Management of cardiac implantable electronic device follow-up in COVID-19 pandemic: Lessons learned during Italian lockdown.
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
COVID-19
/ prevention & control
Cardiac Pacing, Artificial
Defibrillators, Implantable
Electric Countershock
/ adverse effects
Feasibility Studies
Female
Heart Diseases
/ diagnosis
Humans
Italy
Male
Middle Aged
Pacemaker, Artificial
Patient Acceptance of Health Care
Patient Satisfaction
Predictive Value of Tests
Prospective Studies
Prosthesis Design
Prosthesis Failure
Remote Sensing Technology
Telemedicine
CIED
COVID-19
GAD-7
cardiac implantable electronic device
remote monitoring
Journal
Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology
ISSN: 1540-8167
Titre abrégé: J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9010756
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
11 2020
11 2020
Historique:
received:
22
06
2020
revised:
03
09
2020
accepted:
08
09
2020
pubmed:
22
9
2020
medline:
29
12
2020
entrez:
21
9
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Remote monitoring (RM) has significantly transformed the standard of care for patients with cardiac electronic implantable devices. It provides easy access to valuable information, such as arrhythmic events, acute decompensation manifestations and device-related issues, without the need of in-person visits. Starting March 1st, 332 patients were introduced to an RM program during the Italian lockdown to limit the risk of in-hospital exposure to severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2. Patients were categorized into two groups based on the modality of RM delivery (home [n = 229] vs. office [n = 103] delivered). The study aimed at assessing the efficacy of the new follow-up protocol, assessed as mean RM activation time (AT), and the need for technical support. In addition, patients' acceptance and anxiety status were quantified via the Home Monitoring Acceptance and Satisfaction Questionnaire and the Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item scale. AT time was less than 48 h in 93% of patients and 7% of them required further technical support. Despite a higher number of trans-telephonic technical support in the home-delivered RM group, mean AT was similar between groups (1.33 ± 0.83 days in home-delivered vs 1.28 ± 0.81 days in office-delivered patients; p = .60). A total of 28 (2.5%) urgent/emergent in-person examinations were required. A high degree of patient satisfaction was reached in both groups whereas anxiety status was higher in the office-delivered group. The adoption of RM resulted in high patient satisfaction, regardless of the modality of modem delivery; nonetheless, in-office modem delivery was associated with a higher prevalence of anxiety symptoms.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32954600
doi: 10.1111/jce.14755
pmc: PMC7646650
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Observational Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2814-2823Informations de copyright
© 2020 Wiley Periodicals LLC.
Références
Arch Intern Med. 2006 May 22;166(10):1092-7
pubmed: 16717171
N Engl J Med. 2020 Jul 2;383(1):88-89
pubmed: 32343497
J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2019 Dec;56(3):327-333
pubmed: 31646429
Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2010 Oct;3(5):428-36
pubmed: 20716717
Heart. 2012 Mar;98(5):402-7
pubmed: 22115985
Heart Rhythm. 2017 Jan;14(1):58
pubmed: 27670630
Eur Heart J. 2010 Sep;31(18):2246-52
pubmed: 20591841
Heart Rhythm. 2020 Sep;17(9):e233-e241
pubmed: 32247013
J Cardiovasc Med (Hagerstown). 2019 Aug;20(8):542-550
pubmed: 31107287
Europace. 2013 Jun;15 Suppl 1:i49-i53
pubmed: 23737231
J Cardiovasc Med (Hagerstown). 2013 Oct;14(10):726-32
pubmed: 23996011
Cardiol Rev. 2015 May-Jun;23(3):135-41
pubmed: 25133468
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005 Nov 15;46(10):1913-20
pubmed: 16286180
Circulation. 2010 Jul 27;122(4):325-32
pubmed: 20625110
J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2020 Nov;31(11):2814-2823
pubmed: 32954600
Lancet. 2014 Aug 16;384(9943):583-590
pubmed: 25131977
JACC Heart Fail. 2017 Mar;5(3):216-225
pubmed: 28254128