Reveal LINQTM experience out of the electrophysiology lab

Change in the use of remote monitoring of cardiac implantable electronic devices in Italian clinical practice over a 5-year period: results of two surveys promoted by the AIAC (Italian Association of Arrhythmology and Cardiac Pacing)

AIMS

The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of remote monitoring in Italian clinical practice and its trend over the last 5 years.

METHODS

In 2012 and 2017, two surveys were conducted. Both were open to all Italian implanting centres and consisted of 25 questions on the characteristics of the centre, their actual use of remote monitoring, applied organizational models and administrative and legal aspects.

RESULTS

The questionnaires were completed by 132 and 108 centres in 2012 and 2017, respectively (30.6 and 24.7% of all Italian implanting centres). In 2017, significantly fewer centres followed up fewer than 200 patients by remote monitoring than in 2012, while more followed up more than 500 patients (all P < 0.005). In most of the centres (77.6%) that responded to both surveys, the number of patients remotely monitored significantly increased from 2012 to 2017.In both surveys, remote monitoring was usually managed by physicians and nurses. Over the period, primary review of transmissions by physicians declined, while it was increasingly performed by nurses; the involvement of technicians rose, while that of manufacturers' technical personnel decreased. The percentage of centres in which transmissions were submitted to the physician only in critical cases rose (from 28.3 to 64.3%; P < 0.001). In 86.7% of centres, the lack of a reimbursement system was deemed the main barrier to implementing remote monitoring.

CONCLUSION

In the last 5 years, the number of patients followed up by remote monitoring has increased markedly. In most Italian centres, remote monitoring has increasingly been managed through a primary nursing model. The lack of a specific reimbursement system is perceived as the main barrier to implementing remote monitoring .

Loop Recorder Implantation on a Telemetry Ward

The implantable loop recorder (ILR) is a valuable tool used in the evaluation of syncope, arrhythmia, and cryptogenic stroke. In the inpatient setting, ILRs are routinely implanted in the electrophysiology (EP) lab despite the low complication rate. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety, feasibility, and cost of implanting ILRs at the patient's bedside by both electrophysiologists and advanced practice providers (APPs). This was a single center, retrospective study of consecutive ILR implantations performed from February 2018 to May 2019. We examined 3 groups: implantations in the EP lab by electrophysiologists (EP Lab/MD), implantations at the bedside by electrophysiologists (Floor/MD), and implantations at the bedside by APPs (Floor/APP). Over 15 months, 152 patients underwent ILR implantation: 48 in the EP Lab/MD group, 57 in the Floor/MD group, and 47 in the Floor/APP group. The procedure duration was longer in the Floor/APP group (14.2 ± 5.9 minutes) compared with the EP Lab/MD and Floor/MD groups (6.8 ± 4.3 minutes, 9.1 ± 4.9 minutes, p <0.001). The overall complication rate was low (2.6%) with no differences between the groups (p = 0.83). The calculated costs per implant for the EP Lab/MD group, Floor/MD group, and Floor/APP group were $482.05, $162.82, and $73.08, respectively.

Safety of in-hospital insertable cardiac monitor procedures performed outside the traditional settings: results from the Reveal LINQ in-office 2 international study

Background

Historically, the majority of insertable cardiac monitor (ICM) procedures were performed in the cardiac catheterization (cath) lab, electrophysiology (EP) lab, or operating room (OR). The miniaturization of ICMs allows the procedure to be relocated within the hospital without compromising patient safety. We sought to estimate the rate of untoward events associated with procedures performed within the hospital but outside the traditional settings and to characterize resource utilization, procedure time intervals, and physician experience.

Methods

The Reveal LINQ in-Office 2 (RIO 2) International study was a single arm, multicenter, prospective study. Patients indicated for an ICM and willing to undergo device insertion outside the cath/EP lab or OR were eligible and followed for 90 days after insertion.

Results

A total of 191 patients (45.5% female aged 63.8 ± 26.9 years) underwent successful Reveal LINQ ICM insertion at 17 centers in Europe, Canada and Australia. The median total visit duration was 106 min (interquartile range [IQR]: 55–61). Patient preparation and patient education accounted for 10 min (IQR: 5–20) and 10 min (IQR: 8–15) of total visit duration, respectively. Preparation and education occurred in the procedure room for 90.6 and 60.2% of patients, respectively. There were no untoward events (0.0, 95% CI: 0.0–2.1%) though four patients presented with procedure-related adverse events that did not require invasive intervention. Physicians rated procedure location as convenient or very convenient.

Conclusions

The Reveal LINQ™ ICM insertion can be safely and efficiently performed in the hospital outside the cath/EP lab or OR.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02412488; registered on April 9, 2015.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12872-019-1106-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Real-world comparison of in-hospital Reveal LINQ insertable cardiac monitor insertion inside and outside of the cardiac catheterization or electrophysiology laboratory

BACKGROUND

Traditionally, insertable cardiac monitor (ICM) procedures have been performed in the cardiac catheterization (CATH) or electrophysiology (EP) laboratory. The introduction of the miniaturized Reveal LINQ ICM has led to simplified and less invasive procedures, affording hospitals flexibility in planning where these procedures occur without compromising patient safety or outcomes.

METHODS

The present analysis of the ongoing, prospective, observational, multicenter Reveal LINQ Registry sought to provide real-world feasibility and safety data regarding the ICM procedure performed in the CATH/EP lab or operating room and to compare it with insertions performed outside of these traditional hospital settings. Patients included had at least a 30-day period after the procedure to account for any adverse events.

RESULTS

We analyzed 1222 patients (58.1% male, age 61.0 ± 17.1 years) enrolled at 18 centers in the US, 17 centers in Middle East/Asia, and 15 centers in Europe. Patients were categorized into 2 cohorts according to the location of the procedure: in-lab (CATH lab, EP lab, or operating room) (n = 820, 67.1%) and out-of-lab (n = 402, 32.9%). Several differences were observed regarding baseline and procedure characteristics. However, no significant differences in the occurrence of procedure-related adverse events (AEs) were found; of 19 ICM/procedure-related AEs reported in 17 patients (1.4%), 11 occurred in the in-lab group (1.3%) and 6 in the out-of-lab group (1.5%) (P = .80).

CONCLUSIONS

This real-world analysis demonstrates the feasibility of performing Reveal LINQ ICM insertion procedures outside of the traditional hospital settings without increasing the risk of infection or other adverse events.