BACKGROUND: The Home Monitoring (HM) system of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) permits early detection of arrhythmias or device system failures. The aim of this pilot study was to examine how the safety and efficacy of the HM system in patients after ambulatory implanted primary CIEDs compare to patients with a standard procedure and hospitalization. HYPOTHESIS: We hypothesized that HM and their modifications would be a useful extension of the present concepts for ambulatory implanted CIEDs. METHODS: This retrospective analysis evaluates telemetric data obtained from 364 patients in an ambulatory single center over 6 years. Patients were assigned to an active group (n = 217), consisting of those who were discharged early on the day of implantation of the primary CIED, or to a control group (n = 147), consisting of those discharged and followed up with the HM system according to usual medical practices. RESULTS: The mean duration of hospitalization was 73.2% shorter in the active group than in the control group, corresponding to 20.5 ± 13 fewer hours (95% confidence interval [CI]: 6.3-29.5; P < 0.01) spent in the hospital (7.5 ± 1.5 vs 28 ± 4.5 h). This shorter mean hospital stay was attributable to a 78.8% shorter postoperative period in the active group. The proportion of patients with treatment-related adverse events was 11% (n = 23) in the active group and 17% (n = 25) in the control group (95% CI: 5.5-8.3; P = 0.061). This 6% absolute risk reduction (95% CI: 3.3-9.1; P = 0.789) confirmed the noninferiority of the ambulatory implanted CIED when compared with standard management of these patients. CONCLUSIONS: Early discharge with the HM system after ambulatory CIED implantation was safe and not inferior to the classic medical procedure. Thus, together with lower costs, HM and its modifications would be a useful extension of the present concepts for ambulatory implanted CIEDs.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: The Home Monitoring (HM) system of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) permits early detection of arrhythmias or device system failures. The aim of this pilot study was to examine how the safety and efficacy of the HM system in patients after ambulatory implanted primary CIEDs compare to patients with a standard procedure and hospitalization. HYPOTHESIS: We hypothesized that HM and their modifications would be a useful extension of the present concepts for ambulatory implanted CIEDs. METHODS: This retrospective analysis evaluates telemetric data obtained from 364 patients in an ambulatory single center over 6 years. Patients were assigned to an active group (n = 217), consisting of those who were discharged early on the day of implantation of the primary CIED, or to a control group (n = 147), consisting of those discharged and followed up with the HM system according to usual medical practices. RESULTS: The mean duration of hospitalization was 73.2% shorter in the active group than in the control group, corresponding to 20.5 ± 13 fewer hours (95% confidence interval [CI]: 6.3-29.5; P < 0.01) spent in the hospital (7.5 ± 1.5 vs 28 ± 4.5 h). This shorter mean hospital stay was attributable to a 78.8% shorter postoperative period in the active group. The proportion of patients with treatment-related adverse events was 11% (n = 23) in the active group and 17% (n = 25) in the control group (95% CI: 5.5-8.3; P = 0.061). This 6% absolute risk reduction (95% CI: 3.3-9.1; P = 0.789) confirmed the noninferiority of the ambulatory implanted CIED when compared with standard management of these patients. CONCLUSIONS: Early discharge with the HM system after ambulatory CIED implantation was safe and not inferior to the classic medical procedure. Thus, together with lower costs, HM and its modifications would be a useful extension of the present concepts for ambulatory implanted CIEDs.
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: Europace Date: 2012-01-09 Impact factor: 5.214
Authors: Leslie A Saxon; David L Hayes; F Roosevelt Gilliam; Paul A Heidenreich; John Day; Milan Seth; Timothy E Meyer; Paul W Jones; John P Boehmer Journal: Circulation Date: 2010-11-22 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: George H Crossley; Andrew Boyle; Holly Vitense; Yanping Chang; R Hardwin Mead Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2011-01-20 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Renato P Ricci; Antonio D'Onofrio; Luigi Padeletti; Antonio Sagone; Alfredo Vicentini; Antonio Vincenti; Loredana Morichelli; Ciro Cavallaro; Giuseppe Ricciardi; Leonida Lombardi; Antonio Fusco; Giovanni Rovaris; Paolo Silvestri; Tiziana Guidotto; Annalisa Pollastrelli; Massimo Santini Journal: Europace Date: 2012-04-27 Impact factor: 5.214
Authors: Jane Chen; Bruce L Wilkoff; Wassim Choucair; Todd J Cohen; George H Crossley; W Ben Johnson; Luc R Mongeon; Gerald A Serwer; Lou Sherfesee Journal: Trials Date: 2008-04-03 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Sandra Sülz; Hilco J van Elten; Marjan Askari; Anne Marie Weggelaar-Jansen; Robbert Huijsman Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2021-03-09 Impact factor: 5.428
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