Format

Send to

Choose Destination
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015 Jun 23;65(24):2601-2610. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2015.04.033. Epub 2015 May 13.

The Relationship Between Level of Adherence to Automatic Wireless Remote Monitoring and Survival in Pacemaker and Defibrillator Patients.

Author information

1
Heart and Vascular Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio. Electronic address: varman@ccf.org.
2
Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University Medical Center, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina.
3
Scientific Division, St. Jude Medical, Inc., Sylmar, California.
4
Department of Electrophysiology, Valley Health System, New York, New York and Ridgewood, New Jersey.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Remote monitoring (RM) technology embedded within cardiac rhythm devices permits continuous monitoring, which may result in improved patient outcomes.

OBJECTIVES:

This study used "big data" to assess whether RM is associated with improved survival and whether this is influenced by the type of cardiac device and/or its degree of use.

METHODS:

We studied 269,471 consecutive U.S. patients implanted between 2008 and 2011 with pacemakers (PMs), implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs), or cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) with pacing capability (CRT-P)/defibrillation capability (CRT-D) with wireless RM. We analyzed weekly use and all-cause survival for each device type by the percentage of time in RM (%TRM) stratified by age. Socioeconomic influences on %TRM were assessed using 8 census variables from 2012.

RESULTS:

The group had implanted PMs (n = 115,076; 43%), ICDs (n = 85,014; 32%), CRT-D (n = 61,475; 23%), and CRT-P (n = 7,906; 3%). When considered together, 127,706 patients (47%) used RM, of whom 67,920 (53%) had ≥75%TRM (high %TRM) and 59,786 (47%) <75%TRM (low %TRM); 141,765 (53%) never used RM (RM None). RM use was not affected by age or sex, but demonstrated wide geographic and socioeconomic variability. Survival was better in high %TRM versus RM None (hazard ratio [HR]: 2.10; p < 0.001), in high %TRM versus low %TRM (HR: 1.32; p < 0.001), and also in low %TRM versus RM None (HR: 1.58; p < 0.001). The same relationship was observed when assessed by individual device type.

CONCLUSIONS:

RM is associated with improved survival, irrespective of device type (including PMs), but demonstrates a graded relationship with the level of adherence. The results support the increased application of RM to improve patient outcomes.

KEYWORDS:

big data; cardiac electronic implantable devices; cardiac resynchronization therapy; device; mortality; survival; time in remote monitoring

PMID:
25983008
DOI:
10.1016/j.jacc.2015.04.033
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Free full text

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Elsevier Science
Loading ...
Support Center