A randomized trial of long-term remote monitoring of pacemaker recipients (The COMPAS trial)

International audienceAIMS: Professional practice guidelines recommend that pacemaker recipients be followed regularly. However, the majority of scheduled ambulatory visits is unproductive and imposes a heavy burden on the health-care system. METHODS AND RESULTS: The COMPAS randomized, multicentre, non-inferiority trial examined the safety of long-term remote monitoring of pacemakers. Between December 2005 and January 2008, 538 patients were randomly assigned to remote monitoring follow-up (active group) vs. standard care (control group). The primary objective was to confirm that the proportion of patients who experienced at least one major adverse event (MAE), including all-cause death and hospitalizations for device-related or cardiovascular adverse events, was not >7% higher in the active than in the control group. MAE-free survivals and quality of life were compared in both groups. The characteristics of the study groups were similar. Over a follow-up of 18.3 months, 17.3% of patients in the active and 19.1% in the control group experienced at least one MAE (P < 0.01 for non-inferiority). Hospitalizations for atrial arrhythmias (6 vs. 18) and strokes (2 vs. 8) were fewer (P < 0.05), and the number of interim ambulatory visits was 56% lower (P < 0.001) in the active than the control group. Changes in pacemaker programming or drug regimens were made in 62% of visits in the active vs. 29% in the control group (P < 0.001). Quality of life remained unchanged in both groups. CONCLUSION: Remote monitoring was a safe alternative to conventional care and significantly lowered the number of ambulatory visits during long-term follow-up of permanently paced patients. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00989326

Changes in heart failure medications in patients hospitalised and discharged

BACKGROUND: To date, evidence-based recommendations help doctors to manage patients with heart failure (HF). However, the implementation of these recommendations in primary care is still problematic as beneficial drugs are infrequently prescribed. The aim of the study was to determine whether admission to hospital increases usage of beneficial HF medication and if this usage is maintained directly after discharge. METHODS: The study was conducted from November 2002 until January 2004. In 77 patients hospitalised with heart failure (HF), the medication prescribed by the referring general practitioner (GP) and drug treatment directed by the hospital physicians was documented. Information regarding the post-discharge (14 d) therapy by the GP was evaluated via a telephone interview. Ejection fraction values, comorbidity and specifics regarding diagnostic or therapeutic intervention were collected by chart review. RESULTS: When compared to the referring GPs, hospital physicians prescribed more ACE-inhibitors (58.4% vs. 76.6%; p = 0.001) and beta-blockers of proven efficacy in HF (metoprolol, bisoprolol, carvedilol; 58.4% vs. 81.8%). Aldosterone antagonists were also administered more frequently in the hospital setting compared to general practice (14.3% vs. 37.7%). The New York Heart Association classification for heart failure did not influence whether aldosterone antagonists were administered either in primary or secondary care. Fourteen days after discharge, there was no significant discontinuity in discharge medication. CONCLUSION: Patients suffering from HF were more likely to receive beneficial medication in hospital than prior to admission. The treatment regime then remained stable two weeks after discharge. We suggest that findings on drug continuation in different cardiovascular patients might be considered validated for patients with HF