Reliability of Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Home Monitoring in Forecasting the Need for Regular Office Visits, and Patient Perspective

Abstract

RM-based forecasts appear sufficiently accurate to safely individualize RFU. Most patients have a positive attitude towards RM.

The patient perspective on remote monitoring of patients with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator: Narrative review and future directions

“…Besides these large registries, some smaller (prospective) observational studies included measures of health status, satisfaction and/or acceptation, RPM experiences, and preferences for follow‐up . The majority used self‐designed questionnaires . Only one observational study of remotely monitored patients (N = 124) assessed health status, and found stable scores on the 36‐item Short Form Health Survey (SF‐36) during the first 6 months after implantation and high satisfaction with RPM using a purpose‐designed questionnaire .…”

“…In an Italian study (N = 119), 90% of patients reported that RPM did not influence daily activities and 95% reported that RPM did not bother them . A Japanese study (N = 215) showed that 93% found RPM not bothersome . Few studies reported on patient preferences, indicating that 78–98% of patients expressed a preference for RPM and wished to continue RPM after study participation .…”

Necessity of Face-to-Face Encounters With Recipients of Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Devices With Remote Monitoring

“…A qualification system may also be needed for expert nurses who are specialized in remote monitoring of implanted devices. 10 Finally, although the vast majority of patients had a positive attitude and experience with Home Monitoring in this study, 4 the fact remains that a minority of patients, mostly elderly patients, do not accept it, primarily because of fear of technology or concerns about the risk of losing contact with doctors or hospitals. 12 Simpler devices/systems or novel operational platforms device event and the time scheduled for the next regular inhospital follow-up visit.…”

“…4 The primary objective was to evaluate the reliability of Home Monitoring technology in predicting the need for regular in-hospital followups (3, 6, 9, or 12-months' follow-up). To this end, the pre-and post-follow-up assessments for regular visits were compared to derive the rate of true and false predictions.…”

Remote monitoring of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices in Japan

“…So far, clinical evidence from Japan supporting the efficacy of the RM technology has been limited. The HOME‐ICD study reported by Watanabe et al [18] evaluated the reliability of daily wireless RM in forecasting the need for regular in‐hospital follow‐ups (RFUs). Two‐hundred fifteen patients implanted with ICDs or CRT‐Ds were enrolled, and RFUs were performed at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months after implantation.…”