Remote Monitoring of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices in Patients Undergoing Hybrid Comprehensive Telerehabilitation in Comparison to the Usual Care. Subanalysis from Telerehabilitation in Heart Failure Patients (TELEREH-HF) Randomised Clinical Trial.
cardiac implantable electronic devices
heart failure
hybrid comprehensive telerehabilitation
remote monitoring
Journal
Journal of clinical medicine
ISSN: 2077-0383
Titre abrégé: J Clin Med
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101606588
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
20 Nov 2020
20 Nov 2020
Historique:
received:
13
10
2020
revised:
13
11
2020
accepted:
17
11
2020
entrez:
25
11
2020
pubmed:
26
11
2020
medline:
26
11
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The impact of cardiac rehabilitation on the number of alerts in patients with remote monitoring (RM) of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) is unknown. We compared alerts in RM and outcomes in patients with CIEDs undergoing hybrid comprehensive telerehabilitation (HCTR) versus usual care (UC). Patients with heart failure (HF) after a hospitalization due to worsening HF within the last 6 months (New York Heart Association (NYHA) class I-III and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤40%) were enrolled in the TELEREH-HF study and randomised 1:1 to HCTR or UC. Patients with HCTR and CIEDs received RM (HCTR-RM). Patients with UC and CIEDs were offered RM optionally (UC-RM). Data from the initial 9 weeks of the study were analysed. Of 850 enrolled patients, 208 were in the HCTR-RM group and 62 in the UC-RM group. The HCTR-RM group was less likely to have alerts of intrathoracic impedance (TI) decrease ( HCTR significantly reduced the number of patients with RM alerts of CIEDs related to TI decrease and AF occurrence. There were no differences in mortality or hospitalisation rates between HCTR-RM and UC-RM groups.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The impact of cardiac rehabilitation on the number of alerts in patients with remote monitoring (RM) of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) is unknown. We compared alerts in RM and outcomes in patients with CIEDs undergoing hybrid comprehensive telerehabilitation (HCTR) versus usual care (UC).
METHODS
METHODS
Patients with heart failure (HF) after a hospitalization due to worsening HF within the last 6 months (New York Heart Association (NYHA) class I-III and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤40%) were enrolled in the TELEREH-HF study and randomised 1:1 to HCTR or UC. Patients with HCTR and CIEDs received RM (HCTR-RM). Patients with UC and CIEDs were offered RM optionally (UC-RM). Data from the initial 9 weeks of the study were analysed.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Of 850 enrolled patients, 208 were in the HCTR-RM group and 62 in the UC-RM group. The HCTR-RM group was less likely to have alerts of intrathoracic impedance (TI) decrease (
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
HCTR significantly reduced the number of patients with RM alerts of CIEDs related to TI decrease and AF occurrence. There were no differences in mortality or hospitalisation rates between HCTR-RM and UC-RM groups.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33233613
pii: jcm9113729
doi: 10.3390/jcm9113729
pmc: PMC7699808
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Subventions
Organisme : National Centre for Research and Development, Warsaw, Poland
ID : Grant number STRATEGMED1/233547/13/NCBR/2015
Références
Circulation. 2005 Aug 9;112(6):841-8
pubmed: 16061743
Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2000 Jun;23(6):939-45
pubmed: 10879376
Kardiol Pol. 2020 Nov 4;:
pubmed: 33146504
Eur Heart J. 2013 Feb;34(8):605-14
pubmed: 23242192
Eur Heart J. 2011 Sep;32(18):2266-73
pubmed: 21362703
J Atr Fibrillation. 2012 Feb 02;4(5):415
pubmed: 28496713
Circulation. 2016 Feb 2;133(5):466-73
pubmed: 26733609
JAMA Cardiol. 2020 Mar 1;5(3):300-308
pubmed: 31734701
Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2015 Nov;22(11):1368-77
pubmed: 25261268
Circulation. 2010 Dec 7;122(23):2359-67
pubmed: 21098452
Eur Heart J. 2016 Jul 14;37(27):2129-2200
pubmed: 27206819
Int J Cardiol. 2016 Jul 15;215:449-56
pubmed: 27131763
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Dec 12;(12):CD011273
pubmed: 25503364
Int J Rehabil Res. 2003 Jun;26(2):117-22
pubmed: 12799605
Heart. 2015 Sep;101(17):1368-74
pubmed: 25855796
Eur Heart J. 2017 Jun 7;38(22):1749-1755
pubmed: 29688304
Circulation. 2015 May 26;131(21):1835-42
pubmed: 25792557
Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2017 Jul;24(11):1127-1135
pubmed: 28452560
J Thorac Dis. 2015 Feb;7(2):193-8
pubmed: 25713736
JACC Heart Fail. 2013 Apr;1(2):142-8
pubmed: 23936756
Congest Heart Fail. 2011 Mar-Apr;17(2):51-5
pubmed: 21449992
Circulation. 2017 Aug 8;136(6):583-596
pubmed: 28784826
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2003 Sep 3;42(5):854-60
pubmed: 12957432
Europace. 2013 Jul;15(7):970-7
pubmed: 23362021
J Clin Med. 2019 Mar 25;8(3):
pubmed: 30934556
Eur Heart J. 1994 Apr;15 Suppl A:9-16
pubmed: 8070496
Eur Heart J. 2018 Aug 21;39(32):2987-2996
pubmed: 29401239
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017 Apr 4;69(13):1683-1691
pubmed: 28359513
Circulation. 2012 Jun 19;125(24):2985-92
pubmed: 22626743
Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil. 2006 Aug;13(4):625-32
pubmed: 16874155
Medicine (Baltimore). 2016 Mar;95(12):e2949
pubmed: 27015169
Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2014 Jun;21(6):664-81
pubmed: 22718797
Circulation. 2010 Jul 27;122(4):325-32
pubmed: 20625110
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015 Sep 1;66(9):985-96
pubmed: 26113406
Am Heart J. 2019 Nov;217:148-158
pubmed: 31654944
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011 Mar 8;57(10):1181-9
pubmed: 21255955
Europace. 2018 May 1;20(5):731-732an
pubmed: 29438514
J Electrocardiol. 2019 Mar - Apr;53:100-108
pubmed: 30739055