1. Quarterly vs. yearly clinical follow-up of remotely monitored recipients of prophylactic implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: results of the REFORM trial
- Author
-
Gerhard Hindricks, Hans Kottkamp, Milos Taborsky, Jan Christoph Geller, Jan Bytesnik, Christopher Piorkowski, Christian Elsner, and Burghard Schumacher
- Subjects
Male ,Quality of life ,Office visits ,Telemedicine ,medicine.medical_specialty ,Time Factors ,Myocardial Infarction ,Monitoring, Ambulatory ,Implantable defibrillator ,Clinical Research ,Humans ,Medicine ,Patient schedule ,Myocardial infarction ,Remote sensing technology ,Intensive care medicine ,Social functioning ,Heart Failure ,Remote Consultation ,business.industry ,Significant difference ,Arrhythmia/Electrophysiology ,Arrhythmias, Cardiac ,Middle Aged ,medicine.disease ,Home Care Services ,Defibrillators, Implantable ,Hospitalization ,Heart failure ,Emergency medicine ,Female ,Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine ,business ,Follow-Up Studies - Abstract
Aims The rapidly increasing number of patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICD) places a large burden on follow-up providers. This study investigated the possibility of longer in-office follow-up intervals in primary prevention ICD patients under remote monitoring with automatic daily data transmissions from the implant memory. Methods and results Conducted in 155 ICD recipients with MADIT II indications, the study compared the burden of scheduled and unscheduled ICD follow-up visits, quality of life (SF-36), and clinical outcomes in patients randomized to either 3- or 12-month follow-up intervals in the period between 3 and 27 months after implantation. Remote monitoring (Biotronik Home Monitoring) was used equally in all patients. In contrast to previous clinical studies, no calendar-based remote data checks were performed between scheduled in-office visits. Compared with the 3-month follow-up interval, the 12-month interval resulted in a minor increase in the number of unscheduled follow-ups (0.64 vs. 0.27 per patient-year; P = 0.03) and in a major reduction in the total number of in-office ICD follow-ups (1.60 vs. 3.85 per patient-year; P < 0.001). No significant difference was found in mortality, hospitalization rate, or hospitalization length during the 2-year observation period, but more patients were lost to follow-up in the 12-month group (10 vs. 3; P = 0.04). The SF-36 scores favoured the 12-month intervals in the domains ‘social functioning’ and ‘mental health’. Conclusion In prophylactic ICD recipients under automatic daily remote monitoring, the extension of the 3-month in-office follow-up interval to 12 months appeared to safely reduce the ICD follow-up burden during 27 months after implantation. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT00401466 ([http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/[NCT00401466][2]][2]). []: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00401466
- Published
- 2017