Work burden with remote monitoring of implantable cardioverter defibrillator: is it time for reimbursement policies?

Filtering of remote monitoring alerts transmitted by cardiac implantable electronic devices and reclassification of atrial fibrillation events by a new algorithm

Background

Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) are an important means of atrial fibrillation (AF) detection. However, the AF burden measurements and notifications transmitted by CIEDs are not directly related to the clinical classification of paroxysmal, persistent, or permanent AF. Moreover, AF alerts are the most frequent form of notification, imposing a time-consuming review on caregivers.

Objective

The purpose of this study was to compare the incidence of standard AF burden-related notifications in remotely monitored (RM) patients with the incidence of events detected after filtering by a new proprietary algorithm implementing the standard European Society of Cardiology classification of AF.

Methods

Between 2017 and 2022, all RM patients with daily AF burden measurements available for ≥30 days and ≥1 AF burden-related alerts were enrolled at 68 medical centers. The incidence of CIED-transmitted alerts was compared to that of AF episodes detected by a new proprietary algorithm and classified as "first recorded episode of AF", "paroxysmal AF", "increased paroxysmal AF", "persistent AF", or "end of persistent AF back to paroxysmal AF or back to sinus rhythm."

Results

Between January 2017 and September 2022, this retrospective study analyzed data from 4162 recipients of an Abbott, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, or Medtronic CIED, RM over mean follow-up of 605 ± 386 days. The algorithm broke down 67,883 AF burden-related alerts into 9728 (14.3%) clinically relevant AF events.

Conclusion

A new AF alert algorithm successfully identified clinically significant AF events in RM CIED recipients and would markedly limit the total number of transmitted alerts that require review by caregivers.

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.

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.

Remote patient monitoring for perioperative care: a scoping review on workflow implications for clinical staff (Preprint)

Background

Remote patient monitoring (RPM) interventions are being increasingly implemented in health care environments, given their benefits for different stakeholders. However, the effects of these interventions on the workflow of clinical staff are not always considered in RPM research and practice.

Objective

This review explored how contemporary RPM interventions affect clinical staff and their workflows in perioperative settings.

Methods

We conducted a scoping review of recent articles reporting the impact of RPM interventions implemented in perioperative settings on clinical staff and their workflow. The databases accessed were Embase and PubMed. A qualitative analysis was performed to identify the main problems and advantages that RPM brings to staff, in addition to the approaches taken to evaluate the impact of those interventions. Different themes were identified in terms of the challenges of RPM for clinical staff as well as in terms of benefits, risk-reduction strategies, and methods for measuring the impact of these interventions on the workflow of clinical staff.

Results

A total of 1063 papers were found during the initial search, of which 21 (1.98%) met the inclusion criteria. Of the 21 included papers, 15 (71%) focused on evaluating new RPM systems, 4 (19%) focused on existing systems, and 2 (10%) were reviews.

Conclusions

The reviewed literature shows that the impact on staff work experience is a crucial factor to consider when developing and implementing RPM interventions in perioperative settings. However, we noticed both underdevelopment and lack of standardization in the methods for assessing the impact of these interventions on clinical staff and their workflow. On the basis of the reviewed literature, we recommend the development of more robust methods for evaluating the impact of RPM interventions on staff experience in perioperative care; the adoption of a stronger focus on transition management when introducing these interventions in clinical practice; and the inclusion of longer periods of assessment, including the evaluation of long-term goals.

Remote Monitoring Alert Burden: An Analysis of Transmission in >26,000 Patients

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to determine the remote monitoring (RM) alert burden in a multicenter cohort of patients with a cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED).

BACKGROUND

RM of CIEDs allows timely recognition of patient and device events requiring intervention. Most RM involves burdensome manual workflow occurring exclusively on weekdays during office hours. Automated software may reduce such a burden, streamlining real-time alert responses.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 26,713 consecutive patients with a CIED undergoing managed RM utilizing PaceMate software between November 2018 and November 2019. Alerts were analyzed according to type, acuity (red indicates urgent, and yellow indicates nonurgent) and CIED category.

RESULTS

In total, 12,473 (46.7%) patients had a permanent pacemaker (PPM), 9,208 (34.5%) had an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD), and 5,032 (18.8%) had an implantable loop recorder (ILR). Overall, 82,797 of the 205,804 RM transmissions were alerts, with the remainder being scheduled transmissions. A total of 14,638 (54.8%) patients transmitted at least 1 alert. Permanent pacemakers were responsible for 25,700 (31.0%) alerts, ICDs for 15,643 (18.9%) alerts, and ILRs for 41,454 (50.1%) alerts, with 3,935 (4.8%) red alerts and 78,862 (95.2%) yellow alerts. ICDs transmitted 2,073 (52.7%) red alerts; 5,024 (32.1%) ICD alerts were for ventricular tachyarrhythmias and antitachycardia pacing/shock delivery.

CONCLUSIONS

In an RM cohort of 26,713 patients with CIEDs, 54.8% of patients transmitted at least 1 alert during a 12-month period, totaling over 82,000 alerts. ILRs were overrepresented, and ICDs were underrepresented, in these alerts. The enormity of the number of transmissions and the growing ILR alert burden highlight the need for new management pathways for RM.

Silent Atrial Fibrillation in Elderly Pacemaker Users: A Randomized Trial Using Home Monitoring

BACKGROUND

Pacemaker with remote monitoring (PRM) may be useful for silent atrial fibrillation (AF) detection. The aims of this study were to evaluate the incidence of silent AF, the role of PRM, and to determine predictors of silent AF occurrence.

METHODS

Three hundred elderly patients with permanent pacemaker (PPM) were randomly assigned to the remote group (RG) or control group (CG). All patients received PPM with remote monitoring capabilities. Primary end point was AF occurrence rate and the secondary end points were time to AF detection and number of days with AF.

RESULTS

During the average follow-up of 15.7±7.7 months, AF episodes were detected in 21.6% (RG = 24% vs CG = 19.3%, P = 0.36]. There was no difference in the time to detect the first AF episode. However, the median time to detect AF recurrence in the RG was lower than that in the CG (54 days vs 100 days, P = 0.004). The average number of days with AF was 16.0 and 51.2 in the RG and CG, respectively (P = 0.028). Predictors of silent AF were left atrial diameter (odds ratio [OR] 1.2; 95% CI = 1.1-1.3; P < 0.001) and diastolic dysfunction (OR 4.8; 95% CI = 1.6-14.0; P = 0.005).

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of silent AF is high in elderly patients with pacemaker; left atrial diameter and diastolic dysfunction were predictors of its occurrence. AF monitoring by means of pacemaker is a valuable tool for silent AF detection and continuous remote monitoring allows early AF recurrence detection and reduces the number of days with AF.

Monitoring Atrial Fibrillation After Catheter Ablation

Although catheter ablation is an effective treatment for recurrent atrial fibrillation (AF), there is no consensus on the definition of success or follow-up strategies. Symptoms are the major motivation for undergoing catheter ablation in patients with AF, however it is well known that reliance on perception of AF by patients after AF ablation results in an underestimation of recurrence of the arrhythmia. Because symptoms of AF occurrence may be misleading, a reliable assessment of rhythm outcome is essential for the definition of success in both clinical care and research trials. Continuous rhythm monitoring over long periods of time is superior to intermittent recording using external monitors to detect the presence of AF episodes and to quantify the AF burden. Today, new devices implanted subcutaneously using a minimally invasive technique have been developed for continuous AF monitoring. Implantable devices keep detailed information about arrhythmia recurrences and might allow identification of very brief episodes of AF, the significance of which is still uncertain. In particular, it is not known whether there is any critical value of daily AF burden that has a prognostic significance. This issue remains an area of active discussion, debate and investigation. Further investigation is required to determine if continuous AF monitoring with implantable devices is effective in reducing stroke risk and facilitating maintenance of sinus rhythm after AF ablation.

Remote monitoring costs, benefits, and reimbursement: a European perspective

AIMS

To provide a European perspective on reimbursement issues surrounding remote monitoring of cardiac implantable electronic devices in view of the anticipated costs and benefits.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Review of recent literature addressing clinical, economic, sociocultural, and technological factors associated with remote monitoring. When healthcare transformation is urgently needed, remote monitoring offers opportunities to innovate and cope with escalating costs and constrained resources, while improving patient safety, quality, and access to care as reflected in clinical studies. The introduction of remote monitoring into daily practice requires analysis of reimbursement policies to address funding scope, payment method, payer, price and allocation, and alignment with health system objectives and goals to ensure financial and operational sustainability of resources, infrastructure, and processes. Remote monitoring policies should gradually transition from activity-based, added-value services in a care-and-cure setting, to performance and outcome-oriented highlighting prevention, surveillance, and empowerment. By encouraging and rewarding innovation and interoperability, proprietary remote monitoring technologies can open up using standards and connect to support a growing evidence base that guides clinical decision support and planning of future policies.

CONCLUSION

Careful planning, sharing of experiences, and gradual adoption of reimbursement models that focus on outcome, performance, and cost-effectiveness are key aspects of containing escalating costs and improving quality and access to healthcare. Despite differences in health systems and payment methods in Europe, policy-makers, professional societies, payers, providers, and the industry need to join forces to transform healthcare and make innovation happen.

A randomized study of remote follow-up of implantable cardioverter defibrillators: safety and efficacy report of the ECOST trial

AIMS

The ECOST trial examined prospectively the long-term safety and effectiveness of home monitoring (HM) of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD).

METHODS AND RESULTS

The trial's primary objective was to randomly compare the proportions of patients experiencing ≥ 1 major adverse event (MAE), including deaths from all causes, and cardiovascular, procedure-related, and device-related MAE associated with HM (active group) vs. ambulatory follow-ups (control group) in a sample of 433 patients. The 221 patients assigned to the active group were seen once a year, unless HM reported an ICD dysfunction or a clinical event requiring an ambulatory visit, while the 212 patients in the control group underwent ambulatory visits every 6 months. The characteristics of the study groups were similar. Over a follow-up of 24.2 months, 38.5% of patients in the active and 41.5% in the control group experienced ≥ 1 MAE (P < 0.05 for non-inferiority). The overall number of shocks delivered was significantly lower in the active (n = 193) than in the control (n = 657) group (P < 0.05) and the proportion of patients who received inappropriate shocks was 52% lower in the active (n = 11) than in the control (n = 22) group (P < 0.05). At the end of the follow-up, the battery longevity was longer in the active group because of a lower number of capacitor charges (499 vs. 2081).

CONCLUSION

Our observations indicate that long-term HM of ICD is at least as safe as standard ambulatory follow-ups with respect to a broad spectrum of MAE. It also lowered significantly the number of appropriate and inappropriate shocks delivered, and spared the device battery. Clinical trials registration NCT00989417.