Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Follow-up: Role of Remote Monitoring

Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Remote Monitoring - COVID-19 Pandemic Experiences and Future Perspectives

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is a well-established form of the treatment for heart failure (HF) in patients with left ventricle contraction dyssynchrony. Apart from typical in-office management, remote monitoring enables constant surveillance on both the patient's and the device's condition. This way, in case of any problems, clinical decisions could be made earlier leading to better outcome of CRT patients. COVID-19 pandemic with following lockdowns in many countries resulted in getting more attention on remote monitoring systems. The aim of this paper was to gather and summarize worldwide experiences from CRT remote monitoring during COVID-19 pandemic and point out future possibilities for HF patients treated with CRT. Already published experiences from remote monitoring of CRT devices during COVID-19 restrictions confirmed previous advantages of telemedical approach, however, more publications in this area would be helpful.

Second European Society of Cardiology Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Survey: the Italian cohort

AIM

Adherence to guidelines was not homogeneous in Europe, according to the survey on cardiac resynchronization therapy conducted in 2008-2009. The aim of our study was to compare the results in the Italian and European cohorts of the Second European Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Survey.

METHODS

Patients' characteristics, procedural data and follow-up were collected. Italian records were compared with European countries.

RESULTS

Italian hospitals enrolled 526 patients. The italian cohort was older (71.6 ± 9.5 vs. 68.4 ± 10.8; P < 0.00001), had less severe NYHA class (>II 47.2 vs. 59.6%; P < 0.00001), higher ejection fraction (30.3 ± 7.4 vs. 28.4 ± 8.2%; P < 0.00001), and less atrial fibrillation prevalence (34.4 vs. 41.2%; P = 0.00197) than the European cohort. Italian patients were more frequently hospitalized for heart failure in the previous year (51.9 vs. 46.2%; P = 0.01118) and had lower mean QRS duration (151 ± 26 vs. 157 ± 27 ms; P < 0.0001). CRT-D were more often implanted in Italian patients (79.3 vs. 69.3%; P < 0.00001). The complication rate was similar (4.6% vs. 5.6%; ns). The rate of use of ACEi/ARBs in Italy was lower than in Europe (77.2 vs. 86.9%; P < 0.00001). Patients were followed up in the implantation centre (92.1 vs. 86%; P = 0.00014), but rarely with remote monitoring (25.9 vs. 30%; P = 0.04792).

CONCLUSION

The survey demonstrates important similarities as well as substantial differences regarding most of the aspects evaluated. Efforts to implement adherence to guidelines will be endorsed in Italy.