Peter Søgaard1, Steffen Behrens2, Attila Konyi3, Miloš Taborsky4, Per Dahl Christiansen5, Peter Karl Jacobsen6, Jozsef Faluközy7, Jerzy Malczynski8, Johannes Brachmann9, Alexander Samol10, Maike Kluding11, Jürgen Schrader12, Poul-Erik Bloch Thomsen13, Christian Jøns14. 1. Aalborg University Hospital, Cardiology, Hobrovej 18-22, 9100 Aalborg, Denmark. Electronic address: p.soegaard@rn.dk. 2. Vivantes Humboldt-Klinikum, Cardiology, Am Nordgraben 2, 13509 Berlin, Germany. Electronic address: Steffen.Behrens@vivantes.de. 3. University of Pecs, Heart Institute, Ifjúság street 13, 7624 Pecs, Hungary. Electronic address: konyi.attila@pte.hu. 4. Fakultní nemocnice Olomouc, Cardiology, I.P. Pavlova 6, 77900 Olomouc, Czech Republic. Electronic address: milos.taborsky@fnol.cz. 5. Regionshospitalet Viborg, Cardiology, Heibergs Alle 2, 8800 Viborg, Denmark. Electronic address: per.d.christensen@midt.rm.dk. 6. Rigshospitalet Copenhagen, Cardiology, Blegdamsvej 9, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark. Electronic address: pkjacobsen@dadlnet.dk. 7. National Hospital of Cardiology, Gyogy ter 2, 8231 Balatonfüred, Hungary. 8. Herning Hospital, Gl. Landevej 61, 7400 Herning, Denmark. Electronic address: jerzy.malczynski@vest.rm.dk. 9. Klinikum Coburg, Cardiology, Ketschendorfer Straße 33, 96450 Coburg, Germany. Electronic address: johannes.brachmann@klinikum-coburg.de. 10. Johannes-Wesling-University Hospital Minden, Cardiology and Critical Care Medicine, Hans-Nolte-Str. 1, 32429 Minden, Germany. Electronic address: alexander.samol@muehlenkreiskliniken.de. 11. Biotronik SE & Co.KG, Woermannkehre 1, 12359 Berlin, Germany. Electronic address: maike.kluding@biotronik.com. 12. Biotronik SE & Co.KG, Woermannkehre 1, 12359 Berlin, Germany. Electronic address: juergen.schrader@biotronik.com. 13. Aalborg University Hospital, Cardiology, Hobrovej 18-22, 9100 Aalborg, Denmark. 14. Rigshospitalet Copenhagen, Cardiology, Blegdamsvej 9, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Remote monitoring including transmission of electrocardiogram (ECG) strips has been implemented in implantable cardiac monitors (ICM). We appraise whether the physician can rely on remote monitoring to be informed of all possibly significant arrhythmias. METHODS: We analyzed remote monitoring transmissions of patients in the ongoing BIO|GUARD-MI study, in which Biotronik devices are used. Once per day, the devices automatically transmit messages with up to six ECG snapshots to the Home Monitoring Service Center. If more than one type of arrhythmia is recorded during a day, at least one ECG of each arrhythmia type is transmitted. RESULTS: 212 study patients were registered at the service center. The mean age of the patients was 70 ± 8 years, and 74% were male. Patients were followed for an average of 13 months. The median time from device implantation until the first message receipt in the service center was 2 days. The median patient-individual transmission success was 98.0% (IQR 93.6-99.8) and remained stable in the second and third year. The most frequent arrhythmias were atrial fibrillation, bradycardia and high ventricular rate. 17.3% of the messages with ECG snapshots contained more than one arrhythmia type. DISCUSSION: Our analysis confirms that the physician can rely on Home Monitoring to be informed of all possibly significant arrhythmias during long-term follow-up. We have found hints that the transmission of only one episode per day may lead to the loss of clinically relevant information if patients with ICMs are followed by remote monitoring only.
INTRODUCTION: Remote monitoring including transmission of electrocardiogram (ECG) strips has been implemented in implantable cardiac monitors (ICM). We appraise whether the physician can rely on remote monitoring to be informed of all possibly significant arrhythmias. METHODS: We analyzed remote monitoring transmissions of patients in the ongoing BIO|GUARD-MI study, in which Biotronik devices are used. Once per day, the devices automatically transmit messages with up to six ECG snapshots to the Home Monitoring Service Center. If more than one type of arrhythmia is recorded during a day, at least one ECG of each arrhythmia type is transmitted. RESULTS: 212 study patients were registered at the service center. The mean age of the patients was 70 ± 8 years, and 74% were male. Patients were followed for an average of 13 months. The median time from device implantation until the first message receipt in the service center was 2 days. The median patient-individual transmission success was 98.0% (IQR 93.6-99.8) and remained stable in the second and third year. The most frequent arrhythmias were atrial fibrillation, bradycardia and high ventricular rate. 17.3% of the messages with ECG snapshots contained more than one arrhythmia type. DISCUSSION: Our analysis confirms that the physician can rely on Home Monitoring to be informed of all possibly significant arrhythmias during long-term follow-up. We have found hints that the transmission of only one episode per day may lead to the loss of clinically relevant information if patients with ICMs are followed by remote monitoring only.
Authors: Michael Gruska; Gerhard Aigner; Johann Altenberger; Dagmar Burkart-Küttner; Lukas Fiedler; Marianne Gwechenberger; Peter Lercher; Martin Martinek; Michael Nürnberg; Gerhard Pölzl; Gerold Porenta; Stefan Sauermann; Christoph Schukro; Daniel Scherr; Clemens Steinwender; Markus Stühlinger; Alexander Teubl Journal: Wien Klin Wochenschr Date: 2020-12-01 Impact factor: 1.704
Authors: Thomas Deneke; Pilar Cabanas; Daniel Hofer; Thomas Gaspar; Bertrand Pierre; Giovanni Bisignani; Rajeev Kumar Pathak; Victor Manuel Sanfins; Eimo Martens; Jacques Mansourati; Antonio Berruezo-Sanchez; Marcus Wiemer; Andreas Hain; Thomas Pezawas; Beate Wenzel; Dennis Lau Journal: Heart Rhythm O2 Date: 2022-01-30