Literature DB >> 30353376

Putting down the phone: the obsolescence of transtelephonic monitoring for pacemaker follow-up.

Samuel A Shabtaie1, Alan Sugrue2, Nicholas Y Tan1, Samuel Asirvatham2, David L Hayes3.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The evolution of heart rhythm monitoring technology over the past few decades has seen a decline in the use and need of transtelephonic monitoring (TTM). We sought to establish a predicted date for the sun setting of TTM at our institution, as well as establish the current demographics of the patients still using this technology.
METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed all patients with permanent pacemakers receiving routine device follow-up at our institution (Mayo Clinic-Rochester) between 2015 and 2018. From this cohort, we reviewed and analyzed patients using TTM for device follow-up and utilized projected battery longevity to determine cessation date. Pacemaker implantation date, underlying arrhythmia, and most recent device interrogation reports were also collected.
RESULTS: As of March 2018, a total of 3543 patients with permanent pacemakers were being followed at our institution and 289 (8.2%) are using TTM for monitoring device function (147 male, mean age 79.9 ± 12.0 years). Of those currently using TTM, by January of 2020, only 122 (42.2%) are predicted to be using this technology for device follow-up, 40 (13.8%) by January 2022, with zero patients by November of 2024.
CONCLUSIONS: The use of TTM will continue to significantly diminish over the next few years. Based on battery longevity estimates, we predict that by the end of 2024 TTM will no longer be used for device follow-up at our institution.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Arrhythmia; Cardiovascular implantable electronic devices; Pacemaker; Remote monitoring; Transtelephonic monitoring

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30353376     DOI: 10.1007/s10840-018-0478-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol        ISSN: 1383-875X            Impact factor:   1.900


  12 in total

1.  Leads and longevity: how long will your pacemaker last?

Authors:  Richard K Shepard; Kenneth A Ellenbogen
Journal:  Europace       Date:  2008-12-24       Impact factor: 5.214

2.  Pacemaker follow-up: its role in the detection and correction of pacemaker system malfunction.

Authors:  J C Griffin; T D Schuenemeyer; K R Hess; D Glaeser; B J Anderson; E Romans; M A Jenkins; A P Nielsen
Journal:  Pacing Clin Electrophysiol       Date:  1986-05       Impact factor: 1.976

3.  HRS Expert Consensus Statement on remote interrogation and monitoring for cardiovascular implantable electronic devices.

Authors:  David Slotwiner; Niraj Varma; Joseph G Akar; George Annas; Marianne Beardsall; Richard I Fogel; Nestor O Galizio; Taya V Glotzer; Robin A Leahy; Charles J Love; Rhondalyn C McLean; Suneet Mittal; Loredana Morichelli; Kristen K Patton; Merritt H Raitt; Renato Pietro Ricci; John Rickard; Mark H Schoenfeld; Gerald A Serwer; Julie Shea; Paul Varosy; Atul Verma; Cheuk-Man Yu
Journal:  Heart Rhythm       Date:  2015-05-14       Impact factor: 6.343

4.  Efficacy and safety of automatic remote monitoring for implantable cardioverter-defibrillator follow-up: the Lumos-T Safely Reduces Routine Office Device Follow-up (TRUST) trial.

Authors:  Niraj Varma; Andrew E Epstein; Anand Irimpen; Robert Schweikert; Charles Love
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2010-07-12       Impact factor: 29.690

5.  Pacemaker follow-up and adequacy of Medicare guidelines.

Authors:  L E Vallario; R B Leman; P C Gillette; J M Kratz
Journal:  Am Heart J       Date:  1988-07       Impact factor: 4.749

6.  Cardiac pacing practices in the United States in 1985.

Authors:  V Parsonnet; A D Bernstein; D Galasso
Journal:  Am J Cardiol       Date:  1988-07-01       Impact factor: 2.778

7.  Clinical benefits of remote versus transtelephonic monitoring of implanted pacemakers.

Authors:  George H Crossley; Jane Chen; Wassim Choucair; Todd J Cohen; Douglas C Gohn; W Ben Johnson; Eleanor E Kennedy; Luc R Mongeon; Gerald A Serwer; Hongyan Qiao; Bruce L Wilkoff
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  2009-11-24       Impact factor: 24.094

8.  Economic analysis of remote monitoring of cardiac implantable electronic devices: Results of the Health Economics Evaluation Registry for Remote Follow-up (TARIFF) study.

Authors:  Renato Pietro Ricci; Alfredo Vicentini; Antonio D'Onofrio; Antonio Sagone; Giovanni Rovaris; Luigi Padeletti; Loredana Morichelli; Antonio Fusco; Stefano De Vivo; Leonida Lombardi; Alessandra Denaro; Annalisa Pollastrelli; Irene Colangelo; Massimo Santini
Journal:  Heart Rhythm       Date:  2016-09-08       Impact factor: 6.343

9.  Impact of remote monitoring on clinical events and associated health care utilization: A nationwide assessment.

Authors:  Jonathan P Piccini; Suneet Mittal; Jeff Snell; Julie B Prillinger; Nirav Dalal; Niraj Varma
Journal:  Heart Rhythm       Date:  2016-08-17       Impact factor: 6.343

10.  Costs of remote monitoring vs. ambulatory follow-ups of implanted cardioverter defibrillators in the randomized ECOST study.

Authors:  Laurence Guédon-Moreau; Dominique Lacroix; Nicolas Sadoul; Jacques Clémenty; Claude Kouakam; Jean-Sylvain Hermida; Etienne Aliot; Salem Kacet
Journal:  Europace       Date:  2014-03-09       Impact factor: 5.214

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.