HRS Expert Consensus Statement on remote interrogation and monitoring for cardiovascular implantable electronic devices

2021 PACES Expert Consensus Statement on the Indications and Management of Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Devices in Pediatric Patients

In view of the increasing complexity of both cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) and patients in the current era, practice guidelines, by necessity, have become increasingly specific. This document is an expert consensus statement that has been developed to update and further delineate indications and management of CIEDs in pediatric patients, defined as ≤21 years of age, and is intended to focus primarily on the indications for CIEDs in the setting of specific disease categories. The document also highlights variations between previously published adult and pediatric CIED recommendations and provides rationale for underlying important differences. The document addresses some of the deterrents to CIED access in low- and middle-income countries and strategies to circumvent them. The document sections were divided up and drafted by the writing committee members according to their expertise. The recommendations represent the consensus opinion of the entire writing committee, graded by class of recommendation and level of evidence. Several questions addressed in this document either do not lend themselves to clinical trials or are rare disease entities, and in these instances recommendations are based on consenus expert opinion. Furthermore, specific recommendations, even when supported by substantial data, do not replace the need for clinical judgment and patient-specific decision-making. The recommendations were opened for public comment to Pediatric and Congenital Electrophysiology Society (PACES) members and underwent external review by the scientific and clinical document committee of the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), the science advisory and coordinating committee of the American Heart Association (AHA), the American College of Cardiology, (ACC) and the Association for European Paediatric and Congenital Cardiology (AEPC). The document received endorsement by all the collaborators and the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), the Indian Heart Rhythm Society (IHRS), and the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS). This document is expected to provide support for clinicians and patients to allow for appropriate CIED use, appropriate CIED management, and appropriate follow-up in pediatric patients.

Cybersecurity of Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Devices and Remote Programming

The ability to remotely reprogram a cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) and the ability to remotely install software or firmware updates would reduce the need for in-office visits and could provide a mechanism to rapidly deploy important software or firmware updates. The challenges of implementing remote reprogramming of cardiac implantable electronic devices are no longer technical. Using asymmetric cryptography, sophisticated end-to-end secure communication protocols and hardware accelerators, the resources required to identify and take advantage of a cybersecurity vulnerability of a single CIED would be very significant and likely well beyond the gain that an intruder would deem worthwhile.

Remote Monitoring of Permanent Pacemakers and Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators

Remote monitoring of permanent pacemakers and implantable cardiac defibrillators has undergone considerable advances over the past several decades. Advancement of technology has created the ability for remote monitoring of implantable cardiac devices; a device can monitor its own function, record arrhythmias, and transmit data to health care providers without frequent in-office checks, shown to be as safe as in-office interrogation. Remote monitoring allows earlier detection of clinically actionable events, reduces incidence of inappropriate shocks, and allows earlier detection of atrial fibrillation. App-based remote monitoring provides patients with rapid access to their cardiac data, which may improve compliance with remote monitoring.

Returning Cardiac Rhythm Data to Patients: Opportunities and Challenges

Spurred by federal legislation, professional organizations, and patients themselves, patient access to data from electronic cardiac devices is increasingly transparent. Patients can collect data through consumer devices and access data traditionally shared only with health care providers. These data may improve screening, self-management, and shared decision-making for cardiac arrhythmias, but challenges remain, including patient comprehension, communication with providers, and sustained engagement. Ways to address these challenges include leveraging visualizations that support comprehension, involving patients in designing and developing patient-facing digital tools, and establishing clear practices and goals for data exchange with health care providers.

Multiparametric Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Algorithm for Heart Failure Risk Stratification and Management: An Analysis in Clinical Practice

BACKGROUND

The HeartLogic algorithm combines multiple implantable cardioverter-defibrillator sensors to identify patients at risk of heart failure (HF) events. We sought to evaluate the risk stratification ability of this algorithm in clinical practice. We also analyzed the alert management strategies adopted in the study group and their association with the occurrence of HF events.

METHODS

The HeartLogic feature was activated in 366 implantable cardioverter-defibrillator and cardiac resynchronization therapy implantable cardioverter-defibrillator patients at 22 centers. The median follow-up was 11 months [25th-75th percentile: 6-16]. The HeartLogic algorithm calculates a daily HF index and identifies periods IN alert state on the basis of a configurable threshold.

RESULTS

The HeartLogic index crossed the threshold value 273 times (0.76 alerts/patient-year) in 150 patients. The time IN alert state was 11% of the total observation period. Patients experienced 36 HF hospitalizations, and 8 patients died of HF during the observation period. Thirty-five events were associated with the IN alert state (0.92 events/patient-year versus 0.03 events/patient-year in the OUT of alert state). The hazard ratio in the IN/OUT of alert state comparison was (hazard ratio, 24.53 [95% CI, 8.55-70.38], P<0.001), after adjustment for baseline clinical confounders. Alerts followed by clinical actions were associated with less HF events (hazard ratio, 0.37 [95% CI, 0.14-0.99], P=0.047). No differences in event rates were observed between in-office and remote alert management.

CONCLUSIONS

This multiparametric algorithm identifies patients during periods of significantly increased risk of HF events. The rate of HF events seemed lower when clinical actions were undertaken in response to alerts. Extra in-office visits did not seem to be required to effectively manage HeartLogic alerts.

REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02275637.

Remote monitoring of cardiac implanted electronic devices: legal requirements and ethical principles - ESC Regulatory Affairs Committee/EHRA joint task force report

The European Union (EU) General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) imposes legal responsibilities concerning the collection and processing of personal information from individuals who live in the EU. It has particular implications for the remote monitoring of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). This report from a joint Task Force of the European Heart Rhythm Association and the Regulatory Affairs Committee of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) recommends a common legal interpretation of the GDPR. Manufacturers and hospitals should be designated as joint controllers of the data collected by remote monitoring (depending upon the system architecture) and they should have a mutual contract in place that defines their respective roles; a generic template is proposed. Alternatively, they may be two independent controllers. Self-employed cardiologists also are data controllers. Third-party providers of monitoring platforms may act as data processors. Manufacturers should always collect and process the minimum amount of identifiable data necessary, and wherever feasible have access only to pseudonymized data. Cybersecurity vulnerabilities have been reported concerning the security of transmission of data between a patient's device and the transceiver, so manufacturers should use secure communication protocols. Patients need to be informed how their remotely monitored data will be handled and used, and their informed consent should be sought before their device is implanted. Review of consent forms in current use revealed great variability in length and content, and sometimes very technical language; therefore, a standard information sheet and generic consent form are proposed. Cardiologists who care for patients with CIEDs that are remotely monitored should be aware of these issues.

Patient and Provider Perspectives on Remote Monitoring of Pacemakers and Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators

The use of remote monitoring technology for cardiovascular electronic implantable devices has grown significantly in recent decades, yet several key questions remain about its integration into clinical care. We performed semi-structured interviews of patients, clinicians, and device clinic technicians involved in clinical remote monitoring of cardiovascular implantable devices at our institution. Twenty-eight interviews comprised of 15 patients and 13 clinicians were conducted from October 2019 through February 2020. Interview transcripts were analyzed using a mixed inductive and deductive approach. Perspectives among clinicians and patients varied regarding familiarity, educational experiences, and preferences regarding how remote monitoring data are handled. Three key domains emerged including knowledge and understanding, managing alerts, and cost transparency. Within these domains, key findings includedvery limited understanding of how remote monitoring functions and how alerts in particular are handled. These knowledge deficits (both patients and providers) appeared to arise in part from different equipment and platforms among manufacturers, the complexity of the technology, and lack of formalized education in remote monitoring. However, interviewees expressed generally high levels of trust in the technology and care systems supporting remote monitoring. Few respondents described concerns around cybersecurity, but patients in particular did raise concerns about cost transparency and frequent billing. In conclusion, conflicting perceptions around remote monitoring persist and indicate important knowledge gaps despite high trust in the care pathway. This qualitative analysis offers insight into patient and clinician understanding of and attitudes toward remote monitoring, and may guide future efforts to improve education and patient-centeredness of remote monitoring.

Clinic Time Required for Remote and In-person Management of Cardiac Device Patients: Time and Motion Workflow Evaluation

BACKGROUND

The number of patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) is growing, creating substantial workload for device clinics.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to characterize the workflow and quantify clinic staff time requirements to manage CIED patients.

METHODS

A time and motion workflow evaluation was performed in 11 US and European CIED clinics. Workflow tasks were repeatedly timed during one business week of observation at each clinic. Observations were inclusive of all device models/manufacturers present. Mean cumulative staff time required to review a Remote device transmission and for an In-person clinic visit were calculated, including all necessary clinical and administrative tasks. Annual staff time for follow-up of 1 CIED patient was modeled using CIED transmission volumes, clinical guidelines, and published literature.

RESULTS

A total of 276 in-person clinic visits and 2,173 remote monitoring activities were observed. Mean staff time required per remote transmission ranged from 9.4-13.5 minutes for therapeutic devices (pacemaker, ICD, CRT) and 11.3-12.9 mins for diagnostic devices (insertable cardiac monitors (ICMs)). Mean staff time per in-person visit ranged from 37.8-51.0 mins and 39.9-45.8 mins, for therapeutic devices and ICMs respectively. Including all remote and in-person follow-ups, the estimated annual time to manage one CIED patient ranged from 1.6-2.4 hours for therapeutic devices and 7.7-9.3 hours for ICMs.

CONCLUSIONS

CIED patient management workflow is complex and requires significant staff time. Understanding process steps and time requirements informs implementation of efficiency improvements, including remote solutions. Future research should examine the heterogeneity in patient management processes to identify the most efficient workflows.

CLINICALTRIAL

Remote Monitoring of Heart Failure in Patients with Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators: Current Status and Future Needs

The management of heart failure remains challenging despite evidence-based medical and pharmacological advances, especially in the ambulatory setting. There is an urgent need to develop strategies to reduce hospitalizations and readmission rates due to heart failure. Frequent monitoring of high-risk patients is imperative, and with the development of wireless and remote technology, frequent monitoring is now possible via remote monitoring. Nowadays, remote management of patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices is being increasingly adopted and integrated into clinical practice. Several clinical trials studied the impact of remote monitoring on clinical outcomes in patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) and cardiac resynchronization defibrillators (CRT-Ds). This point of view will focus on the remote monitoring of ICDs and CRT-Ds in patients with heart failure and discusses whether remote monitoring can be used as a potential instrument for the early identification of patients at risk of worsening heart failure.

Home delivery of the communicator for remote monitoring of cardiac implantable devices: A multicenter experience during the covid-19 lockdown

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.

Remote monitoring and telemedicine in heart failure: implementation and benefits

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Remote monitoring (RM) of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) is recommended as part of the individualized multidisciplinary follow-up of heart failure (HF) patients. Aim of this article is to critically review recent findings on RM, highlighting potential benefits and barriers to its implementation.

RECENT FINDINGS

Device-based RM is useful in the early detection of CIEDs technical issues and cardiac arrhythmias. Moreover, RM allows the continuous monitoring of several patients' clinical parameters associated with impending HF decompensation, but there is still uncertainty regarding its effectiveness in reducing mortality and hospitalizations. Implementation of RM strategies, together with a proactive physicians' attitude towards clinical actions in response to RM data reception, will make RM a more valuable tool, potentially leading to better outcomes.

Scheduled versus alert transmissions for remote follow-up of cardiac implantable electronic devices: Clinical relevance and resource consumption

BACKGROUND

The remote follow-up of pacemakers and implantable cardiac defibrillators (ICDs) usually includes scheduled checks and alert transmissions. However, this results in a high volume of remote data reviews to be managed. We measured the relative contribution of scheduled and alert transmissions to the detection of relevant conditions, and the workload generated by their management.

METHODS

At our center, the frequency of remote scheduled transmissions is 4/year. Moreover, all system-integrity and clinical alerts are turned on for wireless notification. We calculated the number of transmissions received from January to December 2020, and identified transmissions that necessitated in-hospital access for further assessment and transmissions that required clinical discussion with the physician. For all alert transmissions, we identified whether the alert was clinically meaningful (i.e. center was not previously aware of the condition and no action had yet been taken to treat it).

RESULTS

Of 8545 transmissions received from 1697 pacemakers and ICDs, 5766 (67%) were scheduled and 2779 (33%) were alert transmissions received from 764 patients (45%); 499 (9%) scheduled transmissions required clinical discussion with the physician, but only 2 of these necessitated in-hospital visits for further assessment. Of the alert transmissions, 664 (24%) required clinical discussion, and 75 (3%) necessitated in-hospital visits. The proportion of alerts judged clinically meaningful was 7%.

CONCLUSION

Scheduled transmissions generate 67% of remote data reviews for pacemakers and ICDs, but their ability to detect clinically relevant events is very low. A strategy that relies exclusively on alert transmissions could ensure continuity of patient monitoring while reducing the workload at the center.

OptiVol for Volume Assessment in Patients With Continuous Flow Left Ventricular Assist Device

OptiVol (Medtronic PLC, Minneapolis, MN) is a diagnostic feature of some cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) based on changes in thoracic impedance (TI) over time. Changes in TI can predict heart failure (HF) hospitalizations and mortality in HF populations. However, the utility of this feature is unknown in patients with a left ventricular assist device (LVAD). To determine if OptiVol and TI correlate with clinical HF events in a population of LVAD patients, hospitalization outcomes were collected retrospectively from the electronic health records at a single academic medical center in 80 LVAD patients with an OptiVol-capable CIED. Demographics, medical history, and available clinical data were reviewed and reported. The primary outcomes of interest were TI and OptiVol trends before and after hospitalization, and association of trends before and after these events was evaluated. Most patients had a HeartMate II LVAD and most CIEDs were defibrillators, and 23 (29%) had at least one HF hospitalization during the study period. HF hospitalizations were preceded by signs of volume overload in Optivol (60%) and TI (78%) with recovery of these measures post hospitalization in 33% and 25% of patients, respectively. Monitoring of TI and OptiVol may be one effective component of HF management in LVAD patients as part of a comprehensive program.

Hemodynamic monitoring by intracardiac impedance measured by cardiac resynchronization defibrillators: Evaluation in a controlled clinical setting (BIO.Detect HF II study)

Background

In patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillators (CRT-Ds), intracardiac impedance measured by dedicated CRT-D software may be used to monitor hemodynamic changes. We investigated the relationship of hemodynamic parameters assessed by intracardiac impedance and by echocardiography in a controlled clinical setting.

Methods

The study enrolled 68 patients (mean age, 66 ± 9 years; 74% males) at 12 investigational sites. The patients had an indication for CRT-D implantation, New York Heart Association class II/III symptoms, left ventricular ejection fraction 15%–35%, and a QRS duration ≥150 ms. Two months after a CRT-D implantation, hemodynamic changes were provoked by overdrive pacing. Intracardiac impedance was recorded at rest and at four pacing rates ranging from 10 to 40 beats/min above the resting rate. In parallel, echocardiography measurements were performed. We hypothesized that a mean intra-individual correlation coefficient (r_mean) between stroke impedance (difference between end-systolic and end-diastolic intracardiac impedance) measured by CRT-D and the aortic velocity time integral (i.e., stroke volume) determined by echocardiography would be significantly larger than 0.65.

Results

The hypothesis was evaluated in 40 patients with complete data sets. The r_mean was 0.797, with a lower confidence interval bound of 0.709. The study hypothesis was met (p = 0.007). A stepwise reduction of stroke impedance and stroke volume was observed with increasing heart rate.

Conclusions

Intracardiac impedance measured by implanted CRT-Ds correlated well with the aortic velocity time integral (stroke volume) determined by echocardiography. The impedance measurements bear potential and are readily available technically, not requiring implantation of additional material beyond standard CRT-D system.

•

Intracardiac impedance measurement feature (ICI-MF) is integrated in some CRT-Ds.

•

We studied relationship between echo hemodynamic parameters and ICI-MF of CRT-Ds.

•

Stroke volume by echo correlated well with stroke impedance by ICI-MF of CRT-Ds.

•

Stepwise reduction in stroke impedance and stroke volume with increasing heart rate.

•

The ICI-MF bears potential and requires only a ‘standard’ CRT-D system implantation.

2021 ISHNE/HRS/EHRA/APHRS collaborative statement on mHealth in Arrhythmia Management: Digital Medical Tools for Heart Rhythm Professionals: From the International Society for Holter and Noninvasive Electrocardiology/Heart Rhythm Society/European Heart Rhythm Association/Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society

This collaborative statement from the International Society for Holter and Noninvasive Electrocardiology/Heart Rhythm Society/European Heart Rhythm Association/Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society describes the current status of mobile health ("mHealth") technologies in arrhythmia management. The range of digital medical tools and heart rhythm disorders that they may be applied to and clinical decisions that may be enabled are discussed. The facilitation of comorbidity and lifestyle management (increasingly recognized to play a role in heart rhythm disorders) and patient self-management are novel aspects of mHealth. The promises of predictive analytics but also operational challenges in embedding mHealth into routine clinical care are explored.

Remote monitoring of cardiac implantable devices during COVID-19 outbreak: "keep people safe" and "focus only on health care needs"

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic has challenged the ability of health care organisations to provide adequate care. We report the experience of a national tertiary electrophysiology centre in the management of patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) through the use of a fully remote follow-up model.

METHODS

We daily and prospectively collected remote monitoring (RM) relevant findings and following clinical actions performed from March 10th to April 3rd 2020, a period of suspension of routine ambulatory activity due to the national lockdown.

RESULTS

During the study period (25 days), we received 2,215 transmissions from 2,955 devices. Among them, 129 patients reported potential clinically actionable RM observations (event rate: 12.0/1000 patient-week). In 77 patients (60%), RM events triggered a clinical action, but only 5 patients needed an urgent in-hospital access (4 urgent procedures and 1 device reprogramming).

CONCLUSIONS

In the unprecedented COVID-19 pandemic, RM became an essential tool in healthcare delivery for CIED patients. We observed that RM was effective in "keep people safe" and "focus only on individuals with health care needs".

Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy in Patients with Heart Failure: What is New?

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is an established treatment of patients with medically refractory, mild-to-severe systolic heart failure (HF), impaired left ventricular function, and wide QRS complex. The pathologic activation sequence observed in patients with abnormal QRS duration and morphology results in a dyssynchronous ventricular activation and contraction leading to cardiac remodeling, worsening systolic and diastolic function, and progressive HF. In this article, the authors aim to explore the current CRT literature, focusing their attentions on the promising innovation in this field.

Prevention of non-response to cardiac resynchronization therapy: points to remember

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is an important and effective therapy for end-stage heart failure. Non-response to CRT is one of the main obstacles to its application in clinical practice. There is no uniform consensus or definition of CRT “response.” Clinical symptoms, ventricular remodeling indices, and cardiovascular events have been reported to be associated with non-responders. To prevent non-response to CRT, three aspects should be thoroughly considered: preoperative patient selection, electrode implantation, and postoperative management. Preoperative selection of appropriate patients for CRT treatment is an important step in preventing non-response. Currently, the CRT inclusion criteria are mainly based on the morphology of QRS waves in deciding ventricular dyssynchrony. Echocardiography and cardiac magnetic resonance are being explored to predict nonresponse to CRT. The location of left ventricular electrode implantation is a current hot spot of research; it is important to identify the location of the latest exciting ventricular segment and avoid scars. Cardiac magnetic resonance and ultrasonic spot tracking are being progressively developed in this field. Some new techniques such as His Bundle pacing, endocardial electrodes, and novel sensors are also being investigated. Postoperative management of patients is another essential step towards preventing non-response; it mainly focuses on the treatment of the disease itself and CRT program control optimization. CRT treatment is just one part of the overall treatment of heart failure, and multidisciplinary efforts are needed to improve the overall outcome.

Unexpected inhibition of bradycardia pacing due to oversensing in ICD lead fracture associated with spurious tachyarrhythmia detection and discharges

Ιn a 76-year old man with a dual-chamber ICD implanted five years ago, dizzy spells and significant bradycardia on Holter were not initially recognized as inhibition of bradycardia pacing, due to oversensing. Hospital admission was deemed necessary only after repetitive ICD shocks attributed to right ventricular pace-sense lead fracture. The need to ensure adequate ICD antibradycardia backup pacing in pacing-dependent patients when deleterious sensing errors occur, cannot be overemphasized.

2021 ISHNE / HRS / EHRA / APHRS Collaborative Statement on mHealth in Arrhythmia Management: Digital Medical Tools for Heart Rhythm Professionals: From the International Society for Holter and Noninvasive Electrocardiology / Heart Rhythm Society / European Heart Rhythm Association / Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society

This collaborative statement from the International Society for Holter and Noninvasive Electrocardiology / Heart Rhythm Society / European Heart Rhythm Association / Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society describes the current status of mobile health ("mHealth") technologies in arrhythmia management. The range of digital medical tools and heart rhythm disorders that they may be applied to and clinical decisions that may be enabled are discussed. The facilitation of comorbidity and lifestyle management (increasingly recognized to play a role in heart rhythm disorders) and patient self-management are novel aspects of mHealth. The promises of predictive analytics but also operational challenges in embedding mHealth into routine clinical care are explored.

Device Adjustment and Recovery in Patients With Heart Failure Undergoing a Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Implantation: A Longitudinal Study

BACKGROUND

Little is known about risk factors for poor adjustment to the device after cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) implantation in patients with heart failure.

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to explore device adjustment and the postoperative recovery of patients with heart failure undergoing elective CRT device implantation.

METHODS

In this prospective multicenter longitudinal study, data were collected before implantation and after 2 weeks, 6 months, and 1 year, using validated self-reported instruments and investigator-designed, CRT-specific questions.

RESULTS

A total of 133 patients, 79% male, with a mean age of 70 ± 10 years, were included. Patients adjusted to the device over time (P < .001), but 20% of patients had difficulties after 2 weeks, and 11% had difficulties at the 1-year follow-up. Fatigue was the most common health problem before surgery (87%), which was reduced to 65% after 1 year, P < .001. Patients' recovery improved over time (P < .001). Device-specific problems with hiccups (7% vs 14%), pulsation around the device (29% vs 24%), tachycardia (28% vs 29%), appearance of the scar (21% vs 17%), and the device bulging out (65% vs 61%) remained unchanged over time, whereas stiffness in the shoulder (64% vs 28%, P < .001) and wound healing (9% vs 2%, P < .05) improved.

CONCLUSIONS

Most patients with heart failure recover and adjust early after their CRT implantation and improve even more during follow-up. However, recovery and adjustment are problematic for some patients, and many experience bodily discomforts because of the device. Early screening for poor adjustment and psychological distress can lead to appropriate interventions and timely referrals. This is important in the era of remote monitoring with less face-to-face contact.

Alert-Based ICD Follow-Up: A Model of Digitally Driven Remote Patient Monitoring

OBJECTIVES

The goal of this study was to test whether continuous automatic remote patient monitoring (RPM) linked to centralized analytics reduces nonactionable in-person patient evaluation (IPE) but maintains detection of at-risk patients and provides actionable notifications.

BACKGROUND

Conventional ambulatory care requires frequent IPEs. Many encounters are nonactionable, and additional unscheduled IPEs occur.

METHODS

Patients receiving implantable cardioverter-defibrillators for Class I/IIa indications were randomized (2:1) to RPM or conventional follow-up, and they were followed up for 15 months. IPEs were conducted every 3 months in the conventional care group but at 3 and 15 months with RPM. Groups were compared for patient retention, nonactionable IPEs, and discovery of at-risk patients during 1 year of exclusive RPM. Frequency and value of RPM alerts were assessed.

RESULTS

Patients enrolled (mean age 63.5 ± 12.8 years; male 71.9%; left ventricular ejection fraction 29.0 ± 10.7%; primary prevention 72.3%; n = 1450) were similar between groups (977 RPM vs. 473 conventional care). Mean follow-up durations were 407 ± 103 days for the RPM group versus 399 ± 111 days for the conventional care group (p = 0.165). Patient attrition to follow-up was 42% greater with conventional care (20.1% [87 of 431]) versus RPM (14.2% [129 of 908]; p = 0.007). Nonactionable IPEs were reduced 81% by RPM (0.7 per patient year) compared with conventional care (3.6 per patient year; p < 0.001) but event discoveries remained similar (2.9 per patient year). In RPM, alert rate was median 1 per patient (interquartile range: 0 to 3) with >50% actionability, indicating low volume but high clinical value. Unscheduled IPE was the basis for discovery of 100% of intercurrent problems in RPM and also 75% in conventional care, indicating limited value of appointment-based follow-up for problem discovery. The number of IPEs needed to discover an actionable event was 8.2 in Conventional, 4.9 in RPM, and 2.1 when alert driven (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

RPM transformed ambulatory care to IPE directed to those patients with clinically actionable events when required. Filtering patient information by digitally driven remote monitoring expends fewer clinic resources while providing a greater yield of actionable interventions. (Lumos-T Safely Reduces Routine Office Device Follow-up [TRUST]; NCT00336284).

Building resilient medical technology supply chains with a software bill of materials

An exploited vulnerability in a single software component of healthcare technology can affect patient care. The risk of including third-party software components in healthcare technologies can be managed, in part, by leveraging a software bill of materials (SBOM). Analogous to an ingredients list on food packaging, an SBOM is a list of all included software components. SBOMs provide a transparency mechanism for securing software product supply chains by enabling faster identification and remediation of vulnerabilities, towards the goal of reducing the feasibility of attacks. SBOMs have the potential to benefit all supply chain stakeholders of medical technologies without significantly increasing software production costs. Increasing transparency unlocks and enables trustworthy, resilient, and safer healthcare technologies for all.

Remote Device Interrogation Kiosks (ReDInK) - Pharmacy Kiosk Remote Testing of Pacemakers and Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators for Rural Victorians. A Novel Strategy to Tackle COVID-19

Background

In the era of COVID-19, travel restrictions and social distancing measures have changed the landscape for device interrogations of pacemakers and defibrillators for rural Victorians. Previously, device checks were performed infrequently in large volume, face-to-face rural clinics by visiting cardiologists and technicians. Access to remote areas and social distancing restrictions have made these clinics unfeasible to operate. The Cardiac Society of Australia and New Zealand (CSANZ) and Heart Rhythm Society (HRS) COVID-19 consensus statements have suggested the utilisation of remote monitoring to minimise the potential spread of COVID-19 infections between clinicians and high-risk patients. A novel solution to this challenge was the implementation of a remote device interrogation (RI) service located in two kiosks at two rural pharmacies. This service was termed Remote Device Interrogation Kiosks (ReDInK).

Aim

This cross-sectional observational study aimed to describe the set-up process, safety and efficacy of RI and customer satisfaction of the ReDInK program.

Methods

Two-hundred-and-ninety-two (292) rurally located patients with implantable cardiac devices were identified via the cardiology department database. Of these, 101 (44%) were enrolled into the ReDInK program across two rurally located pharmacies between April and July 2020. RI was performed and download outcomes were reviewed. A customer satisfaction survey assessed attitudes towards the program and explored options of ongoing service application.

Results

Of 101 patients enrolled into ReDInK, 96 (95%) resulted in satisfactory device checks. Four (4) individuals failed-to-attend and one individual experienced technical download issues. Of the 96 satisfactory device checks, three required in-person follow-up for reasons including battery replacement, lead repositioning and in-person programming. No adverse events were reported.

A satisfaction telephone survey was conducted with 81 (83%) participants enrolled in ReDInK. Seventy-one (71) individuals (88%) of those surveyed expressed satisfaction and 73 (90%) labelled the process as efficiently conducted. Sixty-nine (69) (85%) participants felt reassured that this service was established during the pandemic. However 47 (58%) participants reported they would still feel comfortable to undergo in-person reviews despite social distancing recommendations.

Conclusions

With the COVID-19 pandemic posing restrictions to social distancing and reducing unnecessary in-person interaction, the ReDInK program emerges as an efficacious and safe solution for patients in rural Victoria. The program’s widely positive reception and successful conduction in rural Victoria invites further opportunity for a wider application of similar programs, expanding its role to metropolitan areas.

Canadian Registry of Electronic Device Outcomes: remote monitoring outcomes in the Abbott battery performance alert-a multicentre cohort

AIMS

Cardiac implantable electronic devices with device advisories have the potential of device malfunction. Remote monitoring (RM) of devices has been suggested to allow the identification of abnormal device performance and permit early intervention. We sought to describe the outcomes of patients with and without RM in devices subject to the Abbott Premature Battery Depletion (PBD) advisory with data from a Canadian registry.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Patients with an Abbott device subject to the PBD advisory from nine implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) implanting centres in Canada were included in the registry. The use of RM was identified from baseline and follow-up data in the registry. The primary outcome was detection of PBD and all-cause mortality. A total of 2666 patients were identified with a device subject to the advisory. In all, 1687 patients (63.2%) had RM at baseline. There were 487 deaths during follow-up. At a mean follow-up of 5.7 ± 0.7 years, mortality was higher in those without a remote monitor compared with RM at baseline (24.7% vs. 14.5%; P < 0.001). Pre-mature battery depletion was identified in 36 patients (2.1%) with RM vs. 7 (0.7%) without RM (P = 0.004). Time to battery replacement was significantly reduced in patients on RM (median 5 vs. 13 days, P = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The use of RM in patients with ICD and cardiac resynchronization therapy under advisory improved detection of PBD, time to device replacement, and was associated with a reduction in all-cause mortality. The factors influencing the association with mortality are unknown and deserve further study.

Remote Hemodynamic-Guided Therapy of Patients With Recurrent Heart Failure Following Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy

Background Patients with recurring heart failure (HF) following cardiac resynchronization therapy fare poorly. Their management is undecided. We tested remote hemodynamic-guided pharmacotherapy. Methods and Results We evaluated cardiac resynchronization therapy subjects included in the CHAMPION (CardioMEMS Heart Sensor Allows Monitoring of Pressure to Improve Outcomes in New York Heart Association Class III Heart Failure Patients) trial, which randomized patients with persistent New York Heart Association Class III symptoms and ≥1 HF hospitalization in the previous 12 months to remotely managed pulmonary artery (PA) pressure-guided management (treatment) or usual HF care (control). Diuretics and/or vasodilators were adjusted conventionally in control and included remote PA pressure information in treatment. Annualized HF hospitalization rates, changes in PA pressures over time (analyzed by area under the curve), changes in medications, and quality of life (Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire scores) were assessed. Patients who had cardiac resynchronization therapy (n=190, median implant duration 755 days) at enrollment had poor hemodynamic function (cardiac index 2.00±0.59 L/min per m2), high comorbidity burden (67% had secondary pulmonary hypertension, 61% had estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 mL/min per 1.73 m2), and poor Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire scores (57±24). During 18 months randomized follow-up, HF hospitalizations were 30% lower in treatment (n=91, 62 events, 0.46 events/patient-year) versus control patients (n=99, 93 events, 0.68 events/patient-year) (hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.51-0.96; P=0.028). Treatment patients had more medication up-/down-titrations (847 versus 346 in control, P<0.001), mean PA pressure reduction (area under the curve -413.2±123.5 versus 60.1±88.0 in control, P=0.002), and quality of life improvement (Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire decreased -13.5±23 versus -4.9±24.8 in control, P=0.006). Conclusions Remote hemodynamic-guided adjustment of medical therapies decreased PA pressures and the burden of HF symptoms and hospitalizations in patients with recurring Class III HF and hospitalizations, beyond the effect of cardiac resynchronization therapy. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT00531661.

Changes in the digital health landscape in cardiac electrophysiology: A pre-and peri-pandemic COVID-19 era survey

Background

Digital health is transforming healthcare delivery.

Objective

To compare the current digital health landscape in select groups of cardiac electrophysiology (EP) professionals prior to and during the COVID-19 era.

Methods

Two online surveys were emailed to 4 Heart Rhythm Society communities and tweeted out to Twitter EP, 1 before and 1 during the pandemic. Categorical variables were analyzed using the χ² test and reported as absolute numbers and percentages.

Results

There were 253 pre-pandemic (S1) and 273 follow-up surveys (S2) completed. The majority of respondents to both surveys were male, aged <55 years (70.6% vs 75.1%), university-affiliated (52.6% vs 55%), and physicians (83.3% vs 87.9%). Between S1 and S2, routine use of video-telehealth increased (5.9% vs 58.6%; P < .001) for all types of consultations (P < .001 for all). Wireless electrocardiogram prescribing was prevalent and similar (80.2% vs 81.0%), whereas wireless blood pressure monitoring (9.9% vs 18.3%) and wireless oximetry (1.6% vs 8.1%; P = .006 for both) prescribing both increased. For smartphone mobile applications (mApps), prescriptions for heart rate mApps decreased (50.6% vs 40.7%; P = .022), while vital sign (28.9% vs 37%; P = .04) and symptom trackers (15.8% vs 24.9%; P = .01) prescribing increased. A majority in both surveys (84.6% vs 75.5%) reported no workplace infrastructure or support for digital health with concerns for lack of parity in reimbursement.

Conclusion

Our results show an increase in adoption of digital health by EP during the COVID-19 pandemic. Concerns regarding a lack of supportive infrastructure persisted. Development of professional society guidelines on optimal clinical workflow, infrastructure, and reimbursement may help advance and sustain digital health integration in EP.

2021 ISHNE/HRS/EHRA/APHRS Collaborative Statement on mHealth in Arrhythmia Management: Digital Medical Tools for Heart Rhythm Professionals: From the International Society for Holter and Noninvasive Electrocardiology/Heart Rhythm Society/European Heart Rhythm Association/Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society

This collaborative statement from the International Society for Holter and Noninvasive Electrocardiology/Heart Rhythm Society/European Heart Rhythm Association/Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society describes the current status of mobile health ("mHealth") technologies in arrhythmia management. The range of digital medical tools and heart rhythm disorders that they may be applied to and clinical decisions that may be enabled are discussed. The facilitation of comorbidity and lifestyle management (increasingly recognized to play a role in heart rhythm disorders) and patient self-management are novel aspects of mHealth. The promises of predictive analytics but also operational challenges in embedding mHealth into routine clinical care are explored.

Usefulness of remote monitoring for the early detection of back-up mode in implantable cardioverter defibrillators

BACKGROUND

Reversion of an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) to back-up mode degrades the operating capabilities of the device, puts patients at risk and requires rapid intervention by a manufacturer's technician.

AIM

To illustrate the usefulness of remote monitoring of ICDs for the early detection of reversion to back-up mode.

METHODS

In our centre, all patients implanted with an ICD, with or without resynchronisation, were offered remote monitoring as soon as the technology became available. Alerts triggered by the remote monitoring system were included prospectively in a register. During a mean follow-up of 5.7±1.3 years, a total of 1594 patients with an ICD (441 with resynchronisation function) followed with remote monitoring were included in the register.

RESULTS

Among 15,874 alerts, only 10 were related to a reversion to back-up mode. Among those, seven reversions were caused by radiotherapy, two were fake events and one was caused by magnetic resonance imaging. Except for the two fake events, the eight other patients had an emergency admission for the resetting and reprogramming of their ICD. None of the reversion to back-up mode alerts was followed by a clinical alert (i.e. a shock alert) before the ICD problem was resolved.

CONCLUSIONS

Reversion to back-up mode is a very rare event, accounting for 0.06% of total alerts; remote monitoring facilitates the early detection of this critical event to resolve the problem faster than the next scheduled follow-up. Remote monitoring can prevent serious damage to the patient and avoids systematic ambulatory control of the ICD after each radiotherapy session.

Clinical outcomes of digital sensor alerting systems in remote monitoring: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Advances in digital technologies have allowed remote monitoring and digital alerting systems to gain popularity. Despite this, limited evidence exists to substantiate claims that digital alerting can improve clinical outcomes. The aim of this study was to appraise the evidence on the clinical outcomes of digital alerting systems in remote monitoring through a systematic review and meta-analysis. A systematic literature search, with no language restrictions, was performed to identify studies evaluating healthcare outcomes of digital sensor alerting systems used in remote monitoring across all (medical and surgical) cohorts. The primary outcome was hospitalisation; secondary outcomes included hospital length of stay (LOS), mortality, emergency department and outpatient visits. Standard, pooled hazard ratio and proportion of means meta-analyses were performed. A total of 33 studies met the eligibility criteria; of which, 23 allowed for a meta-analysis. A 9.6% mean decrease in hospitalisation favouring digital alerting systems from a pooled random effects analysis was noted. However, pooled weighted mean differences and hazard ratios did not reproduce this finding. Digital alerting reduced hospital LOS by a mean difference of 1.043 days. A 3% mean decrease in all-cause mortality from digital alerting systems was noted. There was no benefit of digital alerting with respect to emergency department or outpatient visits. Digital alerts can considerably reduce hospitalisation and length of stay for certain cohorts in remote monitoring. Further research is required to confirm these findings and trial different alerting protocols to understand optimal alerting to guide future widespread implementation.

Trends beyond the new normal: from remote monitoring to digital connectivity

COVID pandemic emergency has forced changes from traditional in-person visits to application of telemedicine in order to overcome the barriers and to deliver care. COVID-19 has accelerated adoption of digital health. During this time, the distance is itself a prevention tool and the use of technology to deliver healthcare services and information has driven the discovery of mobile and connected health services. Health services should to be prepared to integrate the old model of remote monitoring of CIEDs and adopt new digital tools such as mobile Apps and connected sensors.

Gerätebasierte rhythmologische Diagnostik und Therapie in COVID-19-Zeiten

Die COVID-Pandemie mit ihrer ersten und zweiten Welle hat uns gezwungen, über eine sinnvolle Nutzung unserer medizinischen Ressourcen nachzudenken und Eingriffe nach ihrer Notwendigkeit und Dringlichkeit zu graduieren. Diese Selektion ist insbesondere in der Kardiologie in jedem einzelnen Fall schwierig und riskant. Die aktuellen Empfehlungen in der Herzschrittmacher‑, Defibrillatortherapie und Nachsorge werden aufgezeigt mit dem Ziel, die individuelle ärztliche Entscheidung auf nachvollziehbare und belastbare Argumente zu stützen und diese auch den Patienten gegenüber begründen zu können. Diese Überlegungen haben in einzelnen Ländern zu einem deutlichen Rückgang von Schrittmacher- und Defibrillatorimplantationen geführt ebenso wie Ablation bei supraventrikulären Arrhythmien. Die Auswirkungen der Pandemie lassen sich aus den Aktivitätsprofilen der rhythmologischen Implantate nachvollziehen. Die Notwendigkeit und Chancen einer telemedizinischen Überwachung sind in dieser Zeit nachdrücklich deutlich geworden, ebenso wie die bislang unzureichende Nutzung und mangelnde Struktur. Die aktuelle positive G‑BA(Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss)-Bewertung der telemedizinischen Überwachung bei Herzinsuffizienz weist in die richtige Richtung, die Umsetzung und Vergütung wird jedoch für weitere Diskussionen sorgen. Ein neuer Algorithmus, der auf einer Herztonerkennung beruht und im ersten AV(atrioventrikulären)-sequenziellen sondenlosen Herzschrittmacher Verwendung findet, wird diskutiert. Bisher stützen sich die Indikationen für eine primärprophylaktische ICD(implantierbarer Kardioverter-Defibrillator)-Implantation im Wesentlichen auf die linksventrikuläre Ejektionsfraktion insbesondere bei der nichtischämischen Kardiomyopathie. Die Notwendigkeit und Bedeutung von intramuralem Fibrose- und Narbennachweis in der Magnetresonanztomographie (MRT) werden diskutiert und könnten die Entscheidungsfindung unterstützen.

Effect of remote monitoring on patient-reported outcomes in European heart failure patients with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator: primary results of the REMOTE-CIED randomized trial

AIMS

The European REMOTE-CIED study is the first randomized trial primarily designed to evaluate the effect of remote patient monitoring (RPM) on patient-reported outcomes in the first 2 years after implantation of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD).

METHODS AND RESULTS

The sample consisted of 595 European heart failure patients implanted with an ICD compatible with the Boston Scientific LATITUDE® RPM system. Patients were randomized to RPM plus a yearly in-clinic ICD check-up vs. 3-6-month in-clinic check-ups alone. At five points during the 2-year follow-up, patients completed questionnaires including the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire and Florida Patient Acceptance Survey (FPAS) to assess their heart failure-specific health status and ICD acceptance, respectively. Information on clinical status was obtained from patients' medical records. Linear regression models were used to compare scores between groups over time. Intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses showed no significant group differences in patients' health status and ICD acceptance (subscale) scores (all Ps > 0.05). Exploratory subgroup analyses indicated a temporary improvement in device acceptance (FPAS total score) at 6-month follow-up for secondary prophylactic in-clinic patients only (P < 0.001). No other significant subgroup differences were observed.

CONCLUSION

Large clinical trials have indicated that RPM can safely and effectively replace most in-clinic check-ups of ICD patients. The REMOTE-CIED trial results show that patient-reported health status and ICD acceptance do not differ between patients on RPM and patients receiving in-clinic check-ups alone in the first 2 years after ICD implantation.ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01691586.

Challenges in activation of remote monitoring in patients with cardiac rhythm devices during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic

Background

Remote monitoring (RM) technology embedded in cardiac rhythm devices permits continuous monitoring of device function, and recording of selected cardiac physiological parameters and cardiac arrhythmias and may be of utmost utility during Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, when in-person office visit for regular follow-up were postponed. However, patients not alredy followed-up via RM represent a challenging group of patients to be managed during the lockdown.

Methods

We reviewed patient files scheduled for an outpatient visit between January 1, 2020 and May 11th, 2020 to assess the proportion of patients in whom RM activation was possible without office visit, and compared them to those scheduled for visit before the lockdown.

Results

During COVID-19 pandemic, RM activation was feasible in a minority of patients (7.8% of patients) expected at outpatient clinic for a follow-up visit and device check-up. This was possible in a good proportion of complex implantable devices such as cardiac resynchronization therapy and implantable cardioverter defibrillator but only in a minority of patients with a pacemaker the RM function could be activated during the period of restricted access to hospital.

Conclusions

Our experience strongly suggest to consider the systematic activation of RM function at the time of implantation or – by default programming - in all cardiac rhythm management devices.

Ethical and Legal Implications of Remote Monitoring of Medical Devices

Policy Points Millions of life-sustaining implantable devices collect and relay massive amounts of digital health data, increasingly by using user-downloaded smartphone applications to facilitate data relay to clinicians via manufacturer servers. Our analysis of health privacy laws indicates that most US patients may have little access to their own digital health data in the United States under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act Privacy Rule, whereas the EU General Data Protection Regulation and the California Consumer Privacy Act grant greater access to device-collected data. Our normative analysis argues for consistently granting patients access to the raw data collected by their implantable devices.

CONTEXT

Millions of life-sustaining implantable devices collect and relay massive amounts of digital health data, increasingly by using user-downloaded smartphone applications to facilitate data relay to clinicians via manufacturer servers. Whether patients have either legal or normative claims to data collected by these devices, particularly in the raw, granular format beyond that summarized in their medical records, remains incompletely explored.

METHODS

Using pacemakers and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) as a clinical model, we outline the clinical ecosystem of data collection, relay, retrieval, and documentation. We consider the legal implications of US and European privacy regulations for patient access to either summary or raw device data. Lastly, we evaluate ethical arguments for or against providing patients access to data beyond the summaries presented in medical records.

FINDINGS

Our analysis of applicable health privacy laws indicates that US patients may have little access to their raw data collected and held by device manufacturers in the United States under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act Privacy Rule, whereas the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) grants greater access to device-collected data when the processing of personal data falls under the GDPR's territorial scope. The California Consumer Privacy Act, the "little sister" of the GDPR, also grants greater rights to California residents. By contrast, our normative analysis argues for consistently granting patients access to the raw data collected by their implantable devices. Smartphone applications are increasingly involved in the collection, relay, retrieval, and documentation of these data. Therefore, we argue that smartphone user agreements are an emerging but potentially underutilized opportunity for clarifying both legal and ethical claims for device-derived data.

CONCLUSIONS

Current health privacy legislation incompletely supports patients' normative claims for access to digital health data.

Recommendations on the utilization of telemedicine in cardiology

The enormous progress made in recent years in the field of information and communication technology and also in sensor and computer technology has affected numerous fields of medicine and is capable of inducing even radical changes in diagnostic and therapeutic processes. This is particularly true for cardiology, where, for example, telemetric monitoring of cardiac and circulatory functions has been in use for many years. Nevertheless, broad application of newer telemedical processes has not yet been achieved to the extent one would expect from the encouraging results of numerous clinical studies in this field and the state of the art of the underlying technology. In the present paper, the Working Group on Rhythmology of the Austrian Cardiological Society aims to provoke a critical discussion of the digital change in cardiology and to make recommendations for the implementation of those telemedical processes that have been shown to exert positive effects on a wide variety of medical and economic parameters. The greatest benefit of telecardiological applications is certainly to be found in the long-term care of patients with chronic cardiovascular diseases. Accordingly, follow-up care of patients with cardiological rhythm implants, management of chronic heart failure and secondary prevention following an acute cardiac event during rehabilitation are currently the most important fields of application. Telemedicine is intended to enable high-quality and cost-efficient care for an increasing number of patients, whose care poses one of the greatest challenges to our healthcare system. Not least of all, telemedicine should make a decisive contribution to improving the quality of life of this segment of the population by favorably influencing mortality, morbidity and hospitalization as well as the patient's contribution to treatment.

2019 HRS/EHRA/APHRS/LAHRS expert consensus statement on catheter ablation of ventricular arrhythmias

Ventricular arrhythmias are an important cause of morbidity and mortality and come in a variety of forms, from single premature ventricular complexes to sustained ventricular tachycardia and fibrillation. Rapid developments have taken place over the past decade in our understanding of these arrhythmias and in our ability to diagnose and treat them. The field of catheter ablation has progressed with the development of new methods and tools, and with the publication of large clinical trials. Therefore, global cardiac electrophysiology professional societies undertook to outline recommendations and best practices for these procedures in a document that will update and replace the 2009 EHRA/HRS Expert Consensus on Catheter Ablation of Ventricular Arrhythmias. An expert writing group, after reviewing and discussing the literature, including a systematic review and meta-analysis published in conjunction with this document, and drawing on their own experience, drafted and voted on recommendations and summarized current knowledge and practice in the field. Each recommendation is presented in knowledge byte format and is accompanied by supportive text and references. Further sections provide a practical synopsis of the various techniques and of the specific ventricular arrhythmia sites and substrates encountered in the electrophysiology lab. The purpose of this document is to help electrophysiologists around the world to appropriately select patients for catheter ablation, to perform procedures in a safe and efficacious manner, and to provide follow-up and adjunctive care in order to obtain the best possible outcomes for patients with ventricular arrhythmias.

Remote Monitoring Alert Burden: An Analysis of Transmission in >26,000 Patients

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to determine the remote monitoring (RM) alert burden in a multicenter cohort of patients with a cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED).

BACKGROUND

RM of CIEDs allows timely recognition of patient and device events requiring intervention. Most RM involves burdensome manual workflow occurring exclusively on weekdays during office hours. Automated software may reduce such a burden, streamlining real-time alert responses.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 26,713 consecutive patients with a CIED undergoing managed RM utilizing PaceMate software between November 2018 and November 2019. Alerts were analyzed according to type, acuity (red indicates urgent, and yellow indicates nonurgent) and CIED category.

RESULTS

In total, 12,473 (46.7%) patients had a permanent pacemaker (PPM), 9,208 (34.5%) had an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD), and 5,032 (18.8%) had an implantable loop recorder (ILR). Overall, 82,797 of the 205,804 RM transmissions were alerts, with the remainder being scheduled transmissions. A total of 14,638 (54.8%) patients transmitted at least 1 alert. Permanent pacemakers were responsible for 25,700 (31.0%) alerts, ICDs for 15,643 (18.9%) alerts, and ILRs for 41,454 (50.1%) alerts, with 3,935 (4.8%) red alerts and 78,862 (95.2%) yellow alerts. ICDs transmitted 2,073 (52.7%) red alerts; 5,024 (32.1%) ICD alerts were for ventricular tachyarrhythmias and antitachycardia pacing/shock delivery.

CONCLUSIONS

In an RM cohort of 26,713 patients with CIEDs, 54.8% of patients transmitted at least 1 alert during a 12-month period, totaling over 82,000 alerts. ILRs were overrepresented, and ICDs were underrepresented, in these alerts. The enormity of the number of transmissions and the growing ILR alert burden highlight the need for new management pathways for RM.

Home Monitoring of Cardiac Devices in the Era of COVID-19

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Despite the promise of remote patient monitoring (RPM), this technology remained underutilized secondary to a lack of data transparency and systems issues until the COVID-19 pandemic ushered in a new era of telehealth and virtual solutions out of necessity. This review will explore the data supporting the use of RPM via both implantable and wearable devices in the field of cardiology and the role of home monitoring using RPM in the era of COVID-19.

RECENT FINDINGS

RPM using implantable cardiac devices is a safe alternative to in-person only visits which leads to enhanced patient satisfaction and improved clinical outcomes. Consumer-grade wearable sensors have drastically expanded RPM capabilities from just the sickest cardiac patients to the entire population aiding in early diagnosis and real-time disease management. Home monitoring enabled by automated alert systems tailored specifically to the needs of the patient by the provider will be the cornerstone of a more continuous, patent-centric healthcare model.

Remote Monitoring of Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Devices in Canada: Survey of Patients and Device Health Care Professionals

Background

Remote monitoring is used to supplement in-clinic follow-up for patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) every 6-12 months. There is a need to optimize remote management for CIEDs because of the consistent increases in CIED implants over the past decade. The objective of this study was to investigate real and perceived barriers to the use of remote patient management strategies in Canada and to better understand how remote models of care can be optimized.

Methods

We surveyed 512 CIED patients and practitioners in 22 device clinics in Canada.

Results

Device clinic surveys highlighted significant variation and inconsistency in follow-up care for in-clinic and remote visits across and within clinics. This survey showed that funding policies and management of additional workflow are barriers to optimal use and uptake. Despite this, device clinics perceive remote follow-up as a valuable resource and an efficient way to manage patient follow-up. Patients were broadly satisfied with their CIED follow-up care but identified barriers related to coordination of care, visit logistics, and information needs. Views varied as a function of clinical or sociodemographic characteristics. Most patients (n = 228; 91%) expressed a desire to receive a phone call from their device clinic after a remote transmission has been received.

Conclusions

Lack of a unified, guideline-supported approach to follow-up after CIED implant, and discrepant funding policies across jurisdictions, are significant barriers to the use of remote patient management strategies in Canada. Efforts to increase or expand use of remote follow-up must recognize these barriers and the needs of specific subgroups of patients.

Change in the use of remote monitoring of cardiac implantable electronic devices in Italian clinical practice over a 5-year period: results of two surveys promoted by the AIAC (Italian Association of Arrhythmology and Cardiac Pacing)

AIMS

The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of remote monitoring in Italian clinical practice and its trend over the last 5 years.

METHODS

In 2012 and 2017, two surveys were conducted. Both were open to all Italian implanting centres and consisted of 25 questions on the characteristics of the centre, their actual use of remote monitoring, applied organizational models and administrative and legal aspects.

RESULTS

The questionnaires were completed by 132 and 108 centres in 2012 and 2017, respectively (30.6 and 24.7% of all Italian implanting centres). In 2017, significantly fewer centres followed up fewer than 200 patients by remote monitoring than in 2012, while more followed up more than 500 patients (all P < 0.005). In most of the centres (77.6%) that responded to both surveys, the number of patients remotely monitored significantly increased from 2012 to 2017.In both surveys, remote monitoring was usually managed by physicians and nurses. Over the period, primary review of transmissions by physicians declined, while it was increasingly performed by nurses; the involvement of technicians rose, while that of manufacturers' technical personnel decreased. The percentage of centres in which transmissions were submitted to the physician only in critical cases rose (from 28.3 to 64.3%; P < 0.001). In 86.7% of centres, the lack of a reimbursement system was deemed the main barrier to implementing remote monitoring.

CONCLUSION

In the last 5 years, the number of patients followed up by remote monitoring has increased markedly. In most Italian centres, remote monitoring has increasingly been managed through a primary nursing model. The lack of a specific reimbursement system is perceived as the main barrier to implementing remote monitoring .

Findings of remote monitoring of implantable cardioverter defibrillators during the COVID-19 pandemic

BACKGROUND

Monitoring of cardiac implantable electronic devices was highly impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic considering the high volume of in-person visits for regular follow-up. Recent recommendations highlight the important role of remote monitoring to prevent exposure to the virus. This study compared remote monitoring of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) in patients whose in-person annual visit was substituted for a remote monitoring session with patients who were already scheduled for a remote monitoring session.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional observational study of 329 consecutive patients between 20 March and 24 April 2020. Group 1 included 131 patients whose in-person annual visit was substituted for a remote monitoring session. Group 2 included 198 patients who underwent a remote monitoring session as scheduled in their usual device follow-up. The time interval since the last in-person visit was 13.3 ± 3.2 months in group 1 and 5.9 ± 1.7 months in group 2 (P < .01).

RESULTS

In group 1, 15 patients (11.5%) experienced a clinical event compared to 15 patients (7.6%) in group 2 (P = .25). Nineteen patients (14.5%) required a physician intervention in group 1 compared to 19 patients (9.6%) in group 2 (P = .22). Two patients (1.5%) in group 1 and four patients (2.0%) in group 2 required an early in-person follow-up visit during the pandemic (P > .99).

CONCLUSION

Remote monitoring of ICDs is useful to identify clinical events and allows physicians to treat patients appropriately during the COVID-19 pandemic regardless of the time interval since their last in-person visit. It reduces significantly in-person visit for regular follow-up.