Literature DB >> 23419656

Incidence and predictors of pacemaker reprogramming: potential consequences for remote follow-up.

Erik O Udo1, Norbert M van Hemel, Nicolaas P A Zuithoff, Mike J Barrett, Jaap H Ruiter, Pieter A Doevendans, Karel G M Moons.   

Abstract

AIMS: Remote follow-up (FU) enables to cope with the expanding number of pacemaker (PM) FU. Although remote FU offers comparable monitoring options to in-office FU, reprogramming of device settings is not available, thereby imposing a potentially important restriction to the applicability of remote FU.  The aim of this study was to assess in a large cohort of bradycardia PM recipients, the incidence of PM reprogramming during long-term FU and its predictors, to judge the possibilities for remote FU. METHODS AND
RESULTS: Between 2003 and 2010 all in-office FU of 1517 bradycardia PM recipients included in the FOLLOWPACE study were recorded. Only 24.5% of all 13 258 recorded FU visits >3 months after implantation were visits-with-reprogramming (VWRs), occurring in 1158 patients (79%). Fifty percent of patients were free of reprogramming at 9 months, and 29% at 24 months. Using multivariable binary logistic regression analysis, the following patient characteristics were predictive for frequent PM reprogramming, defined as >3 VWRs during 3 year FU: age, a history of atrial arrhythmias, PM complication <3 months after implantation, congestive heart failure, PM indication, and lead fixation method. This model had a receiver operating characteristic area of 0.66 (95% confidence interval 0.61-0.71).
CONCLUSION: This study observed a low proportion of VWR (∼25%) during a mean FU of 5.3 years; however, those patients at high risk for PM reprogramming cannot easily be predicted. The vast majority of patients (>80%) do not need frequent reprogramming, suggesting a potential benefit of using remote FU to reduce the number of unnecessary in-office visits.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Pacemaker; Remote follow-up; Reprogramming

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23419656     DOI: 10.1093/europace/eut002

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Europace        ISSN: 1099-5129            Impact factor:   5.214


  3 in total

1.  A Contactless Sensor for Pacemaker Pulse Detection: Design Hints and Performance Assessment.

Authors:  Emilio Andreozzi; Gaetano D Gargiulo; Antonio Fratini; Daniele Esposito; Paolo Bifulco
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2018-08-18       Impact factor: 3.576

2.  Effectiveness and Safety in Remote Monitoring of Patients with Pacemakers Five Years after an Implant: The Poniente Study.

Authors:  Remedios López-Liria; Antonio López-Villegas; César Leal-Costa; Salvador Peiró; Emilio Robles-Musso; Rafael Bautista-Mesa; Patricia Rocamora-Pérez; Knut Tore Lappegård; Daniel Catalán-Matamoros
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2020-02-23       Impact factor: 3.390

Review 3.  State of the art: leadless ventricular pacing : A national expert consensus of the Austrian Society of Cardiology.

Authors:  C Steinwender; P Lercher; C Schukro; H Blessberger; G Prenner; M Andreas; J Kraus; M Ammer; M Stühlinger
Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol       Date:  2019-12-20       Impact factor: 1.900

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.