Active periodic electrograms in remote monitoring of pacemaker recipients: the PREMS study.
Action Potentials
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Arrhythmias, Cardiac
/ diagnostic imaging
Cardiac Pacing, Artificial
Electrophysiologic Techniques, Cardiac
Female
France
Heart Rate
Humans
Male
Pacemaker, Artificial
Predictive Value of Tests
Prospective Studies
Remote Sensing Technology
Telemedicine
Time Factors
Treatment Outcome
Journal
Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology
ISSN: 1532-2092
Titre abrégé: Europace
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100883649
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 Jan 2019
01 Jan 2019
Historique:
received:
13
03
2018
accepted:
29
05
2018
pubmed:
30
6
2018
medline:
1
9
2020
entrez:
30
6
2018
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Remote monitoring (RM) is considered as a standard of care for pacemaker recipients. Remote monitoring systems provide calendar-based intracardiac electrogram recordings (IEGM) only with the current pacemaker settings (passive IEGM). PREMS (Pacemaker Remote Electrogram Monitoring Study), an observational, multicentre trial, prospectively evaluated the clinical value of an active IEGM (aIEGM), including three 10-s sections (passive IEGM, encouraged sensing, and encouraged pacing), compared to other RM data and to its passive IEGM section. Secondary objectives included the added value of the aIEGM to fully assess the sensing and pacing functions of each lead. Patients were enrolled within 3 months after pacemaker implantation and followed until the first transmitted aIEGM, which was analysed together with all other RM data. In total, 567 patients were enrolled (79 ± 9 years, 62% men, 19% single-chamber, and 81% dual-chamber pacemakers). Of 547 aIEGMs transmitted in 547 patients, 161 [29.4%; 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 25.6-33.3%] indicated at least one anomaly non-detectable with certainty-or at all-on other RM data, including atrial arrhythmia, extrasystoles, undersensing, oversensing, and loss of capture. In 21.7% of cases the detected events deserved a corrective action. The sensing and pacing function of each lead could be fully assessed in 77.3% of aIEGM (95% CI 72.6-82.0%) vs. 15.5% (95% CI 11.4-19.6%) when considering only the passive IEGM section (P < 0.001). An active IEGM improves the clinical value of remote pacemaker follow-up. Furthermore, compared to a passive IEGM, the aIEGM increases the capability to fully assess remotely the sensing and pacing functions.
Identifiants
pubmed: 29955890
pii: 5046020
doi: 10.1093/europace/euy140
pmc: PMC6321961
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Observational Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
130-136Références
Biomed Tech (Berl). 2002;47 Suppl 1 Pt 2:950-3
pubmed: 12465353
Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2007 Jan;30 Suppl 1:S2-S12
pubmed: 17302706
Europace. 2008 Feb;10(2):164-70
pubmed: 18199570
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008 May 27;51(21):e1-62
pubmed: 18498951
Europace. 2008 Dec;10(12):1392-9
pubmed: 18775878
Europace. 2011 Feb;13(2):221-9
pubmed: 21252195
Heart Rhythm. 2011 Oct;8(10):1622-8
pubmed: 21699827
Eur Heart J. 2012 May;33(9):1105-11
pubmed: 22127418
Circulation. 2012 Oct 2;126(14):1784-800
pubmed: 22965336
Europace. 2015 Apr;17(4):584-90
pubmed: 25567067
Heart Rhythm. 2015 Jul;12(7):e69-100
pubmed: 25981148
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015 Jun 23;65(24):2601-2610
pubmed: 25983008
Heart Rhythm. 2016 Feb;13(2):602-8
pubmed: 26432581
Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2017 May;40(5):527-536
pubmed: 28244117
Eur Heart J. 2017 Jun 7;38(22):1749-1755
pubmed: 29688304