Cargando…

The INFluence of Remote monitoring on Anxiety/depRession, quality of lifE, and Device acceptance in ICD patients: a prospective, randomized, controlled, single-center trial

BACKGROUND: Impact of telemedicine with remote patient monitoring (RPM) in implantable cardioverter–defibrillator (ICD) patients on clinical outcomes has been investigated in various clinical settings with divergent results. However, role of RPM on patient-reported-outcomes (PRO) is unclear. The INF...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Leppert, Florian, Siebermair, Johannes, Wesemann, Ulrich, Martens, Eimo, Sattler, Stefan M., Scholz, Stefan, Veith, Stefan, Greiner, Wolfgang, Rassaf, Tienush, Kääb, Stefan, Wakili, Reza
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8166667/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32417952
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00392-020-01667-0
_version_ 1783701542791020544
author Leppert, Florian
Siebermair, Johannes
Wesemann, Ulrich
Martens, Eimo
Sattler, Stefan M.
Scholz, Stefan
Veith, Stefan
Greiner, Wolfgang
Rassaf, Tienush
Kääb, Stefan
Wakili, Reza
author_facet Leppert, Florian
Siebermair, Johannes
Wesemann, Ulrich
Martens, Eimo
Sattler, Stefan M.
Scholz, Stefan
Veith, Stefan
Greiner, Wolfgang
Rassaf, Tienush
Kääb, Stefan
Wakili, Reza
author_sort Leppert, Florian
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Impact of telemedicine with remote patient monitoring (RPM) in implantable cardioverter–defibrillator (ICD) patients on clinical outcomes has been investigated in various clinical settings with divergent results. However, role of RPM on patient-reported-outcomes (PRO) is unclear. The INFRARED-ICD trial aimed to investigate the effect of RPM in addition to standard-of-care on PRO in a mixed ICD patient cohort. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients were randomized to RPM (n = 92) or standard in-office-FU (n = 88) serving as control group (CTL). At baseline and on a monthly basis over 1 year, study participants completed the EQ-5D questionnaire for the primary outcome Quality of Life (QoL), the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, and the Florida Patient Acceptance Survey questionnaire for secondary outcomes. Demographic characteristics (82% men, mean age 62.3 years) and PRO at baseline were not different between RPM and CTL. Primary outcome analysis showed that additional RPM was not superior to CTL with respect to QoL over 12 months [+ 1.2 vs. + 3.9 points in CTL and RPM group, respectively (p = 0.24)]. Pre-specified analyses could not identify subgroups with improved QoL by the use of RPM. Neither levels of anxiety (− 0.4 vs. − 0.3, p = 0.88), depression (+ 0.3 vs. ± 0.0, p = 0.38), nor device acceptance (+ 1.1 vs. + 1.6, p = 0.20) were influenced by additional use of RPM. CONCLUSION: The results of the present study show that PRO were not improved by RPM in addition to standard-of-care FU. Careful evaluation and planning of future trials in selected ICD patients are warranted before implementing RPM in routine practice. GRAPHIC ABSTRACT: [Image: see text] ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s00392-020-01667-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8166667
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-81666672021-06-03 The INFluence of Remote monitoring on Anxiety/depRession, quality of lifE, and Device acceptance in ICD patients: a prospective, randomized, controlled, single-center trial Leppert, Florian Siebermair, Johannes Wesemann, Ulrich Martens, Eimo Sattler, Stefan M. Scholz, Stefan Veith, Stefan Greiner, Wolfgang Rassaf, Tienush Kääb, Stefan Wakili, Reza Clin Res Cardiol Original Paper BACKGROUND: Impact of telemedicine with remote patient monitoring (RPM) in implantable cardioverter–defibrillator (ICD) patients on clinical outcomes has been investigated in various clinical settings with divergent results. However, role of RPM on patient-reported-outcomes (PRO) is unclear. The INFRARED-ICD trial aimed to investigate the effect of RPM in addition to standard-of-care on PRO in a mixed ICD patient cohort. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients were randomized to RPM (n = 92) or standard in-office-FU (n = 88) serving as control group (CTL). At baseline and on a monthly basis over 1 year, study participants completed the EQ-5D questionnaire for the primary outcome Quality of Life (QoL), the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, and the Florida Patient Acceptance Survey questionnaire for secondary outcomes. Demographic characteristics (82% men, mean age 62.3 years) and PRO at baseline were not different between RPM and CTL. Primary outcome analysis showed that additional RPM was not superior to CTL with respect to QoL over 12 months [+ 1.2 vs. + 3.9 points in CTL and RPM group, respectively (p = 0.24)]. Pre-specified analyses could not identify subgroups with improved QoL by the use of RPM. Neither levels of anxiety (− 0.4 vs. − 0.3, p = 0.88), depression (+ 0.3 vs. ± 0.0, p = 0.38), nor device acceptance (+ 1.1 vs. + 1.6, p = 0.20) were influenced by additional use of RPM. CONCLUSION: The results of the present study show that PRO were not improved by RPM in addition to standard-of-care FU. Careful evaluation and planning of future trials in selected ICD patients are warranted before implementing RPM in routine practice. GRAPHIC ABSTRACT: [Image: see text] ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s00392-020-01667-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2020-05-16 2021 /pmc/articles/PMC8166667/ /pubmed/32417952 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00392-020-01667-0 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Original Paper
Leppert, Florian
Siebermair, Johannes
Wesemann, Ulrich
Martens, Eimo
Sattler, Stefan M.
Scholz, Stefan
Veith, Stefan
Greiner, Wolfgang
Rassaf, Tienush
Kääb, Stefan
Wakili, Reza
The INFluence of Remote monitoring on Anxiety/depRession, quality of lifE, and Device acceptance in ICD patients: a prospective, randomized, controlled, single-center trial
title The INFluence of Remote monitoring on Anxiety/depRession, quality of lifE, and Device acceptance in ICD patients: a prospective, randomized, controlled, single-center trial
title_full The INFluence of Remote monitoring on Anxiety/depRession, quality of lifE, and Device acceptance in ICD patients: a prospective, randomized, controlled, single-center trial
title_fullStr The INFluence of Remote monitoring on Anxiety/depRession, quality of lifE, and Device acceptance in ICD patients: a prospective, randomized, controlled, single-center trial
title_full_unstemmed The INFluence of Remote monitoring on Anxiety/depRession, quality of lifE, and Device acceptance in ICD patients: a prospective, randomized, controlled, single-center trial
title_short The INFluence of Remote monitoring on Anxiety/depRession, quality of lifE, and Device acceptance in ICD patients: a prospective, randomized, controlled, single-center trial
title_sort influence of remote monitoring on anxiety/depression, quality of life, and device acceptance in icd patients: a prospective, randomized, controlled, single-center trial
topic Original Paper
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8166667/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32417952
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00392-020-01667-0
work_keys_str_mv AT leppertflorian theinfluenceofremotemonitoringonanxietydepressionqualityoflifeanddeviceacceptanceinicdpatientsaprospectiverandomizedcontrolledsinglecentertrial
AT siebermairjohannes theinfluenceofremotemonitoringonanxietydepressionqualityoflifeanddeviceacceptanceinicdpatientsaprospectiverandomizedcontrolledsinglecentertrial
AT wesemannulrich theinfluenceofremotemonitoringonanxietydepressionqualityoflifeanddeviceacceptanceinicdpatientsaprospectiverandomizedcontrolledsinglecentertrial
AT martenseimo theinfluenceofremotemonitoringonanxietydepressionqualityoflifeanddeviceacceptanceinicdpatientsaprospectiverandomizedcontrolledsinglecentertrial
AT sattlerstefanm theinfluenceofremotemonitoringonanxietydepressionqualityoflifeanddeviceacceptanceinicdpatientsaprospectiverandomizedcontrolledsinglecentertrial
AT scholzstefan theinfluenceofremotemonitoringonanxietydepressionqualityoflifeanddeviceacceptanceinicdpatientsaprospectiverandomizedcontrolledsinglecentertrial
AT veithstefan theinfluenceofremotemonitoringonanxietydepressionqualityoflifeanddeviceacceptanceinicdpatientsaprospectiverandomizedcontrolledsinglecentertrial
AT greinerwolfgang theinfluenceofremotemonitoringonanxietydepressionqualityoflifeanddeviceacceptanceinicdpatientsaprospectiverandomizedcontrolledsinglecentertrial
AT rassaftienush theinfluenceofremotemonitoringonanxietydepressionqualityoflifeanddeviceacceptanceinicdpatientsaprospectiverandomizedcontrolledsinglecentertrial
AT kaabstefan theinfluenceofremotemonitoringonanxietydepressionqualityoflifeanddeviceacceptanceinicdpatientsaprospectiverandomizedcontrolledsinglecentertrial
AT wakilireza theinfluenceofremotemonitoringonanxietydepressionqualityoflifeanddeviceacceptanceinicdpatientsaprospectiverandomizedcontrolledsinglecentertrial
AT leppertflorian influenceofremotemonitoringonanxietydepressionqualityoflifeanddeviceacceptanceinicdpatientsaprospectiverandomizedcontrolledsinglecentertrial
AT siebermairjohannes influenceofremotemonitoringonanxietydepressionqualityoflifeanddeviceacceptanceinicdpatientsaprospectiverandomizedcontrolledsinglecentertrial
AT wesemannulrich influenceofremotemonitoringonanxietydepressionqualityoflifeanddeviceacceptanceinicdpatientsaprospectiverandomizedcontrolledsinglecentertrial
AT martenseimo influenceofremotemonitoringonanxietydepressionqualityoflifeanddeviceacceptanceinicdpatientsaprospectiverandomizedcontrolledsinglecentertrial
AT sattlerstefanm influenceofremotemonitoringonanxietydepressionqualityoflifeanddeviceacceptanceinicdpatientsaprospectiverandomizedcontrolledsinglecentertrial
AT scholzstefan influenceofremotemonitoringonanxietydepressionqualityoflifeanddeviceacceptanceinicdpatientsaprospectiverandomizedcontrolledsinglecentertrial
AT veithstefan influenceofremotemonitoringonanxietydepressionqualityoflifeanddeviceacceptanceinicdpatientsaprospectiverandomizedcontrolledsinglecentertrial
AT greinerwolfgang influenceofremotemonitoringonanxietydepressionqualityoflifeanddeviceacceptanceinicdpatientsaprospectiverandomizedcontrolledsinglecentertrial
AT rassaftienush influenceofremotemonitoringonanxietydepressionqualityoflifeanddeviceacceptanceinicdpatientsaprospectiverandomizedcontrolledsinglecentertrial
AT kaabstefan influenceofremotemonitoringonanxietydepressionqualityoflifeanddeviceacceptanceinicdpatientsaprospectiverandomizedcontrolledsinglecentertrial
AT wakilireza influenceofremotemonitoringonanxietydepressionqualityoflifeanddeviceacceptanceinicdpatientsaprospectiverandomizedcontrolledsinglecentertrial