Is There a Future for Remote Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Management?

Remote Monitoring of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices: What is the Evidence?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review offers an overview of the evidence in diagnostic and therapeutic applications of remote monitoring implantable devices.

RECENT FINDINGS

Remote monitoring of cardiac implantable devices has become more and more popular in recent years as healthcare is moving towards a more patient centralized system. For heart failure patients with an ICD or pacemaker, there is controversial evidence regarding improvements in the clinical outcome, e.g., reduction of hospitalization rates or overall mortality. New developments as hemodynamic remote monitoring via measurement of the pulmonary artery pressure are promising technical achievements showing encouraging results. In cardiac remote monitoring of syncope and arrhythmias, implantable loop recorder plays an important role in diagnostic algorithms. Although there is controversial evidence according to remote monitoring of implantable devices, its use is rapidly expanding, giving healthcare providers the opportunity to react promptly to worsening of their patients. Adequate evaluation of the data created by remote monitoring systems remains an unsolved challenge of contemporary healthcare services.

Remote monitoring of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators and resynchronization devices to improve patient outcomes: dead end or way ahead?

Remote monitoring (RM) has become a new standard of care in the follow-up of patients with implantable pacemakers and defibrillators. While it has been consistently shown that RM enables earlier detection of clinically actionable events compared with traditional in-patient evaluation, this advantage did not translate into improved patient outcomes in clinical trials of RM except one study using daily multiparameter telemonitoring in heart failure (HF) patients. Therefore, this review, focusing on RM studies of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators and cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillators in patients with HF, discusses possible explanations for the differences in trial outcomes. Patient selection may play an important role as more severe HF and concomitant atrial fibrillation have been associated with improved outcomes by RM. Furthermore, the technical set-up of RM may have an important impact as a higher level of connectivity with more frequent data transmission can be linked to better outcomes. Finally, there is growing evidence as to the need of effective algorithms ensuring a fast and well-structured clinical response to the events detected by RM. These factors re-emphasize the potential of remote management of device patients with HF and call for continued clinical research and technical development in the field.

Implant-based multi-parameter telemonitoring of patients with heart failure and a defibrillator with vs. without cardiac resynchronization therapy option: a subanalysis of the IN-TIME trial

Aims

In the IN-TIME trial, automatic daily implant-based multiparameter telemonitoring significantly improved clinical outcomes in patients with chronic systolic heart failure and implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) or cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator (CRT-D). We compared IN-TIME results for ICD and CRT-D subgroups.

Methods

Patients with LVEF ≤ 35%, NYHA class II/III, optimized drug treatment, no permanent atrial fibrillation, and a dual-chamber ICD (n = 274) or CRT-D (n = 390) were randomized 1:1 to telemonitoring or no telemonitoring for 12 months. Primary outcome measure was a composite clinical score, classified as worsened if the patient died or had heart failure-related hospitalization, worse NYHA class, or a worse self-reported overall condition.

Results

The prevalence of worsened score at study end was higher in CRT-D than ICD patients (26.4% vs. 18.2%; P = 0.014), as was mortality (7.4% vs. 4.1%; P = 0.069). With telemonitoring, odds ratios (OR) for worsened score and hazard ratios (HR) for mortality were similar in the ICD [OR = 0.55 (P = 0.058), HR = 0.39 (P = 0.17)] and CRT-D [OR = 0.68 (P = 0.10), HR = 0.35 (P = 0.018)] subgroups (insignificant interaction, P = 0.58–0.91).

Conclusion

Daily multiparameter telemonitoring has a potential to reduce clinical endpoints in patients with chronic systolic heart failure both in ICD and CRT-D subgroups. The absolute benefit seems to be higher in higher-risk populations with worse prognosis.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00392-019-01447-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.