Florian Leppert1, Johannes Siebermair2,3,4, Ulrich Wesemann5, Eimo Martens2,6, Stefan M Sattler2,7, Stefan Scholz1, Stefan Veith2, Wolfgang Greiner1, Tienush Rassaf3, Stefan Kääb2,4, Reza Wakili8,9,10. 1. School of Public Health, Bielefeld University, Bielefeld, Germany. 2. Department of Medicine I, University Hospital Munich, Ludwig Maximilians University, Munich, Germany. 3. Department of Cardiology and Vascular Medicine, West-German Heart and Vascular Center Essen, University of Essen Medical School, University Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany. 4. Deutsches Zentrum für Herz-Kreislauferkrankungen (DZHK), Partner Site Munich Heart Alliance, Munich, Germany. 5. Department of Psychiatry, Psychotherapy and Psychotraumatology, Bundeswehr Hospital, Berlin, Germany. 6. Medizinische Klinik und Poliklinik, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany. 7. Department of Cardiology, Heart Centre, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark. 8. Department of Medicine I, University Hospital Munich, Ludwig Maximilians University, Munich, Germany. reza.wakili@uk-essen.de. 9. Department of Cardiology and Vascular Medicine, West-German Heart and Vascular Center Essen, University of Essen Medical School, University Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany. reza.wakili@uk-essen.de. 10. Deutsches Zentrum für Herz-Kreislauferkrankungen (DZHK), Partner Site Munich Heart Alliance, Munich, Germany. reza.wakili@uk-essen.de.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Impact of telemedicine with remote patient monitoring (RPM) in implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) patients on clinical outcomes has been investigated in various clinical settings with divergent results. However, role of RPM on patient-reported-outcomes (PRO) is unclear. The INFRARED-ICD trial aimed to investigate the effect of RPM in addition to standard-of-care on PRO in a mixed ICD patient cohort. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients were randomized to RPM (n = 92) or standard in-office-FU (n = 88) serving as control group (CTL). At baseline and on a monthly basis over 1 year, study participants completed the EQ-5D questionnaire for the primary outcome Quality of Life (QoL), the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, and the Florida Patient Acceptance Survey questionnaire for secondary outcomes. Demographic characteristics (82% men, mean age 62.3 years) and PRO at baseline were not different between RPM and CTL. Primary outcome analysis showed that additional RPM was not superior to CTL with respect to QoL over 12 months [+ 1.2 vs. + 3.9 points in CTL and RPM group, respectively (p = 0.24)]. Pre-specified analyses could not identify subgroups with improved QoL by the use of RPM. Neither levels of anxiety (- 0.4 vs. - 0.3, p = 0.88), depression (+ 0.3 vs. ± 0.0, p = 0.38), nor device acceptance (+ 1.1 vs. + 1.6, p = 0.20) were influenced by additional use of RPM. CONCLUSION: The results of the present study show that PRO were not improved by RPM in addition to standard-of-care FU. Careful evaluation and planning of future trials in selected ICD patients are warranted before implementing RPM in routine practice.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Impact of telemedicine with remote patient monitoring (RPM) in implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) patients on clinical outcomes has been investigated in various clinical settings with divergent results. However, role of RPM on patient-reported-outcomes (PRO) is unclear. The INFRARED-ICD trial aimed to investigate the effect of RPM in addition to standard-of-care on PRO in a mixed ICDpatient cohort. METHODS AND RESULTS:Patients were randomized to RPM (n = 92) or standard in-office-FU (n = 88) serving as control group (CTL). At baseline and on a monthly basis over 1 year, study participants completed the EQ-5D questionnaire for the primary outcome Quality of Life (QoL), the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, and the Florida Patient Acceptance Survey questionnaire for secondary outcomes. Demographic characteristics (82% men, mean age 62.3 years) and PRO at baseline were not different between RPM and CTL. Primary outcome analysis showed that additional RPM was not superior to CTL with respect to QoL over 12 months [+ 1.2 vs. + 3.9 points in CTL and RPM group, respectively (p = 0.24)]. Pre-specified analyses could not identify subgroups with improved QoL by the use of RPM. Neither levels of anxiety (- 0.4 vs. - 0.3, p = 0.88), depression (+ 0.3 vs. ± 0.0, p = 0.38), nor device acceptance (+ 1.1 vs. + 1.6, p = 0.20) were influenced by additional use of RPM. CONCLUSION: The results of the present study show that PRO were not improved by RPM in addition to standard-of-care FU. Careful evaluation and planning of future trials in selected ICDpatients are warranted before implementing RPM in routine practice.
Authors: Wolfgang Greiner; Tom Weijnen; Martin Nieuwenhuizen; Siem Oppe; Xavier Badia; Jan Busschbach; Martin Buxton; Paul Dolan; Paul Kind; Paul Krabbe; Arto Ohinmaa; David Parkin; Montserat Roset; Harri Sintonen; Aki Tsuchiya; Frank de Charro Journal: Eur J Health Econ Date: 2003-09
Authors: Arthur J Moss; Wojciech Zareba; W Jackson Hall; Helmut Klein; David J Wilber; David S Cannom; James P Daubert; Steven L Higgins; Mary W Brown; Mark L Andrews Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-03-19 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: William Whang; Christine M Albert; Samuel F Sears; Rachel Lampert; Jamie B Conti; Paul J Wang; Jagmeet P Singh; Jeremy N Ruskin; James E Muller; Murray A Mittleman Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2005-04-05 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Michael Böhm; Helmut Drexler; Hanno Oswald; Karin Rybak; Ralph Bosch; Christian Butter; Gunnar Klein; Bart Gerritse; Joao Monteiro; Carsten Israel; Dieter Bimmel; Stefan Käab; Burkhard Huegl; Johannes Brachmann Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2016-03-16 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Henneke Versteeg; Ivy Timmermans; Jos Widdershoven; Geert-Jan Kimman; Sébastien Prevot; Thomas Rauwolf; Marcoen F Scholten; Edgar Zitron; Philippe Mabo; Johan Denollet; Susanne S Pedersen; Mathias Meine Journal: Europace Date: 2019-09-01 Impact factor: 5.214
Authors: Daniel B Mark; Kevin J Anstrom; Jie L Sun; Nancy E Clapp-Channing; Anastasios A Tsiatis; Linda Davidson-Ray; Kerry L Lee; Gust H Bardy Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2008-09-04 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: John M Morgan; Sue Kitt; Jas Gill; Janet M McComb; Ghulam Andre Ng; James Raftery; Paul Roderick; Alison Seed; Simon G Williams; Klaus K Witte; David Jay Wright; Scott Harris; Martin R Cowie Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2017-08-07 Impact factor: 29.983