[Telemedicine in pacemaker therapy and follow-up]

Incidence and predictors of pacemaker reprogramming: potential consequences for remote follow-up

AIMS

Remote follow-up (FU) enables to cope with the expanding number of pacemaker (PM) FU. Although remote FU offers comparable monitoring options to in-office FU, reprogramming of device settings is not available, thereby imposing a potentially important restriction to the applicability of remote FU.  The aim of this study was to assess in a large cohort of bradycardia PM recipients, the incidence of PM reprogramming during long-term FU and its predictors, to judge the possibilities for remote FU.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Between 2003 and 2010 all in-office FU of 1517 bradycardia PM recipients included in the FOLLOWPACE study were recorded. Only 24.5% of all 13 258 recorded FU visits >3 months after implantation were visits-with-reprogramming (VWRs), occurring in 1158 patients (79%). Fifty percent of patients were free of reprogramming at 9 months, and 29% at 24 months. Using multivariable binary logistic regression analysis, the following patient characteristics were predictive for frequent PM reprogramming, defined as >3 VWRs during 3 year FU: age, a history of atrial arrhythmias, PM complication <3 months after implantation, congestive heart failure, PM indication, and lead fixation method. This model had a receiver operating characteristic area of 0.66 (95% confidence interval 0.61-0.71).

CONCLUSION

This study observed a low proportion of VWR (∼25%) during a mean FU of 5.3 years; however, those patients at high risk for PM reprogramming cannot easily be predicted. The vast majority of patients (>80%) do not need frequent reprogramming, suggesting a potential benefit of using remote FU to reduce the number of unnecessary in-office visits.