Remote monitoring of patients with implanted cardiac devices-A review

European Cardiology

Volumn 8, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 88-93

  Afolabi, Bosede A ^a   Kusumoto, Fred M ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA COLLEGE OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b MAYO CLINIC   (United States)

Author keywords

Cardiovascular implantable electronic devices; Heart failure monitoring; Lead recall; Pacemaker follow up; Remote monitoring; Transtelephonic monitoring

Indexed keywords

ACCESS TO INFORMATION; CARDIOVASCULAR EQUIPMENT; CLINICAL PRACTICE; DEVICE SAFETY; HEART ARRHYTHMIA; HEART FAILURE; HUMAN; IMPLANT REGISTRY; INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; PATIENT IDENTIFICATION; PATIENT MONITORING; REVIEW; TELEMONITORING;

EID: 84864572096     PISSN: 17583756     EISSN: 17583764     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.15420/ecr.2012.8.2.88     Document Type: Review

References (28)

1. Elmqvist R. Review of early pacemaker development, Pacing Clin Electrophysiol, 1978;1:535-6.
2. Epstein AE, Dimarco JP, Ellenbogen KA, et al., American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice, American Association for Thoracic Surgery, Society of Thoracic Surgeons, ACC/AHA/HRS 2008 guidelines for Device-Based Therapy of Cardiac Rhythm Abnormalities: executive summary, Heart Rhythm, 2008;5:934-55.
3. Wilkoff BL, Auricchio A, Brugada J, et al., Heart Rhythm Society; European Heart Rhythm Association; American College of Cardiology; American Heart Association; European Society of Cardiology; Heart Failure Association of ESC; Heart Failure Society of America, HRS/EHRA expert consensus on the monitoring of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs): description of techniques, indications, personnel, frequency and ethical considerations, Heart Rhythm, 2008;5:907-25.
4. Dubner S, Auricchio A, Steinberg JS, et al., ISHNE/EHRA expert consensus on remote monitoring of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs), Ann Noninvasive Electrocardiol, 2012;17:36-56.
5. Marinskis G, van Erven L, Bongiorni MG, et al., Scientific Initiative Committee, European Heart Rhythm Association, Practices of cardiac implantable electronic device follow-up: results of the European Heart Rhythm Association survey, Europace, 2012;14:423-5.
6. Vinck I, De Laet C, Stroobandt S, Van Brabandt H, Legal and organizational aspects of remote cardiac monitoring: the example of implantable cardioverter defibrillators, Europace, 15 February 2012 [Epub ahead of print]
7. Furman S, Parker B, Escher DJ, Transtelephone pacemaker clinic, J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg, 1971;61:827-34
8. Sweesy MW, Erickson SL, Crago JA, et al., Analysis of the effectiveness of in-office and transtelephonic follow-up in terms of pacemaker system complications, Pacing Clin Electrophysiol, 1994;17:2001-3.
9. Healey JS, Connolly SJ, Gold MR, et al., ASSERT Investigators, Subclinical atrial fibrillation and the risk of stroke, N Engl J Med, 2012;366:120-9.
10. Boveda S, Marijon E, Jacob S, et al., Mona Lisa Study Group, Incidence and prognostic significance of sustained ventricular tachycardias in heart failure patients implanted with biventricular pacemakers without a back-up defibrillator: results from the prospective, multicentre, Mona Lisa cohort study, Eur Heart J, 2009;30:1237-44.
11. Guédon-Moreau L, Chevalier P, Marquié C, et al., ECOST Trial Investigators, Contributions of remote monitoring to the follow-up of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator leads under advisory, Eur Heart J, 2010;31:2246-52.
12. Carlson M, Riata Lead Summit, SJM Perspective, St. Jude Medical website, 20 January 2012. Available at: www.riatacommunication.com/riata-us/riata-us-leadsummit. aspx (accessed 5 April 2012).
13. Maisel WH, Hauser RG, Hammill SC, et al., Heart Rhythm Society Task Force on Lead Performance Policies and Guidelines, American College of Cardiology (ACC), American Heart Association (AHA), Recommendations from the Heart Rhythm Society Task Force on Lead Performance Policies and Guidelines: developed in collaboration with the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and the American Heart Association (AHA), Heart Rhythm, 2009;6:869-85.
14. Merchant FM, Dec GW, Singh JP, Implantable sensors for heart failure, Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol, 2010;3:657-67
15. Klersy C, De Silvestri A, Gabutti G, et al., A meta-analysis of remote monitoring of heart failure patients, J Am Coll Cardiol, 2009;54:1683-94.
16. Crossley GH, Chen J, Choucair W, et al., PREFER Study Investigators, Clinical benefits of remote versus transtelephonic monitoring of implanted pacemakers, J Am Coll Cardiol, 2009;54:2012-9.
17. Crossley GH, Boyle A, Vitense H, et al., CONNECT Investigators, The CONNECT (Clinical Evaluation of Remote Notification to Reduce Time to Clinical Decision) trial: the value of wireless remote monitoring with automatic clinician alerts, J Am Coll Cardiol, 2011;57(10):1181-9.
18. Varma N, Epstein AE, Irimpen A, et al., TRUST Investigators, Efficacy and safety of automatic remote monitoring for implantable cardioverter-defibrillator follow-up: the Lumos-T Safely Reduces Routine Office Device Follow-up (TRUST) trial, Circulation, 2010;122(4):325-32.
19. Mabo P, Inserm R, Defaye P, et al., EVATEL: remote follow-up of Patients implanted with an ICD: the Prospective randomized EVATEL study. ESC Congress report, Presented at: European Society of Cardiology Congress 2011, Paris, France, 27-31 August 2011.
20. Kacet S, Guédon-Moreau L, Hermida J-S, et al., ECOST: safety of implantable cardioverter defibrillator follow-up using remote Monitoring: a randomized controlled Trial, Presented at: European Society of Cardiology Congress 2011, Paris, France, 27-31, August 2011.
21. Boston Scientific Cardiac Rhythm Resource Center, Analysis of aggregate limited data set from LATITUDE Patient Management System data as of 8 June 2009. Data on file.
22. CareLink® Evaluation, ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT01023022. Available at: http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01023022?term=NCT01023022&rank=1 (accessed 4 April 2012).
23. Saxon LA, Hayes DL, Gilliam FR, et al., Long-term outcome after ICD and CRT implantation and influence of remote device follow-up: the ALTITUDE survival study, Circulation, 2010;122(23):2359-67.
24. Fischer A, Ousdigian KT, Johnson JW, et al., The impact of atrial fibrillation with rapid ventricular rates and device programming on shocks in 106,513 ICD and CRT-D patients, Heart Rhythm, 2012;9(1):24-31.
25. OptiLink HF Study, ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00769457. Available at: http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00769457?term=NCT00 769457&rank=1 (accessed 4 April 2012).
26. Ricci RP, Morichelli L, Quarta L, et al., Long-term patient acceptance of and satisfaction with implanted device remote monitoring, Europace, 2010;12(5):674-9.
27. Gramegna L, Tomasi C, Gasparini G, et al., In-hospital followup of implantable cardioverter defibrillator and pacemaker carriers: patients' inconvenience and points of view. A fourhospital Italian survey, Europace, 2012;14(3):345-50.
28. Forleo GB, Tesauro M, Panattoni G, et al., Impact of continuous intracardiac ST-segment monitoring on mid-term outcomes of ICD-implanted patients with coronary artery disease. Early results of prospective comparison with conventional ICD outcomes, Heart, 2012;98(5):402-7.