BACKGROUND: Monitoring implantable cardiac device function and patient condition is important. The Lumos-T Safely Reduces Routine Office Device Follow-Up (TRUST) trial tested the hypothesis that remote home monitoring with automatic daily surveillance (HM) is safe and effective for implantable cardioverter-defibrillator follow-up for 1 year and enables rapid physician evaluation of significant events. METHODS AND RESULTS: In total, 1339 patients were randomized 2:1 to HM or conventional follow-up. Follow-up checks occurred at 3, 6, 9, 12, and 15 months after implantation. HM was used before office visits at 3 and 15 months in the HM group. At 6, 9, and 12 months, HM only was used but was followed by office visits if necessary. Conventional patients were evaluated with office visits only. Scheduled office visits and unscheduled evaluations, incidence of morbidity, and time elapsed from first event occurrence in each patient to physician evaluation were tracked for each group. HM and conventional patients were similar (age, 63.3+/-12.8 versus 64.0+/-12.1 years; gender, 72.0% versus 73.1% male; New York Heart Association class II, 55.9% versus 60.4%; pathology: left ventricular ejection fraction, 29.0+/-10.7% versus 28.5+/-9.8%; coronary artery disease, 64.8% versus 71.7%; primary prevention indication, 72.2% versus 73.8%; and dual-chamber implants, 57.8% versus 56.6%). HM reduced total in-hospital device evaluations by 45% without affecting morbidity. In the HM group, 85.8% of all 6-, 9-, and 12-month follow-ups were performed remotely only, indicating that HM provided sufficient assessment in the majority. Median time to evaluation was <2 days in the HM group compared with 36 days in the conventional group (P<0.001) for all arrhythmic events. CONCLUSIONS:HM is safe and allows more rapid detection of actionable events compared with conventional monitoring in patients with implantable electronic cardiac devices.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Monitoring implantable cardiac device function and patient condition is important. The Lumos-T Safely Reduces Routine Office Device Follow-Up (TRUST) trial tested the hypothesis that remote home monitoring with automatic daily surveillance (HM) is safe and effective for implantable cardioverter-defibrillator follow-up for 1 year and enables rapid physician evaluation of significant events. METHODS AND RESULTS: In total, 1339 patients were randomized 2:1 to HM or conventional follow-up. Follow-up checks occurred at 3, 6, 9, 12, and 15 months after implantation. HM was used before office visits at 3 and 15 months in the HM group. At 6, 9, and 12 months, HM only was used but was followed by office visits if necessary. Conventional patients were evaluated with office visits only. Scheduled office visits and unscheduled evaluations, incidence of morbidity, and time elapsed from first event occurrence in each patient to physician evaluation were tracked for each group. HM and conventional patients were similar (age, 63.3+/-12.8 versus 64.0+/-12.1 years; gender, 72.0% versus 73.1% male; New York Heart Association class II, 55.9% versus 60.4%; pathology: left ventricular ejection fraction, 29.0+/-10.7% versus 28.5+/-9.8%; coronary artery disease, 64.8% versus 71.7%; primary prevention indication, 72.2% versus 73.8%; and dual-chamber implants, 57.8% versus 56.6%). HM reduced total in-hospital device evaluations by 45% without affecting morbidity. In the HM group, 85.8% of all 6-, 9-, and 12-month follow-ups were performed remotely only, indicating that HM provided sufficient assessment in the majority. Median time to evaluation was <2 days in the HM group compared with 36 days in the conventional group (P<0.001) for all arrhythmic events. CONCLUSIONS: HM is safe and allows more rapid detection of actionable events compared with conventional monitoring in patients with implantable electronic cardiac devices.
Authors: Sergio Dubner; Angelo Auricchio; Jonathan S Steinberg; Panos Vardas; Peter Stone; Josep Brugada; Ryszard Piotrowicz; David L Hayes; Paulus Kirchhof; Günter Breithardt; Wojciech Zareba; Claudio Schuger; Mehmet K Aktas; Michal Chudzik; Suneet Mittal; Niraj Varma Journal: Ann Noninvasive Electrocardiol Date: 2012-01 Impact factor: 1.468
Authors: Paul Chun Yih Lim; Audry Shan Yin Lee; Kelvin Chi Ming Chua; Eric Tien Siang Lim; Daniel Thuan Tee Chong; Boon Yew Tan; Kah Leng Ho; Wee Siong Teo; Chi Keong Ching Journal: Singapore Med J Date: 2016-07 Impact factor: 1.858
Authors: Renato P Ricci; Alfredo Vicentini; Antonio D'Onofrio; Antonio Sagone; Antonio Vincenti; Luigi Padeletti; Loredana Morichelli; Antonio Fusco; Filippo Vecchione; Francesco Lo Presti; Alessandra Denaro; Annalisa Pollastrelli; Massimo Santini Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol Date: 2013-09-21 Impact factor: 1.900
Authors: T M Helms; M Stockburger; J O Schwab; G Hindricks; F Köhler; V Leonhardt; A Müller; K Rybak; S Sack; C Zugck; B Zippel-Schultz; C A Perings Journal: Herzschrittmacherther Elektrophysiol Date: 2019-09
Authors: Samuel A Shabtaie; Alan Sugrue; Nicholas Y Tan; Samuel Asirvatham; David L Hayes Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol Date: 2018-10-23 Impact factor: 1.900
Authors: Abigale L Ottenberg; Keith M Swetz; Luke A Mueller; Samantha Gerhardson; Paul S Mueller Journal: Heart Lung Date: 2013-04-10 Impact factor: 2.210