Cargando…

Superiority of automatic remote monitoring compared with in-person evaluation for scheduled ICD follow-up in the TRUST trial - testing execution of the recommendations

AIMS: To test recommended implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) follow-up methods by ‘in-person evaluations’ (IPE) vs. ‘remote Home Monitoring’ (HM). METHODS AND RESULTS: ICD patients were randomized 2:1 to automatic HM or to Conventional monitoring, with follow-up checks scheduled at 3, 6, 9...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Varma, Niraj, Michalski, Justin, Stambler, Bruce, Pavri, Behzad B.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4028610/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24595864
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehu066
_version_ 1782317092564893696
author Varma, Niraj
Michalski, Justin
Stambler, Bruce
Pavri, Behzad B.
author_facet Varma, Niraj
Michalski, Justin
Stambler, Bruce
Pavri, Behzad B.
author_sort Varma, Niraj
collection PubMed
description AIMS: To test recommended implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) follow-up methods by ‘in-person evaluations’ (IPE) vs. ‘remote Home Monitoring’ (HM). METHODS AND RESULTS: ICD patients were randomized 2:1 to automatic HM or to Conventional monitoring, with follow-up checks scheduled at 3, 6, 9, 12, and 15 months post-implant. Conventional patients were evaluated with IPE only. Home Monitoring patients were assessed remotely only for 1 year between 3 and 15 month evaluations. Adherence to follow-up was measured. HM and Conventional patients were similar (age 63 years, 72% male, left ventricular ejection fraction 29%, primary prevention 73%, DDD 57%). Conventional management suffered greater patient attrition during the trial (20.1 vs. 14.2% in HM, P = 0.007). Three month follow-up occurred in 84% in both groups. There was 100% adherence (5 of 5 checks) in 47.3% Conventional vs. 59.7% HM (P < 0.001). Between 3 and 15 months, HM exhibited superior (2.2×) adherence to scheduled follow-up [incidence of failed follow up was 146 of 2421 (6.0%) in HM vs. 145 of 1098 (13.2%) in Conventional, P < 0.001] and punctuality. In HM (daily transmission success rate median 91%), transmission loss caused only 22 of 2275 (0.97%) failed HM evaluations between 3 and 15 months; others resulted from clinic oversight. Overall IPE failure rate in Conventional [193 of 1841 (10.5%) exceeded that in HM [97 of 1484 (6.5%), P < 0.001] by 62%, i.e. HM patients remained more loyal to IPE when this was mandated. CONCLUSION: Automatic remote monitoring better preserves patient retention and adherence to scheduled follow-up compared with IPE. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT00336284.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4028610
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher Oxford University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-40286102014-05-21 Superiority of automatic remote monitoring compared with in-person evaluation for scheduled ICD follow-up in the TRUST trial - testing execution of the recommendations Varma, Niraj Michalski, Justin Stambler, Bruce Pavri, Behzad B. Eur Heart J Clinical Research AIMS: To test recommended implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) follow-up methods by ‘in-person evaluations’ (IPE) vs. ‘remote Home Monitoring’ (HM). METHODS AND RESULTS: ICD patients were randomized 2:1 to automatic HM or to Conventional monitoring, with follow-up checks scheduled at 3, 6, 9, 12, and 15 months post-implant. Conventional patients were evaluated with IPE only. Home Monitoring patients were assessed remotely only for 1 year between 3 and 15 month evaluations. Adherence to follow-up was measured. HM and Conventional patients were similar (age 63 years, 72% male, left ventricular ejection fraction 29%, primary prevention 73%, DDD 57%). Conventional management suffered greater patient attrition during the trial (20.1 vs. 14.2% in HM, P = 0.007). Three month follow-up occurred in 84% in both groups. There was 100% adherence (5 of 5 checks) in 47.3% Conventional vs. 59.7% HM (P < 0.001). Between 3 and 15 months, HM exhibited superior (2.2×) adherence to scheduled follow-up [incidence of failed follow up was 146 of 2421 (6.0%) in HM vs. 145 of 1098 (13.2%) in Conventional, P < 0.001] and punctuality. In HM (daily transmission success rate median 91%), transmission loss caused only 22 of 2275 (0.97%) failed HM evaluations between 3 and 15 months; others resulted from clinic oversight. Overall IPE failure rate in Conventional [193 of 1841 (10.5%) exceeded that in HM [97 of 1484 (6.5%), P < 0.001] by 62%, i.e. HM patients remained more loyal to IPE when this was mandated. CONCLUSION: Automatic remote monitoring better preserves patient retention and adherence to scheduled follow-up compared with IPE. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT00336284. Oxford University Press 2014-05-21 2014-03-03 /pmc/articles/PMC4028610/ /pubmed/24595864 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehu066 Text en © The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com
spellingShingle Clinical Research
Varma, Niraj
Michalski, Justin
Stambler, Bruce
Pavri, Behzad B.
Superiority of automatic remote monitoring compared with in-person evaluation for scheduled ICD follow-up in the TRUST trial - testing execution of the recommendations
title Superiority of automatic remote monitoring compared with in-person evaluation for scheduled ICD follow-up in the TRUST trial - testing execution of the recommendations
title_full Superiority of automatic remote monitoring compared with in-person evaluation for scheduled ICD follow-up in the TRUST trial - testing execution of the recommendations
title_fullStr Superiority of automatic remote monitoring compared with in-person evaluation for scheduled ICD follow-up in the TRUST trial - testing execution of the recommendations
title_full_unstemmed Superiority of automatic remote monitoring compared with in-person evaluation for scheduled ICD follow-up in the TRUST trial - testing execution of the recommendations
title_short Superiority of automatic remote monitoring compared with in-person evaluation for scheduled ICD follow-up in the TRUST trial - testing execution of the recommendations
title_sort superiority of automatic remote monitoring compared with in-person evaluation for scheduled icd follow-up in the trust trial - testing execution of the recommendations
topic Clinical Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4028610/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24595864
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehu066
work_keys_str_mv AT varmaniraj superiorityofautomaticremotemonitoringcomparedwithinpersonevaluationforscheduledicdfollowupinthetrusttrialtestingexecutionoftherecommendations
AT michalskijustin superiorityofautomaticremotemonitoringcomparedwithinpersonevaluationforscheduledicdfollowupinthetrusttrialtestingexecutionoftherecommendations
AT stamblerbruce superiorityofautomaticremotemonitoringcomparedwithinpersonevaluationforscheduledicdfollowupinthetrusttrialtestingexecutionoftherecommendations
AT pavribehzadb superiorityofautomaticremotemonitoringcomparedwithinpersonevaluationforscheduledicdfollowupinthetrusttrialtestingexecutionoftherecommendations
AT superiorityofautomaticremotemonitoringcomparedwithinpersonevaluationforscheduledicdfollowupinthetrusttrialtestingexecutionoftherecommendations