INTRODUCTION: Remote monitoring (RM) is becoming the new standard for follow-up of patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices. The aim of the present study was to evaluate patients' acceptance and satisfaction of RM by using a specific designed questionnaire. METHODS: The questionnaire is composed of 12 items aimed at analyzing 5 aspects of patient's acceptance and satisfaction of RM, with a scale ranging from 0 (the worst) to 4 (the best). The questionnaire was submitted to 163 ICD patients (147 male, 71 ± 12 years, 39 CRT-D), and followed by the CareLink Network Medtronic system, after a median follow-up of 20 months (13-26 months). Cronbach's alpha for reliability of the administered questionnaire was 0.73. RESULTS: The mean score of all 12 items was 3.5 ± 0.3; in detail: (i) relationship with healthcare provider 3.3 ± 0.7; (ii) ease of use of network technology 3.5 ± 0.5; (iii) related psychological aspects 3.5 ± 0.4; (iv) implication of general health 3.4 ± 0.6; (v) overall satisfaction 3.8 ± 0.3. CareLink naïve patients had better scores than those with previous in-person follow-up experience (3.6 ± 0.6 vs. 3.4 ± 0.7, p = 0.027), while no differences were observed between wireless and inductive systems, neither considering the living distance from the hospital. The main independent predictor of patient satisfaction was the implantation of CRT-D [Exp(beta) = 6.80 (1.34-34.62)] (p = 0.021). No correlation was found between age and ease of use of RM, while a positive correlation was observed between age and benefits on psychological aspects (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: ICD patients showed a high level of acceptance and satisfaction for RM. Patients with CRT-D perceived the greatest benefit.
INTRODUCTION: Remote monitoring (RM) is becoming the new standard for follow-up of patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices. The aim of the present study was to evaluate patients' acceptance and satisfaction of RM by using a specific designed questionnaire. METHODS: The questionnaire is composed of 12 items aimed at analyzing 5 aspects of patient's acceptance and satisfaction of RM, with a scale ranging from 0 (the worst) to 4 (the best). The questionnaire was submitted to 163 ICDpatients (147 male, 71 ± 12 years, 39 CRT-D), and followed by the CareLink Network Medtronic system, after a median follow-up of 20 months (13-26 months). Cronbach's alpha for reliability of the administered questionnaire was 0.73. RESULTS: The mean score of all 12 items was 3.5 ± 0.3; in detail: (i) relationship with healthcare provider 3.3 ± 0.7; (ii) ease of use of network technology 3.5 ± 0.5; (iii) related psychological aspects 3.5 ± 0.4; (iv) implication of general health 3.4 ± 0.6; (v) overall satisfaction 3.8 ± 0.3. CareLink naïve patients had better scores than those with previous in-person follow-up experience (3.6 ± 0.6 vs. 3.4 ± 0.7, p = 0.027), while no differences were observed between wireless and inductive systems, neither considering the living distance from the hospital. The main independent predictor of patient satisfaction was the implantation of CRT-D [Exp(beta) = 6.80 (1.34-34.62)] (p = 0.021). No correlation was found between age and ease of use of RM, while a positive correlation was observed between age and benefits on psychological aspects (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS:ICDpatients showed a high level of acceptance and satisfaction for RM. Patients with CRT-D perceived the greatest benefit.
Authors: David J Whellan; Kevin T Ousdigian; Sana M Al-Khatib; Wenji Pu; Shantanu Sarkar; Charles B Porter; Behzad B Pavri; Christopher M O'Connor Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2010-04-27 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Edmond M Cronin; Elizabeth A Ching; Niraj Varma; David O Martin; Bruce L Wilkoff; Bruce D Lindsay Journal: Heart Rhythm Date: 2012-08-03 Impact factor: 6.343
Authors: Axel Müller; Andreas Goette; Christian Perings; Herbert Nägele; Thomas Konorza; Wilhelm Spitzer; Sabine-Susan Schulz; Christian von Bary; Matthias Hoffmann; Marco Albani; Stefan Sack; Annegret Niederlöhner; Thorsten Lewalter Journal: Telemed J E Health Date: 2013-04-09 Impact factor: 3.536
Authors: Nesan Shanmugam; Annegret Boerdlein; Jochen Proff; Peter Ong; Oswaldo Valencia; Sebastian K G Maier; Wolfgang R Bauer; Vince Paul; Stefan Sack Journal: Europace Date: 2011-09-20 Impact factor: 5.214
Authors: Jessica Ng; Samuel F Sears; Derek V Exner; Lucy Reyes; Xenia Cravetchi; Peggy Cassidy; James Morton; Carmen Lohrenz; Aaron Low; Roopinder K Sandhu; Robert S Sheldon; Satish R Raj Journal: CJC Open Date: 2020-06-16
Authors: Ivy Timmermans; Mathias Meine; Istvan Szendey; Johannes Aring; Javier Romero Roldán; Lieselotte van Erven; Philipp Kahlert; Edgar Zitron; Philippe Mabo; Johan Denollet; Henneke Versteeg Journal: Pacing Clin Electrophysiol Date: 2019-01-02 Impact factor: 1.976
Authors: Michele Magnocavallo; Giampaolo Vetta; Alessia Bernardini; Agostino Piro; Maria Chiara Mei; Martina Di Iorio; Marco Valerio Mariani; Domenico G Della Rocca; Paolo Severino; Raffaele Quaglione; Giuseppe Giunta; Cristina Chimenti; Fabio Miraldi; Carmine Dario Vizza; Francesco Fedele; Carlo Lavalle Journal: Card Electrophysiol Clin Date: 2021-10-30
Authors: Khaldoun G Tarakji; Amir M Zaidi; Steven L Zweibel; Niraj Varma; Samuel F Sears; James Allred; Paul R Roberts; Naushad A Shaik; Josh R Silverstein; Abdul Maher; Suneet Mittal; Ashish Patwala; John Schoenhard; Martin Emert; Giulio Molon; Giuseppe Augello; Nilam Patel; Hanscy Seide; Antonio Porfilio; Baerbel Maus; Sherry L Di Jorio; Keith Holloman; Ana C Natera; Mintu P Turakhia Journal: Heart Rhythm O2 Date: 2021-08-02
Authors: Miguel A Ruiz Díaz; Marta Egea García; Roberto Muñoz Aguilera; Xavier Viñolas Prat; Jorge Silvestre García; María Álvarez Orozco; José Martínez Ferrer Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2020-04-25 Impact factor: 2.655