BACKGROUND: To determine the sensitivity and specificity, rate of compliance, and predictors of failure of telephone transmission of pacemaker function in a pediatric population. METHODS: A total of 2,638 pacemaker transmission records were reviewed retrospectively. Standard calculations of sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were performed. Longitudinal data analysis was used to detect factors influencing the effectiveness of transtelephonic monitoring. The proportion of missed transmissions was calculated, thus enabling assessment of compliance. Logistic regression was performed to determine predictors of poor compliance. RESULTS: Telephone transmission of pacemaker function, as a diagnostic tool, had a sensitivity of 94.8%, specificity of 99.2%, positive predictive value of 82.1%, and negative predictive value of 99.9%. Longitudinal analysis failed to show any significant predictors of transmission failure. Compliance with a prescribed transmission reached 84.5% in our patient population. Logistic regression analysis failed to identify any predictors of noncompliance. CONCLUSION: Values for sensitivity and specificity indicate that telephone transmission is a useful diagnostic tool for assessing pacemaker function at a distance. Negative predictive value is 99.9%, indicating that normal telephone transmissions are very reassuring of normal pacemaker function. Telephone transmission is equally successful in all age groups, genders, distances from a tertiary referral center, underlying diagnoses, pacing modes, and pacemaker models. Compliance with telephone transmission follow-up was higher in our population than in previous studies.
BACKGROUND: To determine the sensitivity and specificity, rate of compliance, and predictors of failure of telephone transmission of pacemaker function in a pediatric population. METHODS: A total of 2,638 pacemaker transmission records were reviewed retrospectively. Standard calculations of sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were performed. Longitudinal data analysis was used to detect factors influencing the effectiveness of transtelephonic monitoring. The proportion of missed transmissions was calculated, thus enabling assessment of compliance. Logistic regression was performed to determine predictors of poor compliance. RESULTS: Telephone transmission of pacemaker function, as a diagnostic tool, had a sensitivity of 94.8%, specificity of 99.2%, positive predictive value of 82.1%, and negative predictive value of 99.9%. Longitudinal analysis failed to show any significant predictors of transmission failure. Compliance with a prescribed transmission reached 84.5% in our patient population. Logistic regression analysis failed to identify any predictors of noncompliance. CONCLUSION: Values for sensitivity and specificity indicate that telephone transmission is a useful diagnostic tool for assessing pacemaker function at a distance. Negative predictive value is 99.9%, indicating that normal telephone transmissions are very reassuring of normal pacemaker function. Telephone transmission is equally successful in all age groups, genders, distances from a tertiary referral center, underlying diagnoses, pacing modes, and pacemaker models. Compliance with telephone transmission follow-up was higher in our population than in previous studies.