Rationale and design of the MONITOR-ICD study: A randomized comparison of economic and clinical effects of automatic remote MONITORing versus control in patients with Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators

American Heart Journal

Volumn 168, Issue 4, 2014, Pages 430-437

  Zabel, Markus ^a   Müller Riemenschneider, Falk ^b,c   Geller, J Christoph ^d   Brachmann, Johannes ^e   Kühlkamp, Volker ^f   Dissmann, Rüdiger ^g   Reinhold, Thomas ^b   Roll, Stephanie ^b   Lüthje, Lars ^a   Bode, Frank ^h   Eckardt, Lars ⁱ   Willich, Stefan N ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GÖTTINGEN   (Germany)

^b CHARITÉ UNIVERSITÄTSMEDIZIN BERLIN   (Germany)

^c NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE   (Singapore)

^d ZENTRALKLINIK BAD BERKA   (Germany)

^e Heart Center   (Germany)

^f Bodensee Heart Center   (Germany)

^g Klinikum Reinkenheide   (Germany)

^h UNIVERSITY OF LÜBECK   (Germany)

ⁱ UNIVERSITY OF MÜNSTER   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CARDIOVASCULAR MORTALITY; CLINICAL DECISION MAKING; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONSULTATION; CONTROLLED STUDY; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DUAL CHAMBER PACEMAKER; ECONOMIC EVALUATION; ELECTRIC SHOCK; FOLLOW UP; HEALTH CARE COST; HEART VENTRICLE TACHYCARDIA; HOSPITALIZATION; HUMAN; IMPLANTABLE CARDIOVERTER DEFIBRILLATOR; IMPLANTABLE CARDIOVERTER DEFIBRILLATOR SHOCK; LENGTH OF STAY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MULTICENTER STUDY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATIENT CARE; PATIENT MONITOR; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; QUALITY OF LIFE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; REMOTE SENSING; SINGLE CHAMBER PACEMAKER; STUDY DESIGN; SUDDEN CARDIAC DEATH; CLINICAL TRIAL; ECONOMICS; FEMALE; HEART FAILURE; MALE; MIDDLE AGED;

AGED; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DEFIBRILLATORS, IMPLANTABLE; FEMALE; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HEART FAILURE; HOSPITALIZATION; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; QUALITY OF LIFE;

EID: 84922234191     PISSN: 00028703     EISSN: 10976744     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ahj.2014.04.021     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. D.P. Zipes, A.J. Camm, and M. Borggrefe ACC/AHA/ESC 2006 Guidelines for Management of Patients With Ventricular Arrhythmias and the Prevention of Sudden Cardiac Death: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force and the European Society of Cardiology Committee for Practice Guidelines (writing committee to develop Guidelines for Management of Patients With Ventricular Arrhythmias and the Prevention of Sudden Cardiac Death): developed in collaboration with the European Heart Rhythm Association and the Heart Rhythm Society Circulation 114 2006 e385 e484
2. G.D. Sanders, M.A. Hlatky, and D.K. Owens Cost-effectiveness of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators N Engl J Med 353 2005 1471 1480
3. W.B. Fye Cardiology workforce: there's already a shortage, and it's getting worse! J Am Coll Cardiol 39 2002 2077 2079
4. N. Varma, A.E. Epstein, and A. Irimpen 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 122 2010 325 332
5. L.A. Saxon, D.L. Hayes, and F.R. Gilliam Long-term outcome after ICD and CRT implantation and influence of remote device follow-up: the ALTITUDE survival study Circulation 122 2010 2359 2367
6. G.H. Crossley, A. Boyle, and H. Vitense 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 57 2011 1181 1189
7. M. Landolina, G.B. Perego, and M. Lunati Remote monitoring reduces healthcare use and improves quality of care in heart failure patients with implantable defibrillators: the EVOLVO study Circulation 125 2012 2985 2992
8. G. Hindricks, C. Elsner, and C. Piorkowski Quarterly vs. yearly clinical follow-up of remotely monitored recipients of prophylactic implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: results of the REFORM trial Eur Heart J 35 2014 98 105
9. D.A. Theuns, J.C. Res, and L.J. Jordaens Home monitoring in ICD therapy: future perspectives Europace 5 2003 139 142
10. C.H. Elsner, P. Sommer, and C. Piorkowski A prospective multicenter comparison trial of home monitoring against regular follow-up in MADIT II patients: additional visits and cost impact Comput Cardiol 2006 241 244
11. S.H. Hohnloser, H.R. Al-Khalidi, and C.M. Pratt Electrical storm in patients with an implantable defibrillator: incidence, features, and preventive therapy: insights from a randomized trial Eur Heart J 27 2006 3027 3032
12. S. Spencker, N. Coban, and L. Koch Potential role of home monitoring to reduce inappropriate shocks in implantable cardioverter-defibrillator patients due to lead failure Europace 11 2009 483 488
13. L. Guedon-Moreau, P. Chevalier, and C. Marquie Contributions of remote monitoring to the follow-up of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator leads under advisory Eur Heart J 31 2010 2246 2252
14. M.O. Sweeney, M.S. Wathen, and K. Volosin Appropriate and inappropriate ventricular therapies, quality of life, and mortality among primary and secondary prevention implantable cardioverter defibrillator patients: results from the Pacing Fast VT REduces Shock ThErapies (PainFREE Rx II) trial Circulation 111 2005 2898 2905
15. J.E. Ware Jr., C.D. Sherbourne, and MOS The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection Med Care 30 1992 473 483
16. J. Ware Jr., M. Kosinski, and S.D. Keller A 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity Med Care 34 1996 220 233
17. A. Ribera, G. Permanyer-Miralda, and J. Alonso Is psychometric scoring of the McNew Quality of Life after Myocardial Infarction questionnaire superior to the clinimetric scoring? A comparison of the two approaches Qual Life Res 15 2006 357 365
18. J.L. Burns, E.R. Serber, and S. Keim Measuring patient acceptance of implantable cardiac device therapy: initial psychometric investigation of the Florida Patient Acceptance Survey J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 16 2005 384 390
19. J.E. Brazier, and J. Roberts The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-12 Med Care 42 2004 851 859
20. B. Efron Bootstrap methods: another look at the jackknife Annu Stat 7 1979 1 26
21. M. Lothgren, and N. Zethraeus Definition, interpretation and calculation of cost-effectiveness acceptability curves Health Econ 9 2000 623 630
22. H. Burri, H. Heidbuchel, and W. Jung Remote monitoring: a cost or an investment? Europace 13 Suppl. 2 2011 ii44 ii48
23. N. Varma, J. Michalski, and A.E. Epstein Automatic remote monitoring of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator lead and generator performance: the Lumos-T Safely RedUceS RouTine Office Device Follow-Up (TRUST) trial Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol 3 2010 428 436
24. S. Kacet ECOST: Safety of implantable cardioverter defibrillator follow-up using remote monitoring: a randomized controlled trial European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Congress 2011, Hotline Presentation 2011
25. P. Mabo, P. Defaye, and N. Sadoul Remote follow-up of patients implanted with an ICD: the prospective randomized EVATEL study European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Congress 2011, Hotline Presentation 2011
26. M. Zabel, D. Vollmann, and L. Luthje Randomized Clinical evaluatiON of wireless fluid monitoriNg and rEmote ICD managemenT using OptiVol alert-based predefined management to reduce cardiac decompensation and health care utilization: the CONNECT-OptiVol study Contemp Clin Trials 34 2013 109 116
27. H. Burri, A. Quesada, and R.P. Ricci The MOnitoring Resynchronization dEvices and CARdiac patiEnts (MORE-CARE) study: rationale and design Am Heart J 160 2010 42 48
28. J. Brachmann, M. Bohm, and K. Rybak Fluid status monitoring with a wireless network to reduce cardiovascular-related hospitalizations and mortality in heart failure: rationale and design of the OptiLink HF Study (Optimization of Heart Failure Management using OptiVol Fluid Status Monitoring and CareLink) Eur J Heart Fail 13 2011 796 804
29. C. Krauth, F. Hessel, and T. Hansmeier Empirical standard costs for health economic evaluation in Germany - a proposal by the working group methods in health economic evaluation Gesundheitswesen 67 2005 736 746