Could Home Monitoring parameters provide information about the impact of the pandemic period on CIED patients? A comparison between 2019 and 2020

Remote Management of Patients with Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices during the COVID-19 Pandemic

Remote monitoring (RM) is the newest function of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). In our observational retrospective analysis, we aimed to assess whether telecardiology could be a safe alternative to routine outpatient examinations during the COVID-19 pandemic. The in- and outpatient visits, the number of acute cardiac decompensation episodes, the RM data from CIEDs, and general condition were examined via questionnaires (KCCQ, EQ-5D-5L). Regarding the enrolled 85 patients, the number of personal patient appearances was significantly lower in the year following the pandemic outbreak compared to the previous year (1.4 ± 1.4 and 1.9 ± 1.2, p = 0.0077). The number of acute decompensation events was five before and seven during lockdown (p = 0.6). Based on the RM data, there was no significant difference in heart failure (HF) markers (all related p > 0.05); only patient activity increased after restrictions were lifted compared to that before the lockdown (p = 0.03). During restrictions, patients reported increased anxiety and depression compared to their previous state (p < 0.001). There was no subjective change in the perception of HF symptoms (p = 0.7). Based on the subjective perception and CIED data, the quality of life of patients with CIED did not deteriorate during the pandemic, but their anxiety and depression intensified. Telecardiology may be a safe alternative to routine inpatient examination.

The Impact of SARS-CoV-2 Infection on Heart Rate Variability: A Systematic Review of Observational Studies with Control Groups

Autonomic nervous system (ANS) dysfunction can arise after severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and heart rate variability (HRV) tests can assess its integrity. This review investigated the relationship between the impact of SARS-CoV-2 infection on HRV parameters. Comprehensive searches were conducted in four electronic databases. Observational studies with a control group reporting the direct impact of SARS-CoV-2 infection on the HRV parameters in July 2022 were included. A total of 17 observational studies were included in this review. The square root of the mean squared differences of successive NN intervals (RMSSD) was the most frequently investigated. Some studies found that decreases in RMSSD and high frequency (HF) power were associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection or the poor prognosis of COVID-19. Also, decreases in RMSSD and increases in the normalized unit of HF power were related to death in critically ill COVID-19 patients. The findings showed that SARS-CoV-2 infection, and the severity and prognosis of COVID-19, are likely to be reflected in some HRV-related parameters. However, the considerable heterogeneity of the included studies was highlighted. The methodological quality of the included observational studies was not optimal. The findings suggest rigorous and accurate measurements of HRV parameters are highly needed on this topic.

Five waves of COVID-19 pandemic in Italy: results of a national survey evaluating the impact on activities related to arrhythmias, pacing, and electrophysiology promoted by AIAC (Italian Association of Arrhythmology and Cardiac Pacing)

BACKGROUND

The subsequent waves of the COVID-19 pandemic in Italy had a major impact on cardiac care.

METHODS

A survey to evaluate the dynamic changes in arrhythmia care during the first five waves of COVID-19 in Italy (first: March-May 2020; second: October 2020-January 2021; third: February-May 2021; fourth: June-October 2021; fifth: November 2021-February 2022) was launched.

RESULTS

A total of 127 physicians from arrhythmia centers (34% of Italian centers) took part in the survey. As compared to 2019, a reduction in 40% of elective pacemaker (PM), defibrillators (ICD), and cardiac resynchronization devices (CRT) implantations, with a 70% reduction for ablations, was reported during the first wave, with a progressive and gradual return to pre-pandemic volumes, generally during the third-fourth waves, slower for ablations. For emergency procedures (PM, ICD, CRT, and ablations), recovery from the initial 10% decline occurred in most cases during the second wave, with some variability. However, acute care for atrial fibrillation, electrical cardioversions, and evaluations for syncope showed a prolonged reduction of activity. The number of patients with devices which started remote monitoring increased by 40% during the first wave, but then the adoption of remote monitoring declined.

CONCLUSIONS

The dramatic and profound derangement in arrhythmia management that characterized the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic was followed by a progressive return to the volume of activities of the pre-pandemic periods, even if with different temporal dynamics and some heterogeneity. Remote monitoring was largely implemented during the first wave, but full implementation is needed.

Impact of coronavirus disease 19 outbreak on arrhythmic events and mortality among implantable cardioverter defibrillator patients followed up by remote monitoring: a single center study from the Veneto region of Italy

BACKGROUND

The 2020 severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 outbreak entailed reduced availability of traditional (in-office) cardiology consultations. Remote monitoring is an alternative way of caring that may potentially mitigate the negative effects of the epidemic to the care of cardiovascular diseases. We evaluated the outcome of implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) carriers followed up remotely in 2020 (epidemic period) versus 2019 (control).

METHODS

We included all patients with an ICD who remained remotely monitored from the beginning to the end of each year. The combined end point included: new-onset atrial fibrillation; sustained ventricular tachycardia >170 bpm without ICD intervention; appropriate ICD intervention (either shock or antitachycardia pacing); any-cause death. Multiple events in the same patients were counted separately if occurring ≥48 h apart.

RESULTS

In 2020, 52 end points occurred in 37 of 366 (10%) ICD carriers [0.14/patient (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.11-0.19)] versus 43 end points in 32 of 325 (10%) ICD carriers in 2019 [0.13/patient (95% CI = 0.10-0.18) P  = 0.75]. There was no difference between the distribution of any individual end point in 2020 versus 2019 although a nonsignificant mortality increase was observed (from 2.8% to 4.6%, P  = 0.19). The lowest weekly event rate occurred during the national lock down in spring 2020 but a similar trend occurred also in 2019 suggesting that the effect may not be linked to social distancing measures.

CONCLUSIONS

We did not observe an increase in a combined end point including arrhythmic events and mortality in ICD carriers who were remotely monitored in 2020, compared to 2019, despite the negative impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 outbreak on the healthcare system.

Current status of reimbursement practices for remote monitoring of cardiac implantable electrical devices across Europe

Remote monitoring (RM) of cardiac implantable electrical devices (CIEDs) is currently proposed as a standard of care for CIEDs follow-up, as recommended by major cardiology societies worldwide. By detecting a series of relevant device and patient-related parameters, RM is a valuable option for early detection of CIEDs' technical issues, as well as changes in parameters related to cardio-respiratory functions. Moreover, RM may allow longer spacing between in-office follow-ups and better organization of in-hospital resources. Despite these potential advantages, resulting in improved patient safety, we are still far from a widespread diffusion of RM across Europe. Reimbursement policies across Europe still show an important heterogeneity and have been considered as an important barrier to full implementation of RM as a standard for the follow-up of all the patients with pacemakers, defibrillators, devices for cardiac resynchronization, or implantable loop recorders. Indeed, in many countries, there are still inertia and unresponsiveness to the request for widespread implementation of RM for CIEDs, although an improvement was found in some countries as compared to years ago, related to the provision of some form of reimbursement. As a matter of fact, the COVID-19 pandemic has promoted an increased use of digital health for connecting physicians to patients, even if digital literacy may be a limit for the widespread implementation of telemedicine. CIEDs have the advantage of making possible RM with an already defined organization and reliable systems for data transmissions that can be easily implemented as a standard of care for present and future cardiology practice.