Antonio Lopez-Villegas1,2, Daniel Catalan-Matamoros3, Emilio Robles-Musso4, Salvador Peiro5,6. 1. Division of Medicine, Nordland Hospital, Bodø, Norway. 2. Institute of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Tromsø, Tromsø, Norway. 3. Health Communication Unit, Madrid University Carlos III, Madrid, Spain. 4. Intensive Care Unit, Poniente Hospital, El Ejido-Almeria, Spain. 5. Research Network in Health Services in Chronic Diseases (REDISSEC), Valencia, Spain. 6. Health Services Research Area, Foundation for the Promotion of Healthcare and Biomedical Research in the Valencian Community, Valencia, Spain.
Abstract
AIMS: The purpose of the present study was to assess the effectiveness of the remote monitoring (RM) of older adults with pacemakers on health-relatedquality of life, functional capacity, feasibility, reliability and safety. METHODS: The PONIENTE study is a controlled, non-randomized, non-blinded clinical trial, with data collection carried out during the pre-implant stage and after 12 months. Between October of 2012 and November of 2013, 82 patients were assigned to either a remote monitoring group (n = 30) or a conventional hospital monitoring (HM) group (n = 52). The EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D) and the Duke Activity Status Index were used to measure health-related quality of life and functional capacity, respectively. Baseline characteristics and number of hospital visits were also analyzed. RESULTS: The baseline characteristics of the two study groups were similar for both the EQ-5D (RM 0.74, HM 0.67; P = 0.404) and the Duke Activity Status Index (RM 21.42, HM 19.95; P = 0.272). At the 12-month follow up, the EQ-5D utility score was improved for both groups (RM 0.91, HM 0.81; P = 0.154), unlike the EQ-5D Visual Analog Scale (P = 0.043). The Duke Activity Status Index score was similar to the baseline score. The number of in-hospital visits was 27% lower (3 vs 4; P < 0.001) in the remote group as compared with the hospital group. CONCLUSIONS: The PONIENTE trial suggests that the remote monitoring of pacemakers in older adults is an equivalent option to hospital monitoring, in terms of health-related quality of life and functional capacity. Furthermore, it allows for the early detection of clinical and pacemaker-related adverse events, and significantly reduces the number of in-hospital visits. Geriatr Gerontol Int 2016; 16: 1188-1195.
RCT Entities:
AIMS: The purpose of the present study was to assess the effectiveness of the remote monitoring (RM) of older adults with pacemakers on health-related quality of life, functional capacity, feasibility, reliability and safety. METHODS: The PONIENTE study is a controlled, non-randomized, non-blinded clinical trial, with data collection carried out during the pre-implant stage and after 12 months. Between October of 2012 and November of 2013, 82 patients were assigned to either a remote monitoring group (n = 30) or a conventional hospital monitoring (HM) group (n = 52). The EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D) and the Duke Activity Status Index were used to measure health-related quality of life and functional capacity, respectively. Baseline characteristics and number of hospital visits were also analyzed. RESULTS: The baseline characteristics of the two study groups were similar for both the EQ-5D (RM 0.74, HM 0.67; P = 0.404) and the Duke Activity Status Index (RM 21.42, HM 19.95; P = 0.272). At the 12-month follow up, the EQ-5D utility score was improved for both groups (RM 0.91, HM 0.81; P = 0.154), unlike the EQ-5D Visual Analog Scale (P = 0.043). The Duke Activity Status Index score was similar to the baseline score. The number of in-hospital visits was 27% lower (3 vs 4; P < 0.001) in the remote group as compared with the hospital group. CONCLUSIONS: The PONIENTE trial suggests that the remote monitoring of pacemakers in older adults is an equivalent option to hospital monitoring, in terms of health-related quality of life and functional capacity. Furthermore, it allows for the early detection of clinical and pacemaker-related adverse events, and significantly reduces the number of in-hospital visits. Geriatr Gerontol Int 2016; 16: 1188-1195.
Authors: Remedios López-Liria; Antonio López-Villegas; Terje Enebakk; Hilde Thunhaug; Knut Tore Lappegård; Daniel Catalán-Matamoros Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2019-06-05 Impact factor: 3.390
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
Authors: Antonio Lopez-Villegas; Daniel Catalan-Matamoros; Salvador Peiro; Knut Tore Lappegard; Remedios Lopez-Liria Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-01-29 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Antonio Lopez-Villegas; César Leal-Costa; Mercedes Perez-Heredia; Irene Villegas-Tripiana; Daniel Catalán-Matamoros Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-11-18 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Rafael Jesus Bautista-Mesa; Antonio Lopez-Villegas; Salvador Peiro; Daniel Catalan-Matamoros; Emilio Robles-Musso; Remedios Lopez-Liria; Cesar Leal-Costa Journal: BMC Geriatr Date: 2020-11-16 Impact factor: 3.921
Authors: Daniel Catalan-Matamoros; Antonio Lopez-Villegas; Cesar Leal Costa; Rafael Bautista-Mesa; Emilio Robles-Musso; Patricia Rocamora Perez; Remedios Lopez-Liria Journal: PLoS One Date: 2021-12-23 Impact factor: 3.240