Home monitoring after ambulatory implanted primary cardiac implantable electronic devices: The home ambulance pilot study. Issue 11 (21st August 2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Parahuleva, Mariana S.; Soydan, Nedim; Divchev, Dimitar; Lüsebrink, Ulrich; Schieffer, Bernhard; Erdogan, Ali
• Is Part Of: Clinical cardiology. Volume 40:Issue 11(2017)
• Page Start: 1068
• Page End: 1075
• Publication Date: 2017-08-21
• Subjects: Adverse Events -- Ambulatory Device Implantation -- Home Monitoring -- Telemedicine; Cardiology -- Periodicals; 616.12005
• DOI: 10.1002/clc.22772
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0160-9289

Abstract

Abstract : Background: The Home Monitoring (HM) system of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) permits early detection of arrhythmias or device system failures. The aim of this pilot study was to examine how the safety and efficacy of the HM system in patients after ambulatory implanted primary CIEDs compare to patients with a standard procedure and hospitalization. Hypothesis: We hypothesized that HM and their modifications would be a useful extension of the present concepts for ambulatory implanted CIEDs. Methods: This retrospective analysis evaluates telemetric data obtained from 364 patients in an ambulatory single center over 6 years. Patients were assigned to an active group (n = 217), consisting of those who were discharged early on the day of implantation of the primary CIED, or to a control group (n = 147), consisting of those discharged and followed up with the HM system according to usual medical practices. Results: The mean duration of hospitalization was 73.2% shorter in the active group than in the control group, corresponding to 20.5 ± 13 fewer hours (95% confidence interval [CI]: 6.3‐29.5; P < 0.01) spent in the hospital (7.5 ± 1.5 vs 28 ± 4.5 h). This shorter mean hospital stay was attributable to a 78.8% shorter postoperative period in the active group. The proportion of patients with treatment‐related adverse events was 11% (n = 23) in the active group and 17% (n = 25) in the control group (95% CI: 5.5‐8.3; P = 0.061). This 6% absolute risk reduction (95% CI: 3.3‐9.1; P = 0.789) confirmed the noninferiority of the ambulatory implanted CIED when compared with standard management of these patients. Conclusions: Early discharge with the HM system after ambulatory CIED implantation was safe and not inferior to the classic medical procedure. Thus, together with lower costs, HM and its modifications would be a useful extension of the present concepts for ambulatory implanted CIEDs.