AIMS: Remote monitoring is an effective strategy to improve patients' outcomes and reduce hospitalization in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices. However, data on patients' satisfaction are scarce. The aim of the current study was to assess patients' satisfaction, ease of use and impact on daily activities of the remote monitoring and to investigate whether there are differences among different devices and different manufacturers. METHODS: A modified Home Monitoring Acceptance and Satisfaction Questionnaire telephone survey on the perceived quality of the different systems was performed with all patients followed with remote monitoring for at least 3 months. RESULTS: Among 604 patients with remote monitoring screened by telephone, 466 patients (77%) answered the questionnaire [142 patients (30.5%) had a pacemaker, 317 patients (68%) had an implantable cardioverter defibrillator, and seven patients (1.5%) had an implantable loop recorder]. Ninety-seven percent of patients were satisfied by the remote monitoring system during the entire follow-up and found it easy to use. Similarly, 85% of patients did not experience any restriction in daily activities, and for 99% of patients it did not affect their privacy. Importantly, for the vast majority of patients, remote monitoring gave a great (56.7%) or moderate (33.4%) sense of security. CONCLUSION: Daily impact of cardiac implantable electronic devices still remains a challenging issue for caregivers. The introduction of remote monitoring allowed closer follow-up and improved outcomes. Our results highlighted patients' satisfaction, who also felt safer, with the remote monitoring, its ease of use, and the absence of any disturbances in patients' everyday activities or in their privacy.
AIMS: Remote monitoring is an effective strategy to improve patients' outcomes and reduce hospitalization in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices. However, data on patients' satisfaction are scarce. The aim of the current study was to assess patients' satisfaction, ease of use and impact on daily activities of the remote monitoring and to investigate whether there are differences among different devices and different manufacturers. METHODS: A modified Home Monitoring Acceptance and Satisfaction Questionnaire telephone survey on the perceived quality of the different systems was performed with all patients followed with remote monitoring for at least 3 months. RESULTS: Among 604 patients with remote monitoring screened by telephone, 466 patients (77%) answered the questionnaire [142 patients (30.5%) had a pacemaker, 317 patients (68%) had an implantable cardioverter defibrillator, and seven patients (1.5%) had an implantable loop recorder]. Ninety-seven percent of patients were satisfied by the remote monitoring system during the entire follow-up and found it easy to use. Similarly, 85% of patients did not experience any restriction in daily activities, and for 99% of patients it did not affect their privacy. Importantly, for the vast majority of patients, remote monitoring gave a great (56.7%) or moderate (33.4%) sense of security. CONCLUSION: Daily impact of cardiac implantable electronic devices still remains a challenging issue for caregivers. The introduction of remote monitoring allowed closer follow-up and improved outcomes. Our results highlighted patients' satisfaction, who also felt safer, with the remote monitoring, its ease of use, and the absence of any disturbances in patients' everyday activities or in their privacy.
Authors: Agostino Piro; Michele Magnocavallo; Domenico Giovanni Della Rocca; Matteo Neccia; Giovanna Manzi; Marco Valerio Mariani; Martina Straito; Alessia Bernardini; Paolo Severino; Gino Iannucci; Giuseppe Giunta; Cristina Chimenti; Andrea Natale; Francesco Fedele; Carlo Lavalle Journal: J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol Date: 2020-09-30