Outcomes and costs of remote patient monitoring among patients with implanted cardiac defibrillators: An economic model based on the PREDICT RM database

Investigating the Cost-Effectiveness of Telemonitoring Patients With Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices: Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Telemonitoring patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) can improve their care management. However, the results of cost-effectiveness studies are heterogeneous. Therefore, it is still a matter of debate whether telemonitoring is worth the investment.

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review aims to investigate the cost-effectiveness of telemonitoring patients with CIEDs, focusing on its key drivers, and the impact of the varying perspectives.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and EconLit. The search was completed on July 7, 2022. Studies were included if they fulfilled the following criteria: patients had a CIED, comparison with standard care, and inclusion of health economic evaluations (eg, cost-effectiveness analyses and cost-utility analyses). Only complete and peer-reviewed studies were included, and no year limits were applied. The exclusion criteria included studies with partial economic evaluations, systematic reviews or reports, and studies without standard care as a control group. Besides general study characteristics, the following outcome measures were extracted: impact on total cost or income, cost or income drivers, cost or income drivers per patient, cost or income drivers as a percentage of the total cost impact, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, or cost-utility ratios. Quality was assessed using the Consensus Health Economic Criteria checklist.

RESULTS

Overall, 15 cost-effectiveness analyses were included. All studies were performed in Western countries, mainly Europe, and had primarily a male participant population. Of the 15 studies, 3 (20%) calculated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, 1 (7%) the cost-utility ratio, and 11 (73%) the health and cost impact of telemonitoring. In total, 73% (11/15) of the studies indicated that telemonitoring of patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) and cardiac resynchronization therapy ICDs was cost-effective and cost-saving, both from a health care and patient perspective. Cost-effectiveness results for telemonitoring of patients with pacemakers were inconclusive. The key drivers for cost reduction from a health care perspective were hospitalizations and scheduled in-office visits. Hospitalization costs were reduced by up to US $912 per patient per year. Scheduled in-office visits included up to 61% of the total cost reduction. Key drivers for cost reduction from a patient perspective were loss of income, cost for scheduled in-office visits and transport. Finally, of the 15 studies, 8 (52%) reported improved quality of life, with statistically significance in only 1 (13%) study (P=.03).

CONCLUSIONS

From a health care and patient perspective, telemonitoring of patients with an ICD or a cardiac resynchronization therapy ICD is a cost-effective and cost-saving alternative to standard care. Inconclusive results were found for patients with pacemakers. However, telemonitoring can lead to a decrease in providers' income, mainly due to a lack of reimbursement. Introducing appropriate reimbursement could make telemonitoring sustainable for providers while still being cost-effective from a health care payer perspective.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42022322334; https://tinyurl.com/puunapdr.

A cost-effectiveness analysis of remote monitoring after pacemaker implantation for bradycardia in Japan

BACKGROUND

Although remote monitoring (RM) after pacemaker implantation is common, its cost-effectiveness has not been fully investigated. Therefore, we assessed the cost-effectiveness of RM compared with conventional follow-up (CFU) in Japanese patients with pacemakers.

METHODS

A Markov model was constructed to analyze costs and quality-adjusted life years after pacemaker implantation. The target population was Japanese patients implanted with a dual-chamber pacemaker for bradycardia. Transition probabilities (e.g. atrial fibrillation, stroke, and device trouble) were obtained from literature and expert sources. Additionally, stroke risk was determined according to anticoagulation and CHADS2 scores. We used a 10-year horizon with sensitivity analyses for significant variables.

RESULTS

Compared to CFU, RM was more effective; however, it was also more expensive. When the range of the Japanese willingness-to-pay threshold was considered to be ¥5,000,000, RM was at least cost-neutral relative to the CFU in all elderly patients with pacemakers for bradycardia. The cost-effectiveness of RM relative to CFU could be higher for patients with high CHADS2 scores, especially in patients with a CHADS2 score ≥ 3. Scenario analyses changing the interval between visits to an in-office evaluation in the CFU also demonstrated the same conclusions. In particular, when the interval between office visits was 1 year for the CFU, the RM could be more cost-effective.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated that RM can be a cost-effective option for Japanese patients, especially those with high CHADS2 scores and long-term intervals between office visits.

2023 HRS/EHRA/APHRS/LAHRS expert consensus statement on practical management of the remote device clinic

Remote monitoring is beneficial for the management of patients with cardiovascular implantable electronic devices by impacting morbidity and mortality. With increasing numbers of patients using remote monitoring, keeping up with higher volume of remote monitoring transmissions creates challenges for device clinic staff. This international multidisciplinary document is intended to guide cardiac electrophysiologists, allied professionals, and hospital administrators in managing remote monitoring clinics. This includes guidance for remote monitoring clinic staffing, appropriate clinic workflows, patient education, and alert management. This expert consensus statement also addresses other topics such as communication of transmission results, use of third-party resources, manufacturer responsibilities, and programming concerns. The goal is to provide evidence-based recommendations impacting all aspects of remote monitoring services. Gaps in current knowledge and guidance for future research directions are also identified.

Person-Centered Models for Cardiovascular Care: A Review of the Evidence: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

Cardiovascular disease remains the leading cause of death and disability in the United States and globally. Disease burden continues to escalate despite technological advances associated with improved life expectancy and quality of life. As a result, longer life is associated with multiple chronic cardiovascular conditions. Clinical guidelines provide recommendations without considering prevalent scenarios of multimorbidity and health system complexities that affect practical adoption. The diversity of personal preferences, cultures, and lifestyles that make up one's social and environmental context is often overlooked in ongoing care planning for symptom management and health behavior support, hindering adoption and compromising patient outcomes, particularly in groups at high risk. The purpose of this scientific statement was to describe the characteristics and reported outcomes in existing person-centered care delivery models for selected cardiovascular conditions. We conducted a scoping review using Ovid MEDLINE, Embase.com, Web of Science, CINAHL Complete, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials through Ovid, and ClinicalTrials.gov from 2010 to 2022. A range of study designs with a defined aim to systematically evaluate care delivery models for selected cardiovascular conditions were included. Models were selected on the basis of their stated use of evidence-based guidelines, clinical decision support tools, systematic evaluation processes, and inclusion of the patient's perspective in defining the plan of care. Findings reflected variation in methodological approach, outcome measures, and care processes used across models. Evidence to support optimal care delivery models remains limited by inconsistencies in approach, variation in reimbursement, and inability of health systems to meet the needs of patients with chronic, complex cardiovascular conditions.

2023 HRS/EHRA/APHRS/LAHRS Expert Consensus Statement on Practical Management of the Remote Device Clinic

Remote monitoring is beneficial for the management of patients with cardiovascular implantable electronic devices by impacting morbidity and mortality. With increasing numbers of patients using remote monitoring, keeping up with higher volume of remote monitoring transmissions creates challenges for device clinic staff. This international multidisciplinary document is intended to guide cardiac electrophysiologists, allied professionals, and hospital administrators in managing remote monitoring clinics. This includes guidance for remote monitoring clinic staffing, appropriate clinic workflows, patient education, and alert management. This expert consensus statement also addresses other topics such as communication of transmission results, use of third-party resources, manufacturer responsibilities, and programming concerns. The goal is to provide evidence-based recommendations impacting all aspects of remote monitoring services. Gaps in current knowledge and guidance for future research directions are also identified.

2023 HRS/EHRA/APHRS/LAHRS Expert Consensus Statement on Practical Management of the Remote Device Clinic

Remote monitoring is beneficial for the management of patients with cardiovascular implantable electronic devices by impacting morbidity and mortality. With increasing numbers of patients using remote monitoring, keeping up with higher volume of remote monitoring transmissions creates challenges for device clinic staff. This international multidisciplinary document is intended to guide cardiac electrophysiologists, allied professionals, and hospital administrators in managing remote monitoring clinics. This includes guidance for remote monitoring clinic staffing, appropriate clinic workflows, patient education, and alert management. This expert consensus statement also addresses other topics such as communication of transmission results, use of third-party resources, manufacturer responsibilities, and programming concerns. The goal is to provide evidence-based recommendations impacting all aspects of remote monitoring services. Gaps in current knowledge and guidance for future research directions are also identified.

Using a centralized nursing team to implement multi-specialty pediatric remote patient monitoring programs

BACKGROUND

The increase in telehealth usage has sustained since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. While Remote Patient Monitoring (RPM) programs are abundantly used in the management of adults, pediatric RPM programs remain rare.

METHODS

An RPM department was developed to serve several, multi-specialty pediatric programs. This department uses a centralized nursing team that manages all patients enrolled in RPM programs. Each program is unique and created in partnership with the centralized nurses and the ambulatory care teams. The various programs allow for transmission of patient- and caregiver-generated health data and consistent communication between the patient or caregiver and the managing providers, allowing for real-time plan adaptation.

FINDINGS

Over 1200 patients have been managed through the 18 various RPM programs. Approximately 300 patients are monitored each month by the centralized nursing team. Patient and caregiver experience has been high due to resources offered including on-demand video visits and text messaging with the nursing team.

DISCUSSION

Multi-specialty RPM departments help to expand the reach of an institution and provide care to more patients. Quality improvement must be ongoing to ensure equity of participation and perceived benefit of the programs for both providers and patients and caregivers.

APPLICATION TO PRACTICE

Pediatric RPM programs can improve patient care delivery by decreasing days away from home while improving access to care. Ensuring equitable opportunity for patient participation is imperative in achieving success for an RPM department.

Knowledge Update on the Economic Evaluation of Pacemaker Telemonitoring Systems

(1) Introduction: In the last two decades, telemedicine has been increasingly applied to telemonitoring (TM) of patients with pacemakers; however, presently, its growth has significantly accelerated because of the COVID-19 pandemic, which has pushed patients and healthcare workers alike to seek new ways to stay healthy with minimal physical contact. Therefore, the main objective of this study was to update the current knowledge on the differences in the medium-and long-term effectiveness of TM and conventional monitoring (CM) in relation to costs and health outcomes. (2) Methods: Three databases and one scientific registry were searched (PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and Google Scholar), with no restrictions on language or year of publication. Studies published until July 2021 were included. The inclusion criteria were: (a) experimental or observational design, (b) complete economic evaluation, (c) patients with implanted pacemakers, and (d) comparison of TM with CM. Measurements of study characteristics (author, study duration, sample size, age, sex, major indication for implantation, and pacemaker used), analysis, significant results of the variables (analysis performed, primary endpoints, secondary endpoints, health outcomes, and cost outcomes), and further miscellaneous measurements (methodological quality, variables coded, instrument development, coder training, and intercoder reliability, etc.) were included. (3) Results: 11 studies met the inclusion criteria, consisting of 3372 enrolled patients; 1773 (52.58%) of them were part of randomized clinical trials. The mean age was 72 years, and the atrioventricular block was established as the main indication for device implantation. TM was significantly effective in detecting the presence or absence of pacemaker problems, leading to a reduction in the number of unscheduled hospital visits (8.34-55.55%). The cost of TM was up to 87% lower than that of CM. There were no significant differences in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and the number of cardiovascular events. (4) Conclusions: Most of the studies included in this systematic review confirm that in the TM group of patients with pacemakers, cardiovascular events are detected and treated earlier, and the number of unscheduled visits to the hospital is significantly reduced, without affecting the HRQoL of patients. In addition, with TM modality, both formal and informal costs are significantly reduced in the medium and long term.

2021 PACES expert consensus statement on the indications and management of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices in pediatric patients

In view of the increasing complexity of both cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) and patients in the current era, practice guidelines, by necessity, have become increasingly specific. This document is an expert consensus statement that has been developed to update and further delineate indications and management of CIEDs in pediatric patients, defined as ≤21 years of age, and is intended to focus primarily on the indications for CIEDs in the setting of specific disease categories. The document also highlights variations between previously published adult and pediatric CIED recommendations and provides rationale for underlying important differences. The document addresses some of the deterrents to CIED access in low- and middle-income countries and strategies to circumvent them. The document sections were divided up and drafted by the writing committee members according to their expertise. The recommendations represent the consensus opinion of the entire writing committee, graded by class of recommendation and level of evidence. Several questions addressed in this document either do not lend themselves to clinical trials or are rare disease entities, and in these instances recommendations are based on consensus expert opinion. Furthermore, specific recommendations, even when supported by substantial data, do not replace the need for clinical judgment and patient-specific decision-making. The recommendations were opened for public comment to Pediatric and Congenital Electrophysiology Society (PACES) members and underwent external review by the scientific and clinical document committee of the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), the science advisory and coordinating committee of the American Heart Association (AHA), the American College of Cardiology (ACC), and the Association for European Paediatric and Congenital Cardiology (AEPC). The document received endorsement by all the collaborators and the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), the Indian Heart Rhythm Society (IHRS), and the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS). This document is expected to provide support for clinicians and patients to allow for appropriate CIED use, appropriate CIED management, and appropriate CIED follow-up in pediatric patients.

2021 PACES Expert Consensus Statement on the Indications and Management of Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Devices in Pediatric Patients: Developed in collaboration with and endorsed by the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), the American College of Cardiology (ACC), the American Heart Association (AHA), and the Association for European Paediatric and Congenital Cardiology (AEPC) Endorsed by the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), the Indian Heart Rhythm Society (IHRS), and the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS)

In view of the increasing complexity of both cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) and patients in the current era, practice guidelines, by necessity, have become increasingly specific. This document is an expert consensus statement that has been developed to update and further delineate indications and management of CIEDs in pediatric patients, defined as ≤21 years of age, and is intended to focus primarily on the indications for CIEDs in the setting of specific disease categories. The document also highlights variations between previously published adult and pediatric CIED recommendations and provides rationale for underlying important differences. The document addresses some of the deterrents to CIED access in low- and middle-income countries and strategies to circumvent them. The document sections were divided up and drafted by the writing committee members according to their expertise. The recommendations represent the consensus opinion of the entire writing committee, graded by class of recommendation and level of evidence. Several questions addressed in this document either do not lend themselves to clinical trials or are rare disease entities, and in these instances recommendations are based on consensus expert opinion. Furthermore, specific recommendations, even when supported by substantial data, do not replace the need for clinical judgment and patient-specific decision-making. The recommendations were opened for public comment to Pediatric and Congenital Electrophysiology Society (PACES) members and underwent external review by the scientific and clinical document committee of the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), the science advisory and coordinating committee of the American Heart Association (AHA), the American College of Cardiology (ACC), and the Association for European Paediatric and Congenital Cardiology (AEPC). The document received endorsement by all the collaborators and the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), the Indian Heart Rhythm Society (IHRS), and the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS). This document is expected to provide support for clinicians and patients to allow for appropriate CIED use, appropriate CIED management, and appropriate CIED follow-up in pediatric patients.

2021 PACES expert consensus statement on the indications and management of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices in pediatric patients

In view of the increasing complexity of both cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) and patients in the current era, practice guidelines, by necessity, have become increasingly specific. This document is an expert consensus statement that has been developed to update and further delineate indications and management of CIEDs in pediatric patients, defined as ≤21 years of age, and is intended to focus primarily on the indications for CIEDs in the setting of specific disease categories. The document also highlights variations between previously published adult and pediatric CIED recommendations and provides rationale for underlying important differences. The document addresses some of the deterrents to CIED access in low- and middle-income countries and strategies to circumvent them. The document sections were divided up and drafted by the writing committee members according to their expertise. The recommendations represent the consensus opinion of the entire writing committee, graded by class of recommendation and level of evidence. Several questions addressed in this document either do not lend themselves to clinical trials or are rare disease entities, and in these instances recommendations are based on consensus expert opinion. Furthermore, specific recommendations, even when supported by substantial data, do not replace the need for clinical judgment and patient-specific decision-making. The recommendations were opened for public comment to Pediatric and Congenital Electrophysiology Society (PACES) members and underwent external review by the scientific and clinical document committee of the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), the science advisory and coordinating committee of the American Heart Association (AHA), the American College of Cardiology (ACC), and the Association for European Paediatric and Congenital Cardiology (AEPC). The document received endorsement by all the collaborators and the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), the Indian Heart Rhythm Society (IHRS), and the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS). This document is expected to provide support for clinicians and patients to allow for appropriate CIED use, appropriate CIED management, and appropriate CIED follow-up in pediatric patients.

Challenges to the development of the next generation of self-reporting cardiovascular implantable medical devices

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a group of heart and vasculature conditions which are the leading form of mortality worldwide. Blood vessels can become narrowed, restricting blood flow, and drive the majority of hearts attacks and strokes. Surgical interventions are frequently required; including percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). Despite successful opening of vessels and restoration of blood flow, often in-stent restenosis (ISR) and graft failure can still occur, resulting in subsequent patient morbidity and mortality. A new generation of cardiovascular implants that have sensors and real-time monitoring capabilities are being developed to combat ISR and graft failure. Self-reporting stent/graft technology could enable precision medicine-based healthcare by detecting the earliest features of disease, even before symptoms occur. Bringing an implantable medical device with wireless electronic sensing capabilities to market is complex and often obstructive undertaking. This critical review analyses the obstacles that need to be overcome for self-reporting stents/grafts to be developed and provide a precision-medicine based healthcare for cardiovascular patients. Here we assess the latest research and technological advancement in the field, the current devices and the market potential for their end-user implementation.

2021 PACES Expert Consensus Statement on the Indications and Management of Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Devices in Pediatric Patients

In view of the increasing complexity of both cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) and patients in the current era, practice guidelines, by necessity, have become increasingly specific. This document is an expert consensus statement that has been developed to update and further delineate indications and management of CIEDs in pediatric patients, defined as ≤21 years of age, and is intended to focus primarily on the indications for CIEDs in the setting of specific disease categories. The document also highlights variations between previously published adult and pediatric CIED recommendations and provides rationale for underlying important differences. The document addresses some of the deterrents to CIED access in low- and middle-income countries and strategies to circumvent them. The document sections were divided up and drafted by the writing committee members according to their expertise. The recommendations represent the consensus opinion of the entire writing committee, graded by class of recommendation and level of evidence. Several questions addressed in this document either do not lend themselves to clinical trials or are rare disease entities, and in these instances recommendations are based on consenus expert opinion. Furthermore, specific recommendations, even when supported by substantial data, do not replace the need for clinical judgment and patient-specific decision-making. The recommendations were opened for public comment to Pediatric and Congenital Electrophysiology Society (PACES) members and underwent external review by the scientific and clinical document committee of the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), the science advisory and coordinating committee of the American Heart Association (AHA), the American College of Cardiology, (ACC) and the Association for European Paediatric and Congenital Cardiology (AEPC). The document received endorsement by all the collaborators and the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), the Indian Heart Rhythm Society (IHRS), and the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS). This document is expected to provide support for clinicians and patients to allow for appropriate CIED use, appropriate CIED management, and appropriate follow-up in pediatric patients.

Smartphone-based remote monitoring of vision in macular disease enables early detection of worsening pathology and need for intravitreal therapy

Background/aims

To assess the outcomes of home monitoring of distortion caused by macular diseases using a smartphone-based application (app), and to examine them with hospital-based assessments of visual acuity (VA), optical coherence tomography-derived central macular thickness (CMT) and the requirement of intravitreal injection therapy.

Design

Observational study with retrospective analysis of data.

Methods

Participants were trained in the correct use of the app (Alleye, Oculocare, Zurich, Switzerland) in person or by using video and telephone consultations. Automated threshold-based alerts were communicated based on a traffic light system. A ‘threshold alarm’ was defined as three consecutive ‘red’ scores, and turned into a ‘persistent alarm’ if present for greater than a 7-day period. Changes of VA and CMT, and the requirement for intravitreal therapy after an alarm were examined.

Results

245 patients performing a total of 11 592 tests (mean 46.9 tests per user) were included and 85 eyes (164 alarms) examined. Mean drop in VA from baseline was −4.23 letters (95% CI: −6.24 to −2.22; p<0.001) and mean increase in CMT was 29.5 µm (95% CI: −0.08 to 59.13; p=0.051). Sixty-six eyes (78.5%) producing alarms either had a drop in VA, increase in CMT or both and 60.0% received an injection. Eyes with persistent alarms had a greater loss of VA, −4.79 letters (95% CI: −6.73 to −2.85; p<0.001) or greater increase in CMT, +87.8 µm (95% CI: 5.2 to 170.4; p=0.038).

Conclusion

Smartphone-based self-tests for macular disease may serve as reliable indicators for the worsening of pathology and the need for treatment.

Home delivery of the communicator for remote monitoring of cardiac implantable devices: A multicenter experience during the covid-19 lockdown

Background

During the COVID‐19 pandemic in‐person visits for patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices should be replaced by remote monitoring (RM), in order to prevent viral transmission. A direct home‐delivery service of the RM communicator has been implemented at 49 Italian arrhythmia centers.

Methods

According to individual patient preference or the organizational decision of the center, patients were assigned to the home‐delivery group or the standard in‐clinic delivery group. In the former case, patients received telephone training on the activation process and use of the communicator. In June 2020, the centers were asked to reply to an ad hoc questionnaire to describe and evaluate their experience in the previous 3 months.

Results

RM was activated in 1324 patients: 821 (62%) received the communicator at home and the communicator was activated remotely. Activation required one additional call in 49% of cases, and the median time needed to complete the activation process was 15 min [25th‐75th percentile: 10–20]. 753 (92%) patients were able to complete the correct activation of the system. At the time when the questionnaire was completed, 743 (90%) communicators were regularly transmitting data. The service was generally deemed useful (96% of respondents) in facilitating the activation of RM during the COVID‐19 pandemic and possibly beyond.

Conclusions

Home delivery of the communicator proved to be a successful approach to system activation, and received positive feedback from clinicians. The increased use of a RM protocol will reduce risks for both providers and patients, while maintaining high‐quality care.

How to Design a Remote Patient Monitoring System? A French Case Study

BACKGROUND

Remote Patient Monitoring Systems (RPMS) based on e-health, Nurse Navigators (NNs) and patient engagement can improve patient follow-up and have a positive impact on quality of care (by limiting adverse events) and costs (by reducing readmissions). However, the extent of this impact depends on effective implementation which is often restricted. This is partly due to the lack of attention paid to the RPMS design phase prior to implementation. The content of the RPMS can be carefully designed at this stage and various obstacles anticipated. Our aim was to report on an RPMS design case to provide insights into the methodology required in order to manage this phase.

METHODS

This study was carried out at Gustave Roussy, a comprehensive cancer centre, in France. A multidisciplinary team coordinated the CAPRI RPMS design process (2013-2015) that later produced positive outcomes. Data were collected during eight studies conducted according to the Medical Research Council (MRC) framework. This project was approved by the French National Data Protection Authorities.

RESULTS

Based on the study results, the multidisciplinary team defined strategies for resolving obstacles prior to the implementation of CAPRI. Consequently, the final CAPRI design includes a web app with two interfaces (patient and health care professionals) and two NNs. The NNs provide regular follow-up via telephone or email to manage patients' symptoms and toxicity, treatment compliance and care packages. Patients contact the NNs via a secure messaging system. Eighty clinical decision support tools enable NNs to prioritise and decide on the course of action to be taken.

CONCLUSION

In our experience, the RPMS design process and, more generally, that of any complex intervention programme, is an important phase that requires a sound methodological basis. This study is also consistent with the notion that an RPMS is more than a technological innovation. This is indeed an organizational innovation, and principles identified during the design phase can help in the effective use of a RPMS (e.g. locating NNs if possible within the care organization; recruiting NNs with clinical and managerial skills; defining algorithms for clinical decision support tools for assessment, but also for patient decision and orientation).

Outcomes and costs of remote patient monitoring among patients with implanted cardiac defibrillators: An economic model based on the PREDICT RM database

Background

Remote monitoring of implantable cardioverter‐defibrillators has been associated with reduced rates of all‐cause rehospitalizations and mortality among device recipients, but long‐term economic benefits have not been studied.

Methods and Results

An economic model was developed using the PREDICT RM database comparing outcomes with and without remote monitoring. The database included patients ages 65 to 89 who received a Boston Scientific device from 2006 to 2010. Parametric survival equations were derived for rehospitalization and mortality to predict outcomes over a maximum time horizon of 25 years. The analysis assessed rehospitalization, mortality, and the cost‐effectiveness (expressed as the incremental cost per quality‐adjusted life year) of remote monitoring versus no remote monitoring. Remote monitoring was associated with reduced mortality; average life expectancy and average quality‐adjusted life years increased by 0.77 years and 0.64, respectively (6.85 life years and 5.65 quality‐adjusted life years). When expressed per patient‐year, remote monitoring patients had fewer subsequent rehospitalizations (by 0.08 per patient‐year) and lower hospitalization costs (by $554 per patient year). With longer life expectancies, remote monitoring patients experienced an average of 0.64 additional subsequent rehospitalizations with increased average lifetime hospitalization costs of $2784. Total costs of outpatient and physician claims were higher with remote monitoring ($47 515 vs $42 792), but average per patient‐year costs were lower ($6232 vs $6244). The base‐case incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio was $10 752 per quality‐adjusted life year, making remote monitoring high‐value care.

Conclusion

Remote monitoring is a cost‐effective approach for the lifetime management of patients with implantable cardioverter‐defibrillators.