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

Trends in utilization and spending on remote monitoring of pacemakers and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators among Medicare beneficiaries

BACKGROUND

National trends and costs associated with remote and in-office interrogations of pacemakers and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) have not been previously described.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate utilization and Medicare spending for remote monitoring and in-office interrogations for pacemakers and ICDs.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study of claims and spending for remote and in-office interrogations of pacemakers and ICDs for Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries from 2012 to 2015. Aggregate and per-beneficiary claims and spending were calculated for each device type.

RESULTS

Among all patients, 41.9% were female and the mean age was 78.3 years. From 2012 to 2015, remote monitoring utilization increased sharply. Aggregate professional remote monitoring claims for pacemakers increased by 61.3% and for ICDs by 5.6%, with an increase in technical claims (combined for pacemakers and ICDs) of 32.8%. Spending on all remote and in-office interrogations for these devices totaled $160 million per year, with remote costs increasing nearly 25% from $45.4 million in 2012 to $56.7 million in 2015. At the beneficiary level, remote interrogations increased for pacemakers from 0.6 to 0.9 per year, and for ICDs from 1.3 to 1.4 per year, whereas in-office interrogations decreased from 2.8 to 2.7 per year and from 3.0 to 2.9 per year, respectively. Beneficiary-level analysis revealed increased expenditures on remote interrogation offset by decreases in in-office expenditures, with total annual spending decreasing by $2 and $5 per beneficiary, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Remote monitoring utilization increased substantially from 2012 to 2015, whereas annual costs per beneficiary decreased.

Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on the clinical activities related to arrhythmias and electrophysiology in Italy: results of a survey promoted by AIAC (Italian Association of Arrhythmology and Cardiac Pacing)

COVID-19 outbreak had a major impact on the organization of care in Italy, and a survey to evaluate provision of for arrhythmia during COVID-19 outbreak (March-April 2020) was launched. A total of 104 physicians from 84 Italian arrhythmia centres took part in the survey. The vast majority of participating centres (95.2%) reported a significant reduction in the number of elective pacemaker implantations during the outbreak period compared to the corresponding two months of year 2019 (50.0% of centres reported a reduction of > 50%). Similarly, 92.9% of participating centres reported a significant reduction in the number of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantations for primary prevention, and 72.6% a significant reduction of ICD implantations for secondary prevention (> 50% in 65.5 and 44.0% of the centres, respectively). The majority of participating centres (77.4%) reported a significant reduction in the number of elective ablations (> 50% in 65.5% of the centres). Also the interventional procedures performed in an emergency setting, as well as acute management of atrial fibrillation had a marked reduction, thus leading to the conclusion that the impact of COVID-19 was disrupting the entire organization of health care, with a massive impact on the activities and procedures related to arrhythmia management in Italy.

Role of Remote Monitoring in Detection of Atrial Arrhythmia, Stroke Reduction, and Use of Anticoagulation Therapy - A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

The effect of remote monitoring (RM) in atrial arrhythmia detection, stroke reduction, and anticoagulation therapy remains unknown, particularly for patients with implantable or wearable cardiac devices.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the role of RM in atrial arrhythmia detection, stroke reduction and anticoagulation therapeutic intervention. Online databases were queried to include randomized controlled trials comparing detection of atrial arrhythmia and stroke risk between patients undergoing RM and those receiving in-office (IO) follow-up. Outcomes and complications of RM-guided anticoagulation therapy and conventional therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation were also reviewed. A total of 16 studies were included. Compared with patients receiving IO follow-up, patients undergoing RM had a significantly higher detection rate of atrial arrhythmia (risk ratio [RR], 1.363; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.147-1.619), and a lower risk of stroke (RR, 0.539; 95% CI, 0.301-0.936). The higher rate of atrial arrhythmia was only noted in patients with wearable devices (RR, 4.070; 95% CI, 2.408-6.877), and the lower risk of stroke was only noted in patients with cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIED) (RR, 0.513; 95% CI, 0.265-0.996).

CONCLUSIONS

RM is effective for atrial arrhythmia detection in patients using wearable devices and for reducing the risk of stroke in patients with CIED.

The Importance of Telemedicine during COVID-19 Pandemic: A Focus on Diabetic Retinopathy

Recently, telemedicine has become remarkably important, due to increased deployment and development of digital technologies. National and international guidelines should consider its inclusion in their updates. During the COVID-19 pandemic, mandatory social distancing and the lack of effective treatments has made telemedicine the safest interactive system between patients, both infected and uninfected, and clinicians. A few potential evidence-based scenarios for the application of telemedicine have been hypothesized. In particular, its use in diabetes and complication monitoring has been remarkably increasing, due to the high risk of poor prognosis. New evidence and technological improvements in telemedicine application in diabetic retinopathy (DR) have demonstrated efficacy and usefulness in screening. Moreover, despite an initial increase for devices and training costs, teleophthalmology demonstrated a good cost-to-efficacy ratio; however, no national screening program has yet focused on DR prevention and diagnosis. Lack of data during the COVID-19 pandemic strongly limits the possibility of tracing the real management of the disease, which is only conceivable from past evidence in normal conditions. The pandemic further stressed the importance of remote monitoring. However, the deployment of device and digital application used to increase screening of individuals and monitor progression of retinal disease needs to be easily accessible to general practitioners.

Cybersecurity: The need for data and patient safety with cardiac implantable electronic devices

Remote monitoring of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) has become routine practice as a result of the advances in biomedical engineering, the advent of interconnectivity between the devices through the Internet, and the demonstrated improvement in patient outcomes, survival, and hospitalizations. However, this increased dependency on the Internet of Things comes with risks in the form of cybersecurity lapses and possible attacks. Although no cyberattack leading to patient harm has been reported to date, the threat is real and has been demonstrated in research laboratory scenarios and echoed in patient concerns. The CIED universe comprises a complex interplay of devices, connectivity protocols, and sensitive information flow between the devices and the central cloud server. Various manufacturers use proprietary software and black-box connectivity protocols that are susceptible to hacking. Here we discuss the fundamentals of the CIED ecosystem, the potential security vulnerabilities, a historical overview of such vulnerabilities reported in the literature, and recommendations for improving the security of the CIED ecosystem and patient safety.

Remote monitoring of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators and resynchronization devices to improve patient outcomes: dead end or way ahead?

Remote monitoring (RM) has become a new standard of care in the follow-up of patients with implantable pacemakers and defibrillators. While it has been consistently shown that RM enables earlier detection of clinically actionable events compared with traditional in-patient evaluation, this advantage did not translate into improved patient outcomes in clinical trials of RM except one study using daily multiparameter telemonitoring in heart failure (HF) patients. Therefore, this review, focusing on RM studies of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators and cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillators in patients with HF, discusses possible explanations for the differences in trial outcomes. Patient selection may play an important role as more severe HF and concomitant atrial fibrillation have been associated with improved outcomes by RM. Furthermore, the technical set-up of RM may have an important impact as a higher level of connectivity with more frequent data transmission can be linked to better outcomes. Finally, there is growing evidence as to the need of effective algorithms ensuring a fast and well-structured clinical response to the events detected by RM. These factors re-emphasize the potential of remote management of device patients with HF and call for continued clinical research and technical development in the field.

Role of medical reaction in management of inappropriate ventricular arrhythmia diagnosis: the inappropriate Therapy and HOme monitoRiNg (THORN) registry

AIMS

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) reduce sudden cardiac death in selected patients but inappropriate ICD shocks have been associated with increased mortality. The THORN registry aims to describe the rate of inappropriate ventricular arrhythmia diagnoses and therapies in patients followed by remote monitoring, as well as the following delay to next patient contact (DNPC).

METHODS AND RESULTS

One thousand eight hundred and eighty-two patients issued from a large remote monitoring database first implanted with an ICD for primary or secondary prevention in 110 French hospitals from 2007 to 2014 constitute the THORN population. Among them, 504 patients were additionally followed prospectively for evaluation of the DNPC. Eight hundred and ninety-five out of 1551 (58%) patients had ischaemic heart disease and 358/771 (46%) were implanted for secondary prevention. During 13.7 ± 3.4 months of follow-up, the prevalence of first inappropriate diagnosis in a ventricular arrhythmia zone with enabled therapy was 162/1882 (9%). Among those patients, 122/162 (75%) suffered at least one inappropriate therapy and 58/162 (36%) at least one inappropriate shock. Eighty-three out of 162 (51%) of first inappropriate diagnosis occurred during the first 4 months following implantation. The median DNPC was 8 days (interquartile range 1-26). At least one other day with recording of an inappropriate diagnosis of the same cause occurred in 13/43 (30%) of available DNPC periods, with an inappropriate therapy in 7/13 (54%).

CONCLUSION

Inappropriate diagnoses occurred in 9% of patients implanted with an ICD during the first 14 months. The DNPC after inadequate ventricular arrhythmia diagnoses remains long in daily practice and should be optimized.

CLINICALTRIALS.GOV IDENTIFIER

NCT01594112.

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.

Patients' and Nurses' Experiences and Perceptions of Remote Monitoring of Implantable Cardiac Defibrillators in Heart Failure: Cross-Sectional, Descriptive, Mixed Methods Study

Background

The new generation of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) supports wireless technology, which enables remote patient monitoring (RPM) of the device. In Sweden, it is mainly registered nurses with advanced education and training in ICD devices who handle the arrhythmias and technical issues of the remote transmissions. Previous studies have largely focused on the perceptions of physicians, and it has not been explored how the patients’ and nurses’ experiences of RPM correspond to each other.

Objective

Our objective is to describe, explore, and compare the experiences and perceptions, concerning RPM of ICD, of patients with heart failure (HF) and nurses performing ICD follow-up.

Methods

This study has a cross-sectional, descriptive, mixed methods design. All patients with HF and an ICD with RPM from one region in Sweden, who had transitioned from office-based visits to implementing RPM, and ICD nurses from all ICD clinics in Sweden were invited to complete a purpose-designed, 8-item questionnaire to assess experiences of RPM. The questionnaire started with a neutral question: “What are your experiences of RPM in general?” This was followed by one positive subscale with three questions (score range 3-12), with higher scores reflecting more positive experiences, and one negative subscale with three questions (score range 3-12), with lower scores reflecting more negative experiences. One open-ended question was analyzed with qualitative content analysis.

Results

The sample consisted of 175 patients (response rate 98.9%) and 30 ICD nurses (response rate 60%). The majority of patients (154/175, 88.0%) and nurses (23/30, 77%) experienced RPM as very good; however, the nurses noted more downsides than did the patients. The mean scores of the negative experiences subscale were 11.5 (SD 1.1) for the patients and 10.7 (SD 0.9) for the nurses (P=.08). The mean scores of the positive experiences subscale were 11.1 (SD 1.6) for the patients and 8.5 (SD 1.9) for the nurses (P=.04). A total of 11 out of 175 patients (6.3%) were worried or anxious about what the RPM entailed, while 15 out of 30 nurses (50%) felt distressed by the responsibility that accompanied their work with RPM (P=.04). Patients found that RPM increased their own (173/175, 98.9%) and their relatives’ (169/175, 96.6%) security, and all nurses (30/30, 100%) answered that they found RPM to be necessary from a safety perspective. Most patients found it to be an advantage with fewer office-based visits. Nurses found it difficult to handle different systems with different platforms, especially for smaller clinics with few patients. Another difficulty was to set the correct number of alarms for the individual patient. This caused a high number of transmissions and a risk to miss important information.

Conclusions

Both patients and nurses found that RPM increased assurance, reliance, and safety. Few patients were anxious about what the RPM entailed, while about half of the nurses felt distressed by the responsibility that accompanied their work with RPM. To increase nurses’ sense of security, it seems important to adjust organizational routines and reimbursement systems and to balance the workload.

Safety and efficiency of a common and simplified protocol for pacemaker and defibrillator surveillance based on remote monitoring only: a long-term randomized trial (RM-ALONE)

Aims

This trial aimed to evaluate the safety and efficiency of a common and simplified protocol for the surveillance of cardiac implantable electronic devices based on remote monitoring (RM) in patients with pacemakers (PMs) and implantable cardiac defibrillators (ICDs) for at least 24 months.

Methods and results

The RM-ALONE is a multicentre prospective trial that randomly assigned 445 patients in two groups, both followed by RM: the home monitoring-only (HMo) based on RM + remote interrogations (RIs) every 6 months and the HM + IO that adds in-office evaluations every 6 months to RM. Four hundred and forty-five patients were enrolled in the study, 294 PMs and 151 ICDs recipients. In the HMo group, 20% of patients experienced ≥1 major adverse cardiac event (MACE) vs. 19.5% in HM + IO group (P = 0.006 for non-inferiority). The proportion of patients with a PM/ICD who experienced ≥1 MACE was 15.2/29.3% in HMo group and 16.1/26.3% in HM + IO group (hazard ratio 0.95/1.15, 95% confidence interval 0.53–1.70/0.62–2.10). There were 789 in-office evaluations (136 in the HMo and 653 in the HM + IO; P < 0.001). There was a 79.2% reduction of in-office evaluations with no significant differences in unscheduled visits between groups: 122 (54.5%) in HMo and 101 (45.3%) in HM + IO; P = 0.15. The time a physician/nurse spent per patient/follow-up was significantly reduced in the HMo group: 4/5 min (0–30)/(1–30) vs. 10/10 min (0–40)/(1–40) in HM + IO (P < 0.0001).

Conclusion

The RM-ALONE protocol common for ICD and PM surveillance, consisting of RM + RI every 6 months has proven safe and efficient in reducing hospital visits and staff workload.

Cardiac Electronic Devices: Future Directions and Challenges

Cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) are essential management options for patients with brady- and tachyarrhythmias or heart failure with concomitant optimal pharmacotherapy. Despite increasing technological advances, there are still gaps in the management of CIED patients, eg, the growing number of lead- and pocket-related long-term complications, including cardiac device–related infective endocarditis, requires the greatest care. Likewise, patients with CIEDs should be monitored remotely as a part of a comprehensive, holistic management approach. In addition, novel technologies used in smartwatches may be a convenient tool for long-term atrial fibrillation (AF) screening, especially in high-risk populations. Early detection of AF may reduce the risk of stroke and other AF-related complications. The objective of this review article was to provide an overview of novel technologies in cardiac rhythm–management devices and future challenges related to CIEDs.

False remote monitoring alerts from explanted cardiac implantable electronic device: How is this possible?

A 72-year-old woman with a dual-chamber implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (Biotronik Lumax 540 DR-T) at elective replacement indicator presented for generator replacement. A new MicroPort generator (Platinium DR) was attached to her existing leads. Eight days later, multiple red alert messages were received on the Biotronik remote monitoring system from the explanted generator. Investigations revealed alert transmission via a CardioMessenger Smart mobile device registered to another patient that came into proximity of the explanted generator. The Biotronik remote monitoring system is unique in that red alerts could be sent through any CardioMessenger Smart device regardless of whether they were paired.

Patient responses to daily cardiac resynchronization therapy device data: A pilot trial assessing a novel patient-centered digital dashboard in everyday life

Background

Heart failure (HF) is a growing public health problem in the United States. Implantable cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) devices reduce mortality and morbidity, and remote monitoring (RM) of these devices improves outcomes. However, patient RM adherence is low, due in part to lack of access to their RM data. Providing these data to patients may increase engagement, but they must be appropriately tailored to ensure understanding.

Objective

The purpose of this study was to examine patients’ experiences interacting with their RM data through a novel digital dashboard as part of daily life.

Methods

In this mixed-methods pilot study, 10 patients with implantable CRT defibrillators were given access to a patient-centered RM data dashboard, updated daily for 6–12 months. Pre- and post-health literacy, engagement, electronic portal (MyChart, Epic Systems Corporation) logins, and RM adherence were measured; system usability scores were collected at exit; and dashboard views were tracked. Exit interviews were conducted to elucidate patients’ experiences.

Results

Participants (100% white; 60% male; age 34–80 years [mean ± SD: 62.0 ± 13.4]) had adequate health literacy, increased MyChart logins (P = .0463), and nonsignificant increase in RM adherence. Participants viewed their dashboards 0–42 times (mean 14.9 ± 12.5). Interviews revealed participants generally appreciated access to their data, understood it, and responded to changes; however, questions and concerns remained regarding data interpretation and visualization.

Conclusion

Preliminary findings support potential future integration of a CRT RM data dashboard in the daily care of HF patients. With appropriate informational support and personalization, sharing RM data with patients in a tailored dashboard may improve health engagement.

Transmission Rate of Remote Monitoring and Mortality in Patients With Pacemaker

Background: Remote monitoring of cardiac implantable electronic devices improves clinical outcomes, but data on the association between the transmission rate (TR) of the remote monitoring, calculated in percentage as the ratio between days of transmission and days of follow-up after remote monitoring introduction, and death in patients with a pacemaker are limited.

Methods and Results: In this single-center retrospective observational study, we investigated 180 patients with a newly implanted pacemaker capable of using a specific remote monitoring system with daily transmission (79.5±8.8 years, men 50.6%). The study endpoint was all-cause death. During the follow-up period (median 2.7 years), 33 all-cause deaths were reported, and the TR was significantly lower in the deceased patients than in the survivors (89.6±9.6% vs. 95.4±7.0%, P<0.001). The area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve for TR to predict all-cause death was 0.72 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.62–0.81, P<0.001). A TR of 95% had sensitivity of 74.1% and specificity of 63.6% for predicting all-cause death. In the multivariate Cox regression analysis, TR <95% was selected as a predictor of all-cause death (hazard ratio 3.43, 95% CI 1.61–7.27, P=0.001).

Conclusions: Low TR is a predictor of all-cause death in patients with a pacemaker. Patients with TR ≥95% may experience a lower incidence of death, and should have a good prognosis.

Unexpected high failure rate of a specific MicroPort/LivaNova/Sorin pacing lead

BACKGROUND

Pacing leads are the Achilles heel of pacemakers. Most manufacturers report a 3-year survival rate of >99% of their leads. We observed several failures of the Beflex/Vega leads (MicroPort, Shanghai, China; formerly Sorin/LivaNova).

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to investigate failure rates of Beflex/Vega leads.

METHODS

We analyzed the performance of Beflex/Vega leads implanted at our tertiary referral center. All-cause lead failures (any issues requiring reinterventions such as lead dislocations, cardiac perforations, and electrical abnormalities) were identified during follow-up. The Beflex/Vega lead was compared with a reference lead (CapSureFix Novus 5076, Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN) implanted within the same period and by the same operators.

RESULTS

A total of 585 leads were analyzed (382 Beflex/Vega and 203 CapSureFix Novus 5076 leads). Cumulative failure rate estimates were 5.2%, 6.3%, and 12.4% after 1, 2, and 3 years for the Beflex/Vega lead. This was worse compared to the reference lead (1.5%, 1.5%, 3.7% after 1, 2, and 3 years; P = .001). Early failure manifestations up to 3 months occurred at a similar rate (Beflex/Vega vs CapSureFix Novus 5076 lead: 1.3% vs 0.5% for dislocations; 1.3% vs 1.0% for perforations). During follow-up, electrical abnormalities such as noise oversensing (P = .013) and increased pacing thresholds (P = .003) became more frequent in the Beflex/Vega group. Electrical abnormalities were the most common failure manifestation 3 years after implantation in this group (9.4% vs 2.2% for the CapSureFix Novus 5076).

CONCLUSION

The failure rate of the Beflex/Vega lead of >10% after 3 years was higher than that of a competitor lead. This gives rise to concern since >135,000 such leads are active worldwide.

Guidance for Rebooting Electrophysiology Through the COVID-19 Pandemic From the Heart Rhythm Society and the American Heart Association Electrocardiography and Arrhythmias Committee of the Council on Clinical Cardiology: Endorsed by the American College of Cardiology

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has presented substantial challenges to patient care and impacted health care delivery, including cardiac electrophysiology practice throughout the globe. Based upon the undetermined course and regional variability of the pandemic, there is uncertainty as to how and when to resume and deliver electrophysiology services for arrhythmia patients. This joint document from representatives of the Heart Rhythm Society, American Heart Association, and American College of Cardiology seeks to provide guidance for clinicians and institutions reestablishing safe electrophysiological care. To achieve this aim, we address regional and local COVID-19 disease status, the role of viral screening and serologic testing, return-to-work considerations for exposed or infected health care workers, risk stratification and management strategies based on COVID-19 disease burden, institutional preparedness for resumption of elective procedures, patient preparation and communication, prioritization of procedures, and development of outpatient and periprocedural care pathways.

Remote monitoring of implantable cardioverters defibrillators: a comparison of acceptance between octogenarians and younger patients

Background

Remote monitoring (RM) is increasingly employed for all types of cardiac implantable devices (CIED). However, there are only limited data on the acceptance of RM by the elderly. The aim of our study was to ascertain how octogenarians assess RM technologies compared to younger, presumably technically more literate patients, and what concerns or technical problems the system presents to both groups of patients.

Methods

The trial was designed as a descriptive, register-based single-center study. The study population consisted of all consecutive patients ≥ 80 years of age (group A, n = 94) and all consecutive patients aged ≤ 40 years (group B, n = 71), who had undergone implantation of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) between the years of 2009 and 2018 and were using a Home Monitoring^TM (HM, Biotronik, Berlin, Germany) system. All patients fulfilling entry criteria were approached with a request to participate in the survey.

Results

A total of 85 (90.4%) and 65 (91.5%) valid surveys were obtained for groups A and B, respectively. Ninety-two percent of patients in both groups (P = 0.903) were satisfied with the limited number of planned ambulatory follow-ups (i.e., once a year). All patients in both groups (100%) reported that they were satisfied with the HM system, and 97% and 94% of patients in Groups A and B, respectively, ranked it highly beneficial (P = 0.68). A significant proportion of patients in both groups were completely unaware of any health-related benefits associated with the use of the HM system (42% in Group A vs. 49% in Group B, P = 0.4). Among the most frequently reported personal benefits of HM were a sense of safety and security and savings on travel expenses and time. 5% and 9% of patients in Groups A and B, respectively, reported that usage of HM caused them some degree of psychological stress (P = 0.27). Nearly all patients in both groups reported receiving information on HM from their doctor after ICD implantation. None of Group A reported receiving information from a nurse either before or after ICD implantation, while 14% of Group B patients reported receiving information from a nurse after, but not before ICD implantation. Seven and 51% (P < 0.0001) of patients in Group A and B, respectively, sought additional information about HM post-discharge.

Conclusions

The HM system received good marks and was much appreciated, even in patients over 80 years of age. The level of acceptance and potential psychological stress resulting from RM technology appears to be about the same in older patients as in younger patients. The majority of octogenarians either did not fully understand the clinical benefits of the system or mistakenly thought that the HM system was a substitute for emergency 24-h surveillance. These results highlight the need for better patient education relative to RM technology, with one option being to delegate more of this educational process to specially trained nurses.

Cardiac devices and cyber attacks: How far are they real? How to overcome?

Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) include bradycardia pacemakers, defibrillators, and cardiac resynchronization therapy devices. These devices are proven to save lives and improve quality of life in indicated patients. Recent advances in CIED technology allow interrogating and transmitting data stored in these devices wirelessly through radiofrequency or Bluetooth technology and more recently through smartphones.¹ Remote monitoring of CIED uses telemetry and IP connectivity to transmit data from devices to the cloud and eventually to hospitals/clinics monitoring them. There has been overwhelming evidence in support of remote monitoring of CIEDs, improving patient outcomes, survival, and hospitalization.² Therefore, guidelines recommend remote monitoring for all CIEDs.³ Remote monitoring allows frequent checks reducing clinic visits, improving efficiency of medical resources and timely intervention in patients with clinical events. Although internet of things (IOT) dependency is increasing, advantages of connectivity and data transfer come with a price of hacking, resulting in malfunction of computers, misuse of stolen data, or medical extortion. Therefore, cybersecurity has become a necessity in this digital world. Medical devices using net connectivity expose themselves to cyber attacks. Fortunately so far no hacking or cyber attack has been reported in patients with CIEDs, and most literature focuses on proof of concept and in-the-research laboratory scenarios. Although documented clinical events have not yet happened, the threat is real. It is essential to be well prepared for this potential but serious threat. It is imperative that device manufacturers, regulatory bodies, medical professionals, and patients all work together to prevent, identify, and mitigate cyber threat.

Heart failure units: State of the art in disease management

The prevalence of heart failure has increased over the past decades and is a major social and economic burden on healthcare services. Patient quality of life is severely impaired and heart failure is one of the main causes of death in Portugal. The functional organization of multidisciplinary teams engaged in the treatment of these patients is essential to improve health care provision and outcomes, specifically reducing mortality, hospital admissions, and improving quality of life. We describe current approaches to heart failure management and discuss the organization of heart failure units and cooperation among these units and also with other healthcare professionals.

Estimulación cardiaca tras pandemia de la COVID-19. Propuesta de desescalada de la Sección de Estimulación Cardiaca de la Sociedad Española de Cardiología

La pandemia de la enfermedad causada por el coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) ha afectado seriamente la atención a todas las patologías urgentes, y también el seguimiento de pacientes en tratamiento por enfermedades crónicas. Una vez superado el pico de la pandemia debemos reiniciar la atención a nuestros pacientes, en ocasiones con cambios sustanciales respecto del tipo de asistencia que prestábamos con anterioridad. Desde la Sección de Estimulación Cardiaca de la Sociedad Española de Cardiología proponemos un esquema de trabajo para garantizar una atención eficaz, y también segura para pacientes y profesionales. Las intervenciones quirúrgicas deberán realizarse tras realización de un test o la cumplimentación de un listado de verificación para determinar el riesgo del paciente de estar infectado por SARS-CoV-2. En cuanto al seguimiento posterior, apostamos firmemente por una organización centrada en un programa organizado de monitorización remota.

Virtual follow-up and care for patients with cardiac electronic implantable devices: protocol for a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Capacity to deliver outpatient care for patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) may soon be outweighed by need. This systematic review aims to investigate the comparative effectiveness, safety, and cost for virtual or remote clinic interventions for patients with CIEDs and explores how outcomes may be influenced by patient or system factors in-depth.

METHODS

We will perform a systematic literature search in MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Proquest Dissertations & Theses, other EBM Reviews, and trial registry databases. Two authors will independently screen titles and abstracts for eligibility. We will include randomized and non-randomized controlled trials, quasi-randomized and experimental studies, cohort, and case-control studies. Study populations of interest are individuals with a CIED (pacemaker, ICD, CRT). Eligibility will be restricted to virtual or remote follow-up or care interventions compared to any other approach. The co-primary outcomes of interest are mortality and patient satisfaction. Secondary outcomes include clinical effectiveness (e.g., ICD shock, time-to-detection of medical event, hospitalizations), safety (e.g., serious or device-related adverse events), device efficacy (e.g., transmissions, malfunctions), costs, workflow (e.g., resources, process outcomes, time-saved), and patient reported (e.g., burden, quality of life). Data will be extracted by one author and checked by a second using a standardized template. We will use published frameworks to capture data relevant to intervention effects that may be influenced by intervention definition or complexity, context and setting, or in socially disadvantaged populations. Detailed descriptive results will be presented for all included studies and outcomes, and where feasible, synthesized using meta-analysis. Risk of bias will be assessed by two review authors independently using Cochrane Risk of Bias tools. Certainty of evidence will be assessed using the GRADE approach.

DISCUSSION

Increases in number of CIEDs implanted, combined with an aging population and finite health resource allocations at the system-level may lead to increased reliance on virtual follow-up or care models in the future. These models must prioritize consistent, equitable, and timely care as a priority. Results from this systematic review will provide important insight into the potential contextual factors which moderate or mediate the effectiveness, safety, and cost of virtual follow-up or care models for patients.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO registration number CRD42020145210.

Patient and healthcare provider reported barriers and enablers to virtual or remote-only follow-up models for cardiovascular implantable electronic devices: protocol for a qualitative framework synthesis

BACKGROUND

Virtual care models are used to follow-up patients with cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIED), including pacemakers, implantable cardioverter defibrillators, and cardiac resynchronization therapy. There is increasing interest in the expansion of virtual, or even remote-only, CIED care models to alleviate resource and economic burden to both patients and specialty device clinics and to maintain or improve equity and access to high-quality cardiovascular care. This qualitative framework synthesis aims to identify barriers and enablers to virtual care models from both the perspective of the patient and device clinics. How setting, context, equity factors or other aspects influence these factors, or satisfaction with care, will also be investigated.

METHODS

We will perform a systematic literature search in MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Proquest Dissertations & Theses, other EBM Reviews, and trial registry databases. Screening will be completed by two independent review authors. Original research articles having a qualitative component (i.e., qualitative, mixed-, or multi-method) are eligible. Study populations of interest are (a) individuals with a CIED or (b) healthcare providers involved in any aspect of virtual or remote follow-up of patients with CIEDs. Eligibility will be restricted to studies published after January 1, 2000 in English or French. Data will be captured using standardized templates based on the domains and constructs of the Theoretical Domains Framework and the Warwick Patient Experiences Framework. The Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for Qualitative Research will be applied to all included studies. The GRADE-CERQual approach will be applied to assess and summarize confidence in key findings. Reporting will follow the enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research (ENTREQ) statement. Detailed descriptive results will be presented, and summary of qualitative findings tables will be produced.

DISCUSSION

While a number of trials have captured the clinical effectiveness and safety of virtual follow-up for CIEDs, there has been less attention given to factors affecting use and implementation of remote care by patients and healthcare providers or satisfaction with care. Results from this qualitative framework synthesis will provide important lived experience data from both patients and healthcare providers which will be essential to incorporate in clinical guidelines.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42020160533.

Guidance for Rebooting Electrophysiology Through the COVID-19 Pandemic From the Heart Rhythm Society and the American Heart Association Electrocardiography and Arrhythmias Committee of the Council on Clinical Cardiology

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has presented substantial challenges to patient care and impacted healthcare delivery, including cardiac electrophysiology practice throughout the globe. Based upon the undetermined course and regional variability of the pandemic, there is uncertainty as to how and when to resume and deliver electrophysiology services for patients with arrhythmia. This joint document from representatives of the Heart Rhythm Society, American Heart Association, and American College of Cardiology seeks to provide guidance for clinicians and institutions reestablishing safe electrophysiological care. To achieve this aim, we address regional and local COVID-19 disease status, the role of viral screening and serological testing, return-to-work considerations for exposed or infected health care workers, risk stratification and management strategies based on COVID-19 disease burden, institutional preparedness for resumption of elective procedures, patient preparation and communication, prioritization of procedures, and development of outpatient and periprocedural care pathways.

Guidance for rebooting electrophysiology through the COVID-19 pandemic from the Heart Rhythm Society and the American Heart Association Electrocardiography and Arrhythmias Committee of the Council on Clinical Cardiology: Endorsed by the American College of Cardiology

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has presented substantial challenges to patient care and impacted health care delivery, including cardiac electrophysiology practice throughout the globe. Based upon the undetermined course and regional variability of the pandemic, there is uncertainty as to how and when to resume and deliver electrophysiology services for arrhythmia patients. This joint document from representatives of the Heart Rhythm Society, American Heart Association, and American College of Cardiology seeks to provide guidance for clinicians and institutions reestablishing safe electrophysiological care. To achieve this aim, we address regional and local COVID-19 disease status, the role of viral screening and serologic testing, return-to-work considerations for exposed or infected health care workers, risk stratification and management strategies based on COVID-19 disease burden, institutional preparedness for resumption of elective procedures, patient preparation and communication, prioritization of procedures, and development of outpatient and periprocedural care pathways.

Chest Pain Resolution with His-bundle Pacing in a Patient with Left Bundle Branch Block-related Nonischemic Left Ventricular Dysfunction

Chest pain in patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB) and normal coronaries has been reported previously in the literature. Prior cases of intermittent LBBB and "chest pain syndrome" are known of, but the causes of and treatment options for such remain unclear. A mechanism of myocardial dyssynchrony has been proposed as a possible cause of the pain, but this has not yet widely been investigated. The application of His-bundle pacing techniques to promote normal activation of the conduction system may be a treatment option. The function of cardiac implantable electronic devices can be followed via remote monitoring (RM), a vital tool in this unique patient population. The present report introduces the case of a 51-year-old female to highlight this under-recognized syndrome, including the pacing technologies used for treatment and the crucial role of RM follow-up in such affected individuals.

Guidance for Cardiac Electrophysiology During the COVID-19 Pandemic from the Heart Rhythm Society COVID-19 Task Force; Electrophysiology Section of the American College of Cardiology; and the Electrocardiography and Arrhythmias Committee of the Council on Clinical Cardiology, American Heart Association

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a global pandemic that is wreaking havoc on the health and economy of much of human civilization. Electrophysiologists have been impacted personally and professionally by this global catastrophe. In this joint article from representatives of the Heart Rhythm Society, the American College of Cardiology, and the American Heart Association, we identify the potential risks of exposure to patients, allied healthcare staff, industry representatives, and hospital administrators. We also describe the impact of COVID-19 on cardiac arrhythmias and methods of triage based on acuity and patient comorbidities. We provide guidance for managing invasive and noninvasive electrophysiology procedures, clinic visits, and cardiac device interrogations. In addition, we discuss resource conservation and the role of telemedicine in remote patient care along with management strategies for affected patients.

The COVID-19 challenge to cardiac electrophysiologists: optimizing resources at a referral center

Purpose

To describe how a referral center for cardiac electrophysiology (EP) rapidly changed to comply with the ongoing COVID-19 healthcare emergency.

Methods

We present retrospective data about the modification of daily activities at our EP unit, following the pandemic outbreak of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in Italy. In particular, in the context of a pre-existing “hub-and-spoke” network, we describe how procedure types and volumes have changed in the last 3 months.

Results

Since our institution was selected as a COVID-19 referral center, the entire in-hospital activity was reorganized to assist more than 1000 COVID-positive cases. Only urgent EP procedures, including ventricular tachycardia ablation and extraction of infected devices, were both maintained and optimized to meet the needs of external hospitals. In addition, most of the non-urgent EP procedures were postponed. Finally, following prompt internal reorganization, both outpatient clinics and on-call services underwent significant modification, by integrating telemedicine support whenever applicable.

Conclusion

We presented the fast reorganization of an EP referral center during the ongoing COVID-19 healthcare emergency. Our hub-and-spoke model may be useful for other centers, aiming at a cost-effective management of resources in the context of a global crisis.

Involving patients as key stakeholders in the design of cardiovascular implantable electronic device data dashboards: Implications for patient care

Background

Data from remote monitoring (RM) of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) currently are not accessible to patients despite demand. The typical RM report contains multiple pages of data for trained technicians to read and interpret and requires a patient-centered approach to be curated to meet individual user needs.

Objective

The purpose of this study was to understand which RM data elements are important to patients and to gain design insights for displaying meaningful data in a digital dashboard.

Methods

Adults with implantable cardioverter–defibrillators (ICDs) and pacemakers (PMs) participated in this 2-phase, user-centered design study. Phase 1 included a card-sorting activity to prioritize device data elements. Phase 2 included one-on-one design sessions to gather insights and feedback about a visual display (labels and icons).

Results

Twenty-nine adults (mean age 71.8 ± 11.6 years; 51.7% female; 89.7% white) participated. Priority data elements for both ICD and PM groups in phase 1 (n = 19) were related to cardiac episodes, device activity, and impedance values. Recommended replacement time for battery was high priority for the PM group but not the ICD group. Phase 2 (n = 10) revealed that patients would like descriptive, nontechnical terms to depict the data and icons that are intuitive and informative.

Conclusion

This user-centered design study demonstrated that patients with ICDs and PMs were able to prioritize specific data from a comprehensive list of data elements that they had never seen before. This work contributes to the goal of sharing RM data with patients in a way that optimizes the RM feature of CIEDs for improving patient outcomes and clinical care.

Use of virtual visits for the care of the arrhythmia patient

BACKGROUND

Virtual visits (VVs) are a modality for delivering health care services remotely through videoconferencing tools. Data about patient and physician experience in using VVs are limited.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to assess patient and physician experience with the use of VVs in cardiac electrophysiology.

METHODS

We performed a prospective survey of cardiac electrophysiology patients and physicians who participated in an outpatient VV from December 2018 to July 2019.

RESULTS

One-hundred consecutive VVs were included. Sixty-four patients elected to complete a survey. Patients rated their experience as either excellent/very good in scheduling a VV (87%), seeing their physician of choice (100%), transmitting arrhythmia data (88%), rating their physician's ability to communicate (98%), asking all questions (98%), rating the level of care received (98%), paying for the cost of a VV (67%), and rating their overall level of satisfaction (98%). Thirty-eight of 64 patients (59.4%) preferred a VV for their next visit, 12 of 64 (18.8%) preferred an in-office visit, 13 of 64 (20.3%) responded that their decision for a virtual or office visit depended on indication, and 1 of 64 (1.6%) had no preference. A total of 14 cardiac electrophysiologists participated in 100 VVs. Nine visits were not included due to technical difficulty. Physician responses to survey questions were rated as excellent/very good in the ability to communicate (92%), accessing monitoring data (95%), and overall level of satisfaction (98%).

CONCLUSION

In our small study population, most patients and physicians prefer VVs. Convenience, cost, and reason for follow-up were important determinants that affected both patient and physician preference.

Cardiac implantable electronic device remote monitoring in a large cohort of patients and the need for planning

Aim: The remote monitoring (RM) of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) is standard of care. We describe an organizational and projection RM workload model. Methods: At the time of the analysis (2015), 3995 CIED patients were followed-up; 1582 (40.5%) with RM. All RM transmissions (Tx) have been gathered in five event types. Results: We received 10,406 Tx, classified as: 128 (1.2%) red alerts, 141 (1.3%) atrial fibrillation episodes, 1944 (18.6%) yellow alerts, 403 (3.9%) lost Tx (disconnected/noncompliant patients) and 7790 (75.0%) Tx 'OK' (un-eventful Tx). At the time of 100% of remote CIED managed, we can expect a total of 25,990 Tx/year. Conclusion: We provide a descriptive analysis of remote monitoring management and workload estimation in a large cohort of CIED patients.

Remote Management of Pacemaker Patients With Biennial In-Clinic Evaluation: Continuous Home Monitoring in the Japanese At-Home Study: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

Background:

Current expert consensus recommends remote monitoring for cardiac implantable electronic devices, with at least annual in-office follow-up. We studied safety and resource consumption of exclusive remote follow-up (RFU) in pacemaker patients for 2 years.

Methods:

In Japan, consecutive pacemaker patients committed to remote monitoring were randomized to either RFU or conventional in-office follow-up (conventional follow-up) at twice yearly intervals. RFU patients were only seen if indicated by remote monitoring. All returned to hospital after 2 years. The primary end point was a composite of death, stroke, or cardiovascular events requiring surgery, and the primary hypothesis was noninferiority with 5% margin.

Results:

Of 1274 randomized patients (50.4% female, age 77±10 years), 558 (RFU) and 550 (Conventional follow-up) patients reached either the primary end point or 24 months follow-up. The primary end point occurred in 10.9% and 11.8%, respectively (P=0.0012 for noninferiority). The median (interquartile range) number of in-office follow-ups was 0.50 (0.50–0.63) in RFU and 2.01 (1.93–2.05) in conventional follow-up per patient-year (P<0.001). Insurance claims for follow-ups and directly related diagnostic procedures were 18 800 Yen (16 500–20 700 Yen) in RFU and 21 400 Yen (16 700–25 900 Yen) in conventional follow-up (P<0.001). Only 1.4% of remote follow-ups triggered an unscheduled in-office follow-up, and only 1.5% of scheduled in-office follow-ups were considered actionable.

Conclusions:

Replacing periodic in-office follow-ups with remote follow-ups for 2 years in pacemaker patients committed to remote monitoring does not increase the occurrence of major cardiovascular events and reduces resource consumption.

Registration:

URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01523704.

Patient satisfaction with remote monitoring of cardiac implantable electronic devices: the VALIOSA questionnaire

BACKGROUND

Remote monitoring of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) has demonstrated substantial benefits. Treatment guidelines have therefore endorsed its use and is being increasingly adopted in the clinical setting, but the level of satisfaction they convey remains still unknown. We developed and validated a questionnaire to measure patient satisfaction with remote monitoring using Medtronic CareLink® Network and assessed its internal reliability and dimensional validity.

METHODS

After a thorough literature review, cognitive debriefing of 18 patients, and an expert panel discussion, a 30-item instrument was proposed and grouped into 5 dimensions (items): 1- Information on cardiac condition (3), 2- Device convenience (3), 3- Transmission process (6), 4- Satisfaction with medical monitoring (8), and 5- General opinions (10). Correlation with the visual analog scale (VAS), overall health related quality of life (HRQoL) measured by the EuroQoL-5D accompanied by the VAS as well as with the Medical Outcomes Study (MOS) SF-36 were assessed. Psychometric properties, exploratory factor analysis and a second order confirmatory factor analysis (a hierarchical CFA with a general common factor explaining the relations between the first order common factors, See Figure 1) were estimated. Models were assessed based on item loading size, sign and statistical significance, and goodness-of-fit statistics.

RESULTS

A total of 186 patients (77% male) with a mean age of 66.03 (SD = 13.94) years were assessed. 48% had implantable cardioverter-defibrillators, 24% had pacemakers, and 29% had cardiac resynchronization therapy devices. An overall Cronbach's α = 0.893 was achieved, with acceptable reliabilities for isolated dimensions. Correlations with corresponding VAS scales were meaningful and significant (p < 0.01). The second order factor solution yielded good goodness-of-fit indexes (χ²/df = 1.44, CFI = 0.96, TLI = 0.95, RMSEA = 0.05). Satisfaction with remote monitoring was not related to HRQoL (r < 0.05), except for the correlation between the SF-36 mental component and the information on cardiac condition dimension (r = 0.263, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The 30-item questionnaire showed good reliability and validity to assess satisfaction with remote monitoring in patients with CIEDs.

Remote Supervision to Decrease Hospitalization Rate (RESULT) study in patients with implanted cardioverter-defibrillator

Aims

The number of patients with heart failure (HF) and implantable cardiac electronic devices has been growing steadily. Remote monitoring care (RC) of cardiac implantable electronic devices can facilitate patient-healthcare clinical interactions and prompt preventive activities to improve HF outcomes. However, studies that have investigated the efficacy of remote monitoring have shown mixed findings, with better results for the system including daily verification of transmission. The purpose of the RESULT study was to analyse the impact of remote monitoring on clinical outcomes in HF patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillator [ICD/cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillator (CRT-D)] in real-life conditions.

Methods and results

The RESULT is a prospective, single-centre, randomized trial. Patients with HF and de novo ICD or CRT-D implantation were randomized to undergo RC vs. in-office follow-ups (SC, standard care). The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause death and hospitalization due to cardiovascular reasons within 12 months after randomization. We randomly assigned 600 eligible patients (299 in RC vs. 301 in SC). Baseline clinical and echocardiographic characteristics were well-balanced and similar in both arms. The incidence of the primary endpoint differed significantly between RC and SC and involved 39.5% and 48.5% of patients, respectively, (P = 0.048) within the 12-month follow-up. The rate of all-cause mortality was similar between the studied groups (6% vs. 6%, P = 0.9), whereas hospitalization rate due to cardiovascular reasons was higher in SC (37.1% vs. 45.5%, P = 0.045).

Conclusion

Remote monitoring of HF patients with implanted ICD or CRT-D significantly reduced the primary endpoint rate, mostly as a result of a lower hospitalization rate in the RC arm (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02409225).

Prospective evaluation of the multisensor HeartLogic algorithm for heart failure monitoring

Background

The HeartLogic algorithm measures data from multiple implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator‐based sensors and combines them into a single index. The associated alert has proved to be a sensitive and timely predictor of impending heart failure (HF) decompensation.

Hypothesis

We describe a multicenter experience of remote HF management by means of HeartLogic and appraise the value of an alert‐based follow‐up strategy.

Methods

The alert was activated in 104 patients. All patients were followed up according to a standardized protocol that included remote data reviews and patient phone contacts every month and at the time of alerts. In‐office examinations were performed every 6 months or when deemed necessary.

Results

During a median follow‐up of 13 (10–16) months, the overall number of HF hospitalizations was 16 (rate 0.15 hospitalizations/patient‐year) and 100 alerts were reported in 53 patients. Sixty alerts were judged clinically meaningful, and were associated with multiple HF‐related conditions. In 48 of the 60 alerts, the clinician was not previously aware of the condition. Of these 48 alerts, 43 triggered clinical actions. The rate of alerts judged nonclinically meaningful was 0.37/patient‐year, and the rate of hospitalizations not associated with an alert was 0.05/patient‐year. Centers performed remote follow‐up assessments of 1113 scheduled monthly transmissions (10.3/patient‐year) and 100 alerts (0.93/patient‐year). Monthly remote data review allowed to detect 11 (1%) HF events requiring clinical actions (vs 43% actionable alerts, P < .001).

Conclusions

HeartLogic allowed relevant HF‐related clinical conditions to be identified remotely and enabled effective clinical actions to be taken; the rates of unexplained alerts and undetected HF events were low. An alert‐based management strategy seemed more efficient than a scheduled monthly remote follow‐up scheme.

Expert opinion on continuous rhythm monitoring of patients with atrial fibrillation for candidates or patients who have already undergone ablation

BACKGROUND

Continuous monitoring by implantable loop recorder (ILR) can provide information relevant to rhythm control and oral anticoagulation (OAC) after atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation, but there is little agreement on patients' selection and appropriate management strategy.

METHODS

An expert panel (EP) made up of eight Italian electrophysiologists with expertise in AF ablation, gathered to define an algorithm to guide continuous rhythm monitoring in AF patients who have undergone ablation. The process included a review of the current literature and two EP face-to-face meetings. Between the two meetings, an on-line survey was sent to 50 Italian electrophysiologists practicing AF ablation. Agreement level was considered reached when ≥70% of respondents agreed or were neutral.

RESULTS

Two algorithms were developed to define patients for whom the ILR would be suggested support for (OAC) therapy discontinuation and rhythm management after AF ablation. Thirty-three out of 50 physicians responded to on-line survey (66% response rate). Together with EP members the responders accounted for electrophysiology centers performing about 50% of total yearly Italian AF ablation procedures. Agreement level was reached at the first survey round on all the questions, so the algorithms were not further modified and re-tested.

CONCLUSIONS

EP developed two algorithms for ECG monitoring to guide OAC therapy discontinuation and rhythm management after AF ablation. These suggestions, validated by wide feedback and consensus of physicians performing AF ablations, might support the decision on the choice and the use of ECG monitoring techniques, based on specific patient characteristics.

The Use of App-based Follow-up of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices

There has been a steady rise in the number of patients treated with cardiac implantable electrical devices. Remote monitoring and remote follow-up have proven superior to conventional care in the follow-up of these patients and represent the new standard of care. With the widespread availability of smartphones and with more people using them for health queries, app-based remote care offers a promising new digital health solution promoting the shift of follow-up to exception-based assessments. It focuses on patients’ enablement and has shown promising results, but also highlights the need to increase the system’s automaticity to achieve acceptable follow-up adherence rates. MyCareLink Heart is a fully automated app-based system that represents the next generation of app-based monitoring and is currently being evaluated in an international study with promising initial results.