Organizational model and reactions to alerts in remote monitoring of cardiac implantable electronic devices: A survey from the Home Monitoring Expert Alliance project

• Published in: Clinical cardiology (Mahwah, N.J.) N.J.), 2019-01, Vol.42 (1), p.76-83
• Main Authors: Zanotto, Gabriele, D'Onofrio, Antonio, Della Bella, Paolo, Solimene, Francesco, Pisanò, Ennio C., Iacopino, Saverio, Dondina, Cristina, Giacopelli, Daniele, Gargaro, Alessio, Ricci, Renato P.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Arrhythmias, Cardiac - diagnosis; Arrhythmias, Cardiac - physiopathology; Arrhythmias, Cardiac - therapy; atrial fibrillation; cardiac resynchronization therapy; Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Devices; Clinical Investigations; Defibrillators; Female; Follow-Up Studies; Heart failure; Humans; implantable cardioverter defibrillator; Italy; Male; Models, Organizational; Monitoring, Ambulatory - methods; pacemaker; remote monitoring; Surveys and Questionnaires; Telemedicine - organization & administration; telemonitoring
• ISSN: 0160-9289; 1932-8737
• DOI: 10.1002/clc.23108

Background This survey aimed to describe the organizational workflow of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) remote monitoring (RM) service in ordinary practice. Methods A questionnaire was designed for our purpose and completed by 49 sites participating to the Italian Home Monitoring Expert Alliance. Results A dedicated organizational model for RM was set up for 86% of centers. The median RM team consisted of 2 (Interquartile range [IQR]: 1‐3) physicians and 1 (IQR: 0‐2) nurse. RM service was available in working hours and the median percentage of patients included was 100% (IQR: 10%‐100%) for implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator (ICD) and cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) recipients and 5% (IQR:0%‐30%) for pacemakers. In‐office follow‐up was performed every 12 and 6 months for pacemaker and ICD/CRT recipients, respectively. More than 90% of sites used to activate all technical alerts, with a prompt reaction in case of an out‐of‐range parameter. The threshold for atrial fibrillation (AF) daily burden notification in most cases ranged from 2.4 to 7.2 hours. All ventricular arrhythmias alerts were usually switched on: an inappropriate therapy or more than one appropriate episode triggered an urgent in‐hospital visit. Concerning heart failure, low CRT percentage pacing alert was always used, while the other available notifications were less frequently switched on. Conclusions This survey showed that RM service was usually set up with a primary nursing model including on average two responsible physicians and one nurse and mainly offered to ICD/CRT patients. Technical, AF and ventricular arrhythmia alerts triggered prompt reactions, while heart failure related indexes were generally less applied.