Remote monitoring of implantable cardioverter defibrillators: Patient experiences and preferences for follow-up

Background Patient satisfaction with remote patient monitoring (RPM) of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) seems to be high, yet knowledge on long-term patient experiences is limited. The European REMOTE-CIED study explored patients' experiences with RPM, examined patient's preferences for ICD follow-up, and identified determinants of patient's preferences in the first 2 years postimplantation. Methods European heart failure patients (N = 300; median age = 66 years [interquartile range (IQR) = 59-73], and 22% female) with a first-time ICD received a Boston Scientific LATITUDE RPM system (Marlborough, MA, USA) and had scheduled in-clinic follow-ups once a year. Patients completed questionnaires at 1-2 weeks and also at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months postimplantation and clinical data were obtained from their medical records. Patient evaluation data were analyzed descriptively, and Student's t-tests/Man-Whitney U tests or Chi-square tests/Fisher's exact tests were performed to examine determinants of patient preferences. Results At 2 years postimplantation, the median patient satisfaction score with the RPM system was 9 out of 10 (IQR = 8-10), despite 53% of the patients experiencing issues (eg, failure to transmit data). Of the 221 patients who reported their follow-up preferences, 43% preferred RPM and 19% preferred in-clinic follow-up. Patients with a preference for RPM were more likely to be higher educated (P = 0.04), employed (P = 0.04), and equipped with a new LATITUDE model (P = 0.04), but less likely to suffer from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (P = 0.009). Conclusion In general, patients were highly satisfied with RPM, but a subgroup preferred in-clinic follow-up. Therefore, physicians should include patients' concerns and preferences in the decision-making process, to tailor device follow-up to individual patients' needs and preferences.Cardiolog

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

Background Studies have shown that remote patient monitoring (RPM) of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) is at least comparable to in-clinic follow-up with regard to clinical outcomes and might be cost-effective, yet RPM is not standard clinical practice within Europe. Better insight into the patient perspective on RPM may aid in its acceptance, implementation, and reimbursement. This narrative review (1) summarizes existing evidence on the impact of RPM on patient-reported outcomes and (2) discusses future directions in examining the patient perspective. Methods and Results Literature review indicated that only five randomized trials on RPM in ICD patients included patient-reported outcomes, with inconclusive results. Observational studies show a trend toward good patient satisfaction and acceptation of RPM. Yet, results should be interpreted with caution due to a number of limitations including a potential selection bias, use of generic/nonvalidated questionnaires, relatively short follow-up durations, and a lack of subgroup identification. Conclusion Although RPM seems to be safe, effective, timely, and efficient, the patient perspective has received little attention so far. The scarce evidence on patient-reported outcomes in RPM studies seems to be positive, but future trials with a follow-up of ≥12 months and validated patient-reported outcome measures are needed. The REMOTE-CIED study from our group is the first prospective randomized controlled trial primarily designed to examine the patient perspective on RPM, and is powered to identify characteristics associated with RPM satisfaction and benefit. Results are expected in 2018 and will add valuable information to the current evidence