogeneity affects the clinical presentation or responsiveness to therapeutic interventions in FH. (J. Clin. Invest. 1992.

No abstract

The concordance of clinical and molecular genetic diagnoses of heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) was studied in 65 subjects (10 propositi and 55 first-degree relatives) from 10 families with FH. Nine propositi were carriers of the FH-Helsinki deletion of the low density lipoprotein (LDL) receptor gene, prevalent in the Finnish population, while a new deletion, extending from intron 14 to intron 15 of the LDL receptor gene, was identified in one family. Serum LDL cholesterol levels used in the clinical diagnosis (<5.0 mmol/1, not FH; 5.0-5.9 mmol/l, possible FH; 2:6.0 mmol/1, FH; limits are 1 mmol/1 lower for those <18 years) were derived from an authoritative recommendation. Tendon xanthomas constituted an additional criterion. With the DNA analysis as the reference, 55 (85%) subjects could be correctly classified clinically as FH patients or subjects without FH. The remaining 10 subjects were misclassified or were in the "possible FH" category. When the age-and sex-specific 95th percentile LDL cholesterol levels were used instead of the rigid values for both adults and children, the percentage of correct diagnoses rose to 95%. Common genetic polymorphisms of apolipoproteins E and B did not markedly affect LDL cholesterol levels in FH patients, whereas increasing age and obesity were associated with elevated LDL levels. In conclusion, DNA analysis is a valuable adjunct to the diagnosis of FH that is applicable to families with a known mutation of the LDL receptor gene. If DNA methods are not available, age-and sex-specific LDL levels should be used as an aid in the clinical diagnosis of FH. (Arteriosclerosis and Thrombosis 1992;12:584-592) KEYWORDS • familial hypercholesterolemia • low density lipoprotein receptor gene • apolipoprotein B • apolipoprotein E R ecent developments in the treatment of hyperlipidemias have led to an increasing need for systematic recommendations for the recognition and management of these disorders.1 -2 The diagnosis of familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) has relied on its principal clinical features: elevated serum total and low density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol concentrations, the presence of tendon xanthomas and premature coronary heart disease (CHD), and similar findings in a first-degree relative.3 FH is caused by a mutation of the LDL receptor gene, resulting in the defective functioning and/or a diminished number of LDL receptors in the hepatic and other cells, which in turn is accompanied by the slow receptor-mediated catabolism of LDL and the accumulation of LDL in the circulation.3 "