Literature DB >> 25444853

Effect of daily remote monitoring on pacemaker longevity: a retrospective analysis.

Renato Pietro Ricci1, Loredana Morichelli2, Laura Quarta2, Antonio Porfili2, Barbara Magris2, Lisa Giovene3, Sergio Torcinaro3, Alessio Gargaro3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Energy demand of remote monitoring in cardiac implantable electronic devices has never been investigated. Biotronik Home Monitoring (HM) is characterized by daily transmissions that may affect longevity.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to retrospectively compare longevity of a specific dual-chamber pacemaker model in patients with HM on and patients with HM off.
METHODS: Hospital files of 201 patients (mean age 87 ± 10 years, 78 men) who had received a Biotronik Cylos DR-T pacemaker between April 2006 and May 2010 for standard indication were reviewed. In 134 patients (67%), HM was activated. The primary end point was device replacement due to battery depletion.
RESULTS: The median follow-up period was 56.4 months (interquartile range 41.8-65.2 months). The estimated device longevity was 71.1 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 69.1-72.3 months) in the HM-on group and 60.4 months (CI 55.9-65.1 months) in the HM-off group (P < .0001). The frequency of inhospital visits with significant device reprogramming was higher in the HM-on group than in the HM-off group (33.3% vs 25.0%, respectively; P = .03). Lower ventricular pulse amplitude (2.3 ± 0.4 V vs 2.7 ± 0.5 V; P < .0001) and pacing percentage (49% ± 38% vs 64% ± 38%; P = .02), both calculated as time-weighted averages, were observed with HM on as compared with HM off. Patient attrition was significantly lower in the HM-on group (9.7%; 95% CI 3.0%-28.7%) than in the HM-off group (45.6%; 95% CI 30.3%-64.3%) (P < .0001).
CONCLUSION: In normal practice, energy demand of HM, if present, was overshadowed by programming optimization likely favored by continuous monitoring. Pacemakers controlled remotely with HM showed an 11-month longer longevity. Patient retention was superior.
Copyright © 2015 Heart Rhythm Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Battery; Device programming; Home Monitoring; Longevity; Pacemaker; Remote monitoring; Telemedicine

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25444853     DOI: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2014.10.028

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Heart Rhythm        ISSN: 1547-5271            Impact factor:   6.343


  4 in total

Review 1.  Remote monitoring: Doomed to let down or an attractive promise?

Authors:  Fabiana Lucà; Laura Cipolletta; Stefania Angela Di Fusco; Annamaria Iorio; Andrea Pozzi; Carmelo Massimiliano Rao; Nadia Ingianni; Manuela Benvenuto; Andrea Madeo; Damiana Fiscella; Daniela Benedetto; Giuseppina Maura Francese; Sandro Gelsomino; Massimo Zecchin; Domenico Gabrielli; Michele Massimo Gulizia
Journal:  Int J Cardiol Heart Vasc       Date:  2019-05-30

Review 2.  Remote Monitoring of CIEDs-For Both Safety, Economy and Convenience?

Authors:  Knut Tore Lappegård; Frode Moe
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2021-12-28       Impact factor: 3.390

3.  Pacing and Sensing of Human Heart for over 31 Years with the Same Apparatus (Generator and Lead).

Authors:  Evangelos Papasteriadis; Panagiotis Margos
Journal:  Case Rep Cardiol       Date:  2015-10-26

Review 4.  Remote Monitoring of Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators, Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy and Permanent Pacemakers: A Health Technology Assessment.

Authors: 
Journal:  Ont Health Technol Assess Ser       Date:  2018-10-24
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.