Change in the use of remote monitoring of cardiac implantable electronic devices in Italian clinical practice over a 5-year period: results of two surveys promoted by the AIAC (Italian Association of Arrhythmology and Cardiac Pacing).
Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Devices
/ trends
Defibrillators, Implantable
/ trends
Health Care Surveys
Humans
Informed Consent
Insurance, Health, Reimbursement
/ trends
Italy
Pacemaker, Artificial
/ trends
Practice Patterns, Nurses'
/ economics
Practice Patterns, Physicians'
/ economics
Prosthesis Failure
Remote Sensing Technology
/ economics
Telemedicine
/ instrumentation
Time Factors
Journal
Journal of cardiovascular medicine (Hagerstown, Md.)
ISSN: 1558-2035
Titre abrégé: J Cardiovasc Med (Hagerstown)
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101259752
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Apr 2020
Apr 2020
Historique:
pubmed:
20
2
2020
medline:
12
11
2020
entrez:
20
2
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of remote monitoring in Italian clinical practice and its trend over the last 5 years. In 2012 and 2017, two surveys were conducted. Both were open to all Italian implanting centres and consisted of 25 questions on the characteristics of the centre, their actual use of remote monitoring, applied organizational models and administrative and legal aspects. The questionnaires were completed by 132 and 108 centres in 2012 and 2017, respectively (30.6 and 24.7% of all Italian implanting centres). In 2017, significantly fewer centres followed up fewer than 200 patients by remote monitoring than in 2012, while more followed up more than 500 patients (all P < 0.005). In most of the centres (77.6%) that responded to both surveys, the number of patients remotely monitored significantly increased from 2012 to 2017.In both surveys, remote monitoring was usually managed by physicians and nurses. Over the period, primary review of transmissions by physicians declined, while it was increasingly performed by nurses; the involvement of technicians rose, while that of manufacturers' technical personnel decreased. The percentage of centres in which transmissions were submitted to the physician only in critical cases rose (from 28.3 to 64.3%; P < 0.001). In 86.7% of centres, the lack of a reimbursement system was deemed the main barrier to implementing remote monitoring. In the last 5 years, the number of patients followed up by remote monitoring has increased markedly. In most Italian centres, remote monitoring has increasingly been managed through a primary nursing model. The lack of a specific reimbursement system is perceived as the main barrier to implementing remote monitoring .
Identifiants
pubmed: 32073430
doi: 10.2459/JCM.0000000000000950
pii: 01244665-202004000-00005
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
305-314Références
Brignole M, Auricchio A, Baron-Esquivias G, et al. 2013 ESC Guidelines on cardiac pacing and cardiac resynchronization therapy: the Task Force on cardiac pacing and resynchronization therapy of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Developed in collaboration with the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA). Eur Heart J 2013; 34:2281–2329.
Priori SG, Blomström-Lundqvist C, Mazzanti A, et al. ESC Scientific Document Group. 2015 ESC Guidelines for the management of patients with ventricular arrhythmias and the prevention of sudden cardiac death: The Task Force for the Management of Patients with Ventricular Arrhythmias and the Prevention of Sudden Cardiac Death of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Endorsed by: Association for European Paediatric and Congenital Cardiology (AEPC). Eur Heart J 2015; 36:2793–2867.
Varma N. Remote monitoring for advisories: automatic early detection of silent lead failure. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 2009; 32:525–527.
Palmisano P, Pisanò ECL, La Rosa C, et al. Effectiveness of Implantable DEfibrillators Alert Systems: comparison between audible and vibratory alert: IDEAS study. J Cardiovasc Med (Hagerstown) 2019; 20:114–121.
Varma N, Michalski J, Epstein AE, Schweikert R. 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 2010; 3:428–436.
Mabo P, Victor F, Bazin P, et al. A randomized trial of long-term remote monitoring of pacemaker recipients (the COMPAS trial). Eur Heart J 2012; 33:1105–1111.
Guédon-Moreau L, Lacroix D, Sadoul N, et al. A randomized study of remote follow-up of implantable cardioverter defibrillators: safety and efficacy report of the ECOST trial. Eur Heart J 2013; 34:605–614.
Marcantoni L, Toselli T, Urso G, Pratola C, Ceconi C, Bertini M. Impact of remote monitoring on the management of arrhythmias in patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillator. J Cardiovasc Med (Hagerstown) 2015; 16:775–781.
Ricci RP, Morichelli L, D’Onofrio A, et al. Effectiveness of remote monitoring of CIEDs in detection and treatment of clinical and device-related cardiovascular events in daily practice: the HomeGuide Registry. Europace 2013; 15:970–977.
Whellan DJ, Ousdigian KT, Al-Khatib SM, et al. Combined heart failure device diagnostics identify patients at higher risk of subsequent heart failure hospitalizations: results from PARTNERS HF (Program to Access and Review Trending Information and Evaluate Correlation to Symptoms in Patients With Heart Failure) study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2010; 55:1803–1810.
Boehmer JP, Hariharan R, Devecchi FG, et al. A multisensor algorithm predicts heart failure events in patients with implanted devices: results from the MultiSENSE study. JACC Heart Fail 2017; 5:216–225.
Palmisano P, Guerra F, Ammendola E, et al. Physical activity measured by implanted devices predicts atrial arrhythmias and patient outcome: results of IMPLANTED (Italian Multicentre Observational Registry on Patients With Implantable Devices Remotely Monitored). J Am Heart Assoc 2018; 7:e008146.
Burri H, da Costa A, Quesada A, et al. Risk stratification of cardiovascular and heart failure hospitalizations using integrated device diagnostics in patients with a cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator. Europace 2018; 20:e69–e77.
Ricci RP, Morichelli L, Porfili A, Quarta L, Sassi A. Diagnostic power and healthcare resource consumption of a dedicated workflow algorithm designed to manage thoracic impedance alerts in heart failure patients by remote monitoring. J Cardiovasc Med (Hagerstown) 2018; 19:105–112.
Morgan JM, Kitt S, Gill J, et al. Remote management of heart failure using implantable electronic devices. Eur Heart J 2017; 38:2352–2360.
Hindricks G, Varma N, Kacet S, et al. Daily remote monitoring of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: insights from the pooled patient-level data from three randomized controlled trials (IN-TIME, ECOST, TRUST). Eur Heart J 2017; 38:1749–1755.
Ricci RP, Vicentini A, D’Onofrio A, et al. Economic analysis of remote monitoring of cardiac implantable electronic devices: results of the Health Economics Evaluation Registry for Remote Follow-up (TARIFF) study. Heart Rhythm 2017; 14:50–57.
Boriani G, Da Costa A, Quesada A, et al. Effects of remote monitoring on clinical outcomes and use of healthcare resources in heart failure patients with biventricular defibrillators: results of the MORE-CARE multicentre randomized controlled trial. Eur J Heart Fail 2017; 19:416–425.
Ricci RP, Morichelli L, D’Onofrio A, et al. Manpower and outpatient clinic workload for remote monitoring of patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices: data from the HomeGuide Registry. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 2014; 25:1216–1223.
Ricci RP, Morichelli L, Santini M. Home monitoring remote control of pacemaker and implantable cardioverter defibrillator patients in clinical practice: impact on medical management and health-care resource utilization. Europace 2008; 10:164–170.
Landolina M, Perego GB, Lunati M, et al. Remote monitoring reduces healthcare use and improves quality of care in heart failure patients with implantable defibrillators: the evolution of management strategies of heart failure patients with implantable defibrillators (EVOLVO) study. Circulation 2012; 125:2985–2992.
Slotwiner D, Varma N, Akar JG, et al. HRS expert consensus statement on remote interrogation and monitoring for cardiovascular implantable electronic devices. Heart Rhythm 2015; 12:e69–e100.
Proclemer A, Zecchin M, Lunati M, et al. The pacemaker and implantable cardioverter-defibrillator registry of the Italian Association of Arrhythmology and Cardiac Pacing: annual report 2012. G Ital Cardiol (Rome) 2013; 14:784–796.
Proclemer A, Zecchin M, D’Onofrio A, et al. The Pacemaker and Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Registry of the Italian Association of Arrhythmology and Cardiac Pacing: annual report 2017. G Ital Cardiol (Rome) 2019; 20:136–148.
Halimi F, Cantù F. European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) Scientific Initiatives Committee (SIC). Remote monitoring for active cardiovascular implantable electronic devices: a European survey. Europace 2010; 12:1778–1780.
Marinskis G, van Erven L, Bongiorni MG, Lip GY, Pison L, Blomström-Lundqvist C. 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; 14:423–425.
Hernández-Madrid A, Lewalter T, Proclemer A, Pison L, Lip GY, Blomstrom-Lundqvist C. Scientific Initiatives Committee, European Heart Rhythm Association. Remote monitoring of cardiac implantable electronic devices in Europe: results of the European Heart Rhythm Association survey. Europace 2014; 16:129–132.
Mairesse GH, Braunschweig F, Klersy K, Cowie MR, Leyva F. Implementation and reimbursement of remote monitoring for cardiac implantable electronic devices in Europe: a survey from the health economics committee of the European Heart Rhythm Association. Europace 2015; 17:814–818.
Luzi M, De Simone A, Leoni L, et al. Remote monitoring for implantable defibrillators: a nationwide survey in Italy. Interact J Med Res 2013; 2:e27.
Zanotto G, D’Onofrio A, Della Bella P, et al. Organizational model and reactions to alerts in remote monitoring of cardiac implantable electronic devices: a survey from the Home Monitoring Expert Alliance project. Clin Cardiol 2019; 42:76–83.
Scacciatella P, Jorfida M, Biava LM, et al. Insertable cardiac monitor detection of silent atrial fibrillation in candidates for percutaneous patent foramen ovale closure. J Cardiovasc Med (Hagerstown) 2019; 20:290–296.
Di Odoardo LAF, Ambrosini F, Giavarini A, Vicenzi M, Venturini F, Lombardi F. Reveal LINQTM experience out of the electrophysiology lab. J Cardiovasc Med (Hagerstown) 2017; 18:550–552.
Palmisano P, Accogli M, Zaccaria M, et al. Predictive factors for pacemaker implantation in patients receiving an implantable loop recorder for syncope remained unexplained after an extensive cardiac and neurological workup. Int J Cardiol 2013; 168:3450–3457.
Maines M, Zorzi A, Tomasi G, et al. Clinical impact, safety, and accuracy of the remotely monitored implantable loop recorder Medtronic Reveal LINQTM. Europace 2018; 20:1050–1057.
Ricci RP, Morichelli L. Workflow, time and patient satisfaction from the perspectives of home monitoring. Europace 2013; 15: (Suppl 1): i49–i53.
Ricci RP, Morichelli L, Quarta L, et al. Long-term patient acceptance of and satisfaction with implanted device remote monitoring. Europace 2010; 12:674–679.
Ricci RP, Morichelli L, Santini M. Remote control of implanted devices through Home Monitoring technology improves detection and clinical management of atrial fibrillation. Europace 2009; 11:54–61.
Morichelli L, Porfili A, Quarta L, Sassi A, Ricci RP. Implantable cardioverter defibrillator remote monitoring is well accepted and easy to use during long-term follow-up. J Interv Card Electrophysiol 2014; 41:203–209.
Ricci RP, Calcagnini G, Castro A, et al. Consensus document on remote monitoring of cardiac implantable electronic devices: technology, indications, organizational models, acceptability, responsibility, and economic issues. G Ital Cardiol (Rome) 2011; 12:450–467.
Varma N, Ricci RP. Impact of remote monitoring on clinical outcomes. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 2015; 26:1388–1395.
Ricci RP. Disease management: atrial fibrillation and home monitoring. Europace 2013; 15: (Suppl 1): i35–i39.
Varma N, Ricci RP. Telemedicine and cardiac implants: what is the benefit? Eur Heart J 2013; 34:1885–1895.
Ricci RP, Morichelli L, Quarta L, et al. Effect of daily remote monitoring on pacemaker longevity: a retrospective analysis. Heart Rhythm 2015; 12:330–337.
Palmisano P, Ziacchi M, Ammendola E, et al. Long-term progression of rhythm and conduction disturbances in pacemaker recipients: findings from the Pacemaker Expert Programming study. J Cardiovasc Med (Hagerstown) 2018; 19:357–365.
Palmisano P, Ziacchi M, Biffi M, et al. Clinically oriented device programming in bradycardia patients: part 2 (atrioventricular blocks and neurally mediated syncope). Proposals from AIAC (Italian Association of Arrhythmology and Cardiac Pacing). J Cardiovasc Med (Hagerstown) 2018; 19:170–180.
Ziacchi M, Palmisano P, Biffi M, et al. Clinically oriented device programming in bradycardia patients: part 1 (sinus node disease). Proposals from AIAC (Italian Association of Arrhythmology and Cardiac Pacing). J Cardiovasc Med (Hagerstown) 2018; 19:161–169.
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 2012; 14:1230–1235.