Use of remote monitoring in the management of ICD end-of-life: Data from the DECODE registry

Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Remote Monitoring of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices in Italy: Results of a Survey Promoted by AIAC (Italian Association of Arrhythmology and Cardiac Pacing)

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a profound impact on the organisation of health care in Italy, with an acceleration in the development of telemedicine. To assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the spread of remote monitoring (RM) of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) in Italy, a survey addressed to cardiologists operating in all Italian CIED-implanting centres was launched. A total of 127 cardiologists from 116 Italian arrhythmia centres took part in the survey, 41.0% of all 283 CIED-implanting centres operating in Italy in 2019. All participating centres declared to use RM of CIEDs. COVID-19 pandemic resulted in an increase in the use of RM in 83 (71.6%) participating centres. In a temporal perspective, an increase in the median number of patients per centre followed up by RM was found from 2012 to 2017, followed by an exponential increase from 2017 to 2020. In 36 participating centres (31.0%) a telehealth visits service was activated as a replacement for in-person outpatient visits (in patients with or without CIED) during the COVID-19 pandemic. COVID-19 pandemic has caused an acceleration in the use of RM of CIEDs and in the use of telemedicine in the clinical practice of cardiology.

Scheduled versus alert transmissions for remote follow-up of cardiac implantable electronic devices: Clinical relevance and resource consumption

BACKGROUND

The remote follow-up of pacemakers and implantable cardiac defibrillators (ICDs) usually includes scheduled checks and alert transmissions. However, this results in a high volume of remote data reviews to be managed. We measured the relative contribution of scheduled and alert transmissions to the detection of relevant conditions, and the workload generated by their management.

METHODS

At our center, the frequency of remote scheduled transmissions is 4/year. Moreover, all system-integrity and clinical alerts are turned on for wireless notification. We calculated the number of transmissions received from January to December 2020, and identified transmissions that necessitated in-hospital access for further assessment and transmissions that required clinical discussion with the physician. For all alert transmissions, we identified whether the alert was clinically meaningful (i.e. center was not previously aware of the condition and no action had yet been taken to treat it).

RESULTS

Of 8545 transmissions received from 1697 pacemakers and ICDs, 5766 (67%) were scheduled and 2779 (33%) were alert transmissions received from 764 patients (45%); 499 (9%) scheduled transmissions required clinical discussion with the physician, but only 2 of these necessitated in-hospital visits for further assessment. Of the alert transmissions, 664 (24%) required clinical discussion, and 75 (3%) necessitated in-hospital visits. The proportion of alerts judged clinically meaningful was 7%.

CONCLUSION

Scheduled transmissions generate 67% of remote data reviews for pacemakers and ICDs, but their ability to detect clinically relevant events is very low. A strategy that relies exclusively on alert transmissions could ensure continuity of patient monitoring while reducing the workload at the center.