Automatic Remote Monitoring of ICD Follow-Up Introduction The incidence of unscheduled encounters and problem occurrence between ICD implant and first in-person evaluation (IPE) recommended at 12 weeks is unknown. Automatic remote home monitoring (HM) may be useful in this potentially unstable period. Methods and Results ICD patients were randomized 2:1 to HM enabled post-implant (n = 908) or to conventional monitoring (CM; n = 431). Groups were compared between implant and prior to first scheduled IPE for IPE incidence, causes, and actionability (reprogramming, system revision, medication changes) and event detection time. HM and CM patients were similar (mean age 63 years, 72% male, LVEF 29%, primary prevention 73%, DDD 57%). In the post-implant interval assessed (HM 100 ± 21.3 days vs. CM 101 ± 20.8 days, P = 0.54), 85.4% (776/908) HM patients and 87.7% CM (378/431) patients had no cause for IPE (P = 0.31). When IPE occurred, actionability in HM (64/177 [36.2%]) was greater versus CM (15/62 [24.2%], P = 0.12). Actionable items were discovered sooner with HM (P = 0.025). Device reprogramming or lead revision was triggered following 53/177 (29.9%) IPEs in HM versus 9/62 (14.5%) in CM (P = 0.018). Arrhythmia detection was enhanced by HM: 276 atrial and ventricular episodes were detected in 135 follow-ups in contrast to CM (65 episodes at 17 IPEs). More silent arrhythmic episodes were discovered by HM (7.2% vs. 1.5% [P = 0.15]). Since 27/42 (64.3%) IPEs driven by HM alerts were actionable, event notification was a valuable method for problem detection. Importantly, HM did not increase incidence of non-actionable IPEs (P = 0.72). Conclusion Activation of automatic remote monitoring should be encouraged soon post-ICD implant.
- patient monitoring
- remote monitoring
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
- Physiology (medical)