Search

During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) worldwide pandemic, patients with cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) refused scheduled follow-up visits because of the risk of infection. In this scenario, different telemedicine strategies have been implemented to ensure continuity of care to CIED patients. Patients can be monitored through dedicated applications, telephone calls, or virtual visits providing easy access to valuable information, such as arrhythmic events, acute decompensation manifestations, and device-related issues, without the need for in-person visits. This review provides a comprehensive description of the many possible applications of telemedicine for CIED patients during the COVID-19 period., Competing Interests: Disclosures The authors have nothing to disclose., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Sporadic high impedance values without other anomalies detected by remote monitoring of hybrid cardiac implantable electronic device systems have been described recently. The clinical significance and related hazard of this phenomenon are not fully understood., Objective: The purpose of this study was to describe the prevalence, management, and outcomes associated with hybrid implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) systems., Methods: We collected data on patients with sporadic high lead impedance alert on remote monitoring who had undergone implantation with a hybrid ICD system between January 2015 and December 2019. Pacing thresholds, sensing and impedance values, and temporal pattern of impedance values were collected by remote monitoring, at implantation, and during an in-office visit., Results: Among 92 patients receiving a hybrid ICD, 15 (16.3%) had high impedance alert on remote monitoring (14 Boston Scientific and 1 St. Jude Medical ICD canisters paired with Medtronic or Biotronik DF-1 leads). Four patients had a cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillator (CRT-D), 7 a dual-chamber ICD, and 4 a single-chamber ICD. Three patients presented with high atrial lead impedance, 7 high right ventricular lead impedance, 1 high left ventricular impedance, and 2 high shock impedance values. All patients underwent follow-up by remote monitoring. Sporadic high impedance values were not associated with an adverse outcome or need for revision in all but 1 patient, who had continuously increasing pacing thresholds due to lead microfracture., Conclusion: In the absence of clear signs of lead fracture or connection issues, sporadic high pacing and shock impedance in hybrid implantable defibrillator systems can be safely managed by close follow-up., (Copyright © 2021 Heart Rhythm Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Remote monitoring (RM) has significantly transformed the standard of care for patients with cardiac electronic implantable devices. It provides easy access to valuable information, such as arrhythmic events, acute decompensation manifestations and device-related issues, without the need of in-person visits., Methods: Starting March 1st, 332 patients were introduced to an RM program during the Italian lockdown to limit the risk of in-hospital exposure to severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2. Patients were categorized into two groups based on the modality of RM delivery (home [n = 229] vs. office [n = 103] delivered). The study aimed at assessing the efficacy of the new follow-up protocol, assessed as mean RM activation time (AT), and the need for technical support. In addition, patients' acceptance and anxiety status were quantified via the Home Monitoring Acceptance and Satisfaction Questionnaire and the Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item scale., Results: AT time was less than 48 h in 93% of patients and 7% of them required further technical support. Despite a higher number of trans-telephonic technical support in the home-delivered RM group, mean AT was similar between groups (1.33 ± 0.83 days in home-delivered vs 1.28 ± 0.81 days in office-delivered patients; p = .60). A total of 28 (2.5%) urgent/emergent in-person examinations were required. A high degree of patient satisfaction was reached in both groups whereas anxiety status was higher in the office-delivered group., Conclusions: The adoption of RM resulted in high patient satisfaction, regardless of the modality of modem delivery; nonetheless, in-office modem delivery was associated with a higher prevalence of anxiety symptoms., (© 2020 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

The feasibility and effectiveness of virtual visits (VVs) for cardiac electrophysiology patients are still unknown. We aimed to assess the feasibility and effectiveness of VVs as compared to in-person visits, and to describe patient experience with virtual care in clinical electrophysiology. We prospectively enrolled patients scheduled to receive a clinical electrophysiology evaluation, dividing them in two groups: a VV group and an in-person visit group. Outcomes of interest were: (1) improvement in symptoms after the index visit, (2) disappearance of remote monitoring (RM) alerts at follow-up, (3) necessity of urgent hospitalization and (4) patient satisfaction measured by the Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire-18 (PSQ-18). This study included 162 patients in the VV group and 185 in the in-office visit group. As compared to in-person visits, VVs resulted in a similar reduction in RM alerts (51.5% vs. 43.2%, p-value 0.527) and in symptomatic patient rates (73.6% vs. 56.9%, p-value 0.073) at follow-up, without differences in urgent hospitalization rates (p-value 0.849). Patient satisfaction with VVs was higher than with in-person evaluation (p-value < 0.012). VVs proved to be as feasible and as effective as in-person visits, with high patient satisfaction. A hybrid model of care including VVs and in-person visits may become the new standard of care after the COVID-19 pandemic is over. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: During the COVID‐19 pandemic in‐person visits for patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices should be replaced by remote monitoring (RM), in order to prevent viral transmission. A direct home‐delivery service of the RM communicator has been implemented at 49 Italian arrhythmia centers. Methods: According to individual patient preference or the organizational decision of the center, patients were assigned to the home‐delivery group or the standard in‐clinic delivery group. In the former case, patients received telephone training on the activation process and use of the communicator. In June 2020, the centers were asked to reply to an ad hoc questionnaire to describe and evaluate their experience in the previous 3 months. Results: RM was activated in 1324 patients: 821 (62%) received the communicator at home and the communicator was activated remotely. Activation required one additional call in 49% of cases, and the median time needed to complete the activation process was 15 min [25th‐75th percentile: 10–20]. 753 (92%) patients were able to complete the correct activation of the system. At the time when the questionnaire was completed, 743 (90%) communicators were regularly transmitting data. The service was generally deemed useful (96% of respondents) in facilitating the activation of RM during the COVID‐19 pandemic and possibly beyond. Conclusions: Home delivery of the communicator proved to be a successful approach to system activation, and received positive feedback from clinicians. The increased use of a RM protocol will reduce risks for both providers and patients, while maintaining high‐quality care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]