Performance of a remote interrogation system for the in-hospital evaluation of cardiac implantable electronic devices

2023 HRS/EHRA/APHRS/LAHRS expert consensus statement on practical management of the remote device clinic

Remote monitoring is beneficial for the management of patients with cardiovascular implantable electronic devices by impacting morbidity and mortality. With increasing numbers of patients using remote monitoring, keeping up with higher volume of remote monitoring transmissions creates challenges for device clinic staff. This international multidisciplinary document is intended to guide cardiac electrophysiologists, allied professionals, and hospital administrators in managing remote monitoring clinics. This includes guidance for remote monitoring clinic staffing, appropriate clinic workflows, patient education, and alert management. This expert consensus statement also addresses other topics such as communication of transmission results, use of third-party resources, manufacturer responsibilities, and programming concerns. The goal is to provide evidence-based recommendations impacting all aspects of remote monitoring services. Gaps in current knowledge and guidance for future research directions are also identified.

2023 HRS/EHRA/APHRS/LAHRS Expert Consensus Statement on Practical Management of the Remote Device Clinic

Remote monitoring is beneficial for the management of patients with cardiovascular implantable electronic devices by impacting morbidity and mortality. With increasing numbers of patients using remote monitoring, keeping up with higher volume of remote monitoring transmissions creates challenges for device clinic staff. This international multidisciplinary document is intended to guide cardiac electrophysiologists, allied professionals, and hospital administrators in managing remote monitoring clinics. This includes guidance for remote monitoring clinic staffing, appropriate clinic workflows, patient education, and alert management. This expert consensus statement also addresses other topics such as communication of transmission results, use of third-party resources, manufacturer responsibilities, and programming concerns. The goal is to provide evidence-based recommendations impacting all aspects of remote monitoring services. Gaps in current knowledge and guidance for future research directions are also identified.

Should We Check It? Assessing Interrogation of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices in the Emergency Department-The CHECK-ED Study: Implications for Service Planning and Care Delivery

BACKGROUND

Requests from the emergency department (ED) for cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) checks constitute a large workload for cardiac electrophysiology services. We sought to determine the yield of, and clinical characteristics associated with, clinically relevant (remarkable) issues from ED CIED checks.

METHODS

Consecutive CIED checks from our ED over a 12-month period were studied. A remarkable issue (RI) was defined as arrhythmia relating to the presentation or device/lead issue requiring reprogramming or intervention. The association between the presenting complaint and an RI was assessed using regression analysis. Multivariable regression model was used to identify pre-specified patient-level characteristics that were predictive of a RI.

RESULTS

A RI was found in 28% (n=98) of 354 ED CIED checks for 306 patients (76±16 yrs 59% male). Most patients had no RI (n=224 73%). One third of checks occurred after-hours and these had a higher yield of RIs than those during routine clinic hours (35% vs 23% p=0.018). Presenting with a perceived ICD shock was predictive of a RI (odds ratio [OR] 6.0 95% CI=1.8-20.0). Syncope/presyncope was five-fold less likely to be predictive of a RI (OR 0.19 95% CI=0.13-0.28) despite being the most common indication for CIED check (51% n=180 checks). Only history of AF was predictive of RI while advancing age was predictive of not finding a RI.

CONCLUSION

Almost three-quarters of ED CIED checks did not yield any RI. Patient-reported ICD shock and history of AF were predictive of RI, while syncope/presyncope was not. New models of care especially during after-hours, may help to reduce the burden on cardiac electrophysiology services and health care costs.

Assessing the safety of interrogating cardiac-implantable electronic devices with brand-mismatched remote interrogators: a pilot study

Objective

Remote cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) interrogators, originally developed for home use, have been proven to be efficacious in clinical settings, especially emergency departments. Concern exists that attempting to interrogate a CIED with the remote interrogator of a different brand, i.e., a brand-mismatched interrogator, may cause device malfunction. The aim of this study was to determine if intentionally attempting to interrogate a CIED with a brand-mismatched remote interrogator resulted in device malfunction.

Methods

A total of 75 ex vivo CIEDs manufactured by various companies underwent attempted interrogation by a brand-mismatched remote interrogator. CIED settings were compared before and after attempted mismatch interrogation. A total of 30 in vivo CIEDs were then randomized for an attempted 2-minute mismatched remote interrogation by one of the two possible mismatched remote interrogators. CIED settings were compared before and after attempted mismatch interrogation.

Results

Of 150 ex vivo brand-mismatched interrogations, no device setting changes or malfunctions occurred; no remote interrogators connected to a mismatched CIED, and no devices were turned off. In the 30 patients undergoing brand-mismatched interrogations, the mean (standard deviation) age was 71.6 ( ± 14.7) years, 16 (53%) were male, with 24 pacemakers (80%), four pacemaker/implantable cardioverter defibrillators (13%), and two implantable cardioverter defibrillators (7%). Of the 30 mismatched interrogations performed, no device setting changes or malfunctions occurred; no remote interrogators connected to a mismatched CIED, and no devices turned off.

Conclusion

In a total 180 attempted brand-mismatched CIED interrogations, no CIED malfunctions occurred. This suggests that the use of remote CIED interrogators when device manufacturer is unknown is unlikely to result in adverse CIED-related events.

Smartphone-Based Electrocardiographic and Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Monitoring

The field of arrhythmia monitoring is changing rapidly. The rapid advent of technology in combination with marked improvements in cellular communication and an increased desire by patients to be actively engaged in their care has ushered in a new era of clinical care. Today, physicians need to think about their patients outside the traditional in-office setting. Two technologies that embody this changing landscape are smartphone-based electrocardiographic (ECG) monitors and remote monitoring of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). Smartphone-based ECG monitors allow the patient to assume a greater stake in their own care. They purchase the monitor, couple it to their smartphone, own it forever, and can capture a representative ECG whenever they want to assess symptoms. The physician needs to accept that this approach is vastly different from the use of standard ambulatory external ECG monitors that have been used for years in clinical practice. A similar paradigm shift is underway with respect to the care of the CIED patient. Remote follow-up was once considered an acceptable alternative to in-office calendar-based follow-up of CIEDs. Today, guidelines recommend remote monitoring to be the preferred method for device follow-up. Remote monitoring is tailor-made for the current evolution to a value-based healthcare system, having been demonstrated to reduce scheduled office visits, hospital admissions, and mortality. It is now time to educate patients and physicians on the value of remote monitoring and to ensure that clinical practices develop the infrastructure needed to enroll, monitor, and manage their patients.